<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2011-02-21</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Judith Siefring</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="A81720">
<STC T="W">d2129</STC>
<STC T="T">e1314_2</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99868088</BIBNO>
<VID>169758</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A BOUNDARY TO THE HOLY MOUNT, OR, A BARRE again&s;t Free Admi&s;&s;ion to the LORDS SUPPER. In An&s;wer To an humble Vindication of free Admi&s;&s;ion to the LORDS SUPPER. Publi&s;hed by Mr.
<HI>Humphrey</HI> Mini&s;ter of <HI>Froome</HI> in <HI>Somer&s;etshire.</HI> Which humble Vindication, though it profe&s;s much of piety and con&s;cience, yet upon due triall and examination, is found worthy of Su&s;pen&s;ion, if not of a greater Cen&s;ure.</P>
<P>By <HI>Roger Drake</HI> Mini&s;ter of <HI>Peters Cheap London.</HI></P>
<Q><P>He &s;et the Porters at the gates of the Hou&s;e of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing &s;hould enter in.</P>
<BIBL><HI>2 Chron. 23.19.</HI></BIBL></Q>
<P><HI>London,</HI> printed by <HI>A. M.</HI> for <HI>St. Bowtell,</HI> 1653.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>ERRATA.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 15. line 20. adde <HI>(In an orderly way)</HI> thus, which on the &s;ame ground in an orderly way includes, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> p. 30. l. 9. <HI>(as)</HI> left out, and as for me. p. 41. l. 7. for ann, read <HI>(and).</HI> p. 48 l. 25. for converted him, read <HI>(converted his opi|nion.)</HI> p. 53. l. 25. <HI>(and)</HI> left out, and a con&s;u|ming one. p. 58. l. 22. for and, read <HI>(an)</HI> thus, an <HI>It may be,</HI> granted. p. <HI>ib.</HI> l. 23. adde
<HI>(and)</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> no place, &amp;c. p. 63. l. 17. leave out <HI>(we)</HI> p. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters">. l. 13. for where, read <HI>(There.)</HI> p. 68. l. 10. adde <HI>(it)</HI> let him receive it. p. 71. l. 28. adde
<HI>(the)</HI> the obliquity. p. 73. l. 12. leave out <HI>(to)</HI> and read be done. p. 77. l. 9. for <HI>(Ex.)</HI> read Ez<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">k.</P>
<PB REF="2" MS="y">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="preface">
<PB REF="3">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD>THE PREFACE To the READER.</HEAD>
<P>_IT's one of the Devil's prime Engines to pervert Divine Ordinances quite contrary to their primitive in&s;titution: &s;o he did in Paradi&s;e, &s;o he did in the Jewi&s;h Church, and &s;o he hath done a long time, and &s;till doth in the Chri&s;tian Church. No wonder then if he turn the choice&s;t my&s;tery of peace into a Sacrament of war, a fea&s;t of love into a bone of conten|tion. This he did by di&s;order in the primitive Church, <HI>1 Cor. 11.</HI> by Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation in the Apo&s;tacy of the Church, by Con|&s;ub&s;tantiation in the Re&s;titution of the Church; and now by a &s;pirit of oppo&s;ition again&s;t Sacramentall triall in the Reforma|tion of the Church.</P>
<P>In the managing of this unhappy Contro|ver&s;ie,
<PB REF="4">Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> hath appeared three times in the field in his threefold Edition, pleading free admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper for all but three &s;orts, against whom him&s;elf is plea&s;ed to &s;hut the Chancell door, though the wor&s;t of tho&s;e three kindes is better many times then &s;undry of tho&s;e for whom he opens the door. Should we take the boldne&s;s to ask him, by what authority he excludes any from the Sacrament (it being in his profe&s;t judge|ment a converting Ordinance) or by what rule of Scripture and charity he walks, in excluding the wor&s;t from the means of con|ver&s;ion, who need it more then the be&s;t, it would puzzle him more (and that upon good ground) then that captious Quaere of the Phari&s;ees did our Saviour,
<HI>Matth.</HI> 21.23. But whether the Lords Supper be a convert|ing Ordinance or not, Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> mu&s;t needs be at a great lo&s;s, for if it convert not, then why &s;hould they receive it who are vi&s;ibly unconverted? If it do convert (as well as the Word preached) then why &s;hould any at all be excluded from it?</P>
<P>When this An&s;wer was almo&s;t ready for the Pre&s;s, out comes his third Edition, &s;ome|what
<HI>auctior,</HI> but I dare not &s;ay <HI>correctior.</HI> This put me upon a review, and confirmed me in my opinion, that his Doctrine of free
<PB REF="4">admi&s;&s;ion is but meer Church-levelling, and will in a &s;hort time make this glorious Church like the field of the Sluggard, <HI>Prov. 24.30, 31.</HI> When I &s;eriou&s;ly weigh his loo&s;e Principles held forth to the world in this Treati&s;e, with his being &s;o exce&s;&s;ively fa|vourable to the loo&s;er and profaner &s;ort, it makes both my &s;elf and others apt to &s;u&s;pect, his practi&s;es may po&s;&s;ibly be as loo&s;e as his principles. Loo&s;e principles and practi&s;es, like <HI>E&s;au</HI> and <HI>Jacob, Pharez</HI> and <HI>Zarah,</HI> taking each other by the heel, and &s;triving who &s;hall come out fir&s;t. Twins they are, and its hard to &s;ay which is the Elder brother.</P>
<P>My &s;cope in this An&s;wer is (if God &s;hall adde his ble&s;&s;ing) 1. To convince Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> and others &s;educed by him, how contrary his Doctrine is to Scripture, rea&s;on, and his own profest principles. <HI>2.</HI> To prevent the further &s;preading of this leaven, which will &s;owre the whole lump, and make Refor|mation (&s;o much longed for, hoped for, and laboured for by the godly) to be utterly de|&s;perate. Withall I mu&s;t tell him, that this fancy of his (quite contrary to the judge|ment and practice of the reformed Churches, of the Church of
<HI>England</HI> even in the daies of the Prelates, to the expre&s;s letter of the Book of Common Prayer, to the declared
<PB REF="5">judgement of the reverend A&s;&s;embly, and to the Votes of Parliament unrepealed) hath exceedingly grieved the hearts of the godly, rejoyced and gladded the hearts of the wick|ed, and hath done more mi&s;chief already, then ten. Mr. <HI>Humphreys</HI> are ever like to do good. The Lord give him a &s;ight of his errour, and grace to burn this hay and &s;tub|ble, before the day of the Lord come to try it, and him&s;elf for it, <HI>1 Cor. 3.13.</HI></P>
<P>One &s;cruple yet untouched, which may haply &s;tumble the Reader, I mu&s;t not pa&s;&s;e. What if a per&s;on by the previous exhortati|on, (wherein the death of Chri&s;t is both audi|bly and vi&s;ibly &s;et forth) be really converted, may he not then actually partake of the Ele|ments, and be admitted to receive by and with the Church? <HI>An&s;w. 1.</HI> A per&s;on at fir&s;t conver&s;ion &s;ees him&s;elf &s;o loath&s;ome and un|worthy, that he &s;hall not need a bridle from, but rather a &s;pur to the Sacrament. <HI>2.</HI> Its not enough for a per&s;on to be really clean, but he mu&s;t al&s;o be judicially clean before he be ad|mitted to communion, <HI>Levit.
14.1, 31.</HI> when|ever Chri&s;t clean&s;ed any, he &s;till &s;ent them to the Prie&s;t to pronounce them clean, <HI>Levit. 17.14. 3.</HI> However a man be really, the Church mu&s;t proceed by the rule of vi&s;ibility, and cannot admit any till he be vi&s;ibly con|verted.</P>
<P><PB REF="5">This is a doctrine cannot well down with ignorant and prophane per&s;ons; it will be a stumbling blocks to the Iew, and fooli&s;hne&s;&s;e to the Greek; from whom I can expect no better entertainment then farre my betters have been content with before me.</P>
<P>I &s;hall clo&s;e with tho&s;e golden though row&s;ing expre&s;&s;ions of the Provinciall A&s;|&s;embly, in that excellent Piece of theirs, <HI>The Vindication of the Presbyteriall Go|vernment,</HI> publi&s;hed <HI>Nov. 2. 1649. pag. 74.</HI> which book had Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;eriou&s;ly peru&s;ed, it might (through Gods ble&s;&s;ing) have darted &s;uch a beam of Maje&s;ty into his con&s;cience, as would have quenched this <HI>Ignis fatuus</HI> of his, before it had mi&s;led &s;o many into bogs and quagmires. Their words are the&s;e: <HI>We are not ignorant that the Presbyterian Government</HI> (e&s;pecially as applied in order to Sacramentall triall)
<HI>hath many Adver|&s;aries. The ob&s;tinately ignorant hates it, becau&s;e it will not &s;uffer him to go blind|fold to hell. The profane per&s;on hates it, be<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="3 letters">&s;e it will not &s;uffer him to eat and drink his own damnation by unworthy coming to the Sacrament. The Heretick hates it, becau&s;e after two or three admo|nitions it rejects him. The Je&s;uite hates it, becau&s;e it is an invincible Bulwark to
<PB REF="6">keep out Popery. The Schi&s;matick hates it, becau&s;e the main de&s;ign of it is to make all the Saints to be of one lip, one heart, and one way. And above all the Devil hates it, becau&s;e if rightly mana|ged, it will in a &s;hort time blow up his kingdome.</HI> Reader, let me but crave the favour Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his Prefacer doth, that thou reade both this An&s;wer and his Book <HI>with an impartiall and di&s;ingaged judgement, peru&s;ing both with a &s;ingle eye,</HI> and I am confident thou wilt neither be of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his judgement nor practice, a &s;tickler for break|ing of Bounds, or removing the Land-mark &s;et fir&s;t by God him&s;elf, and afterwards by the Elders of our <HI>I&s;rael.</HI> I leave it to thy &s;erious peru&s;all, and both thee and it to Gods ble&s;sing, and remain,</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Thine in the Lord Je&s;us, <HI>ROGER DRAKE.</HI></SIGNED>
<DATELINE>From my Study in <HI>Philip Lane,</HI>
<DATE><HI>Feb. 2. 1652/3.</HI></DATE></DATELINE>
<POSTSCRIPT>
<P><HI>Reader,</HI> I am de&s;ired to give thee notice, That there is now publi&s;hed an An&s;wer to M^r <HI>John Goodwins</HI> Book entituled <HI>Redemption Redeemed,</HI> by M^r <HI>Kendall</HI> &s;ometimes Fellow of <HI>Exeter</HI> Colledge: with an Atte&s;tation by the Vice-Chancellor and publike Profe&s;&s;ors of Divinity in <HI>Oxford.</HI></P>
</POSTSCRIPT></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="6">
<HEAD>A Barre to free Admi&s;|&s;ion to the Sacrament.</HEAD>
<P>_SO winning a grace is Humi|lity, that the very appea|rance of it will credit an Errour,
<HI>Col.</HI> 3.18. where Truth it &s;elf u&s;herd in by pride and pa&s;&s;ion, lo&s;es much of its lu&s;tre and acceptance. But where Humility leads the Van, and Satisfaction of tender Con&s;ciences brings up the Rear, who al|mo&s;t dares face &s;uch an Army, or que|&s;tion a Cau&s;e &s;o maintained as heterodox and un&s;ound? No wonder Ma&s;ter <HI>Hum|phreys Free Admi&s;&s;ion</HI> findes &s;o free and generall acceptance, e&s;pecially with per|&s;ons already inclinable to his opinion, when the Title page is more potent to charm, then the whole Book is to con|vince the Reader.</P>
<P><HI>An humble Vindication of a free Ad|mi&s;&s;ion
<PB N="2" REF="7">unto the Lords Supper. Publi&s;hed for the ea&s;e, &s;upport, and &s;atisfaction of tender con&s;ciences,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>So gracious a Porch cannot but pro|mi&s;e a glorious Edifice, and by bribing the affections may &s;oon corrupt the judgement of a weak and un&s;etled Chri|&s;tian. If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> be the man this Title &s;peaks him, I hope he will as freely admit me to write as he will admit o|thers to receive; nor can a free debate be que&s;tioned, where a free admi&s;&s;ion is maintained. And if I may be free, I mu&s;t ingenuou&s;ly profe&s;s, I cannot but &s;tumble at the very thre&s;hold, e&s;pecially when I compare it with &s;ome parts of the Building. In the Title I &s;ee a pro|fe&s;&s;ion of humility, in the Book I reade many expre&s;&s;ions that &s;avour &s;trongly of pride. Further, that a plea for free ad|mi&s;&s;ion &s;hould ea&s;e and &s;atisfie tender con&s;ciences, which both hath been, and is the trouble of tender con&s;ciences (un|le&s;s it be very clearly and &s;trongly made out) is to me a paradox both in rea&s;on and Divinity. Waving therefore the judging of per&s;ons (for who am I that I &s;hould judge my brother) I &s;hall pre|&s;ent to the Reader &s;ome of M. <HI>Humphreys</HI>
<PB N="3" REF="7">expre&s;&s;ions, and let the world judge whether they &s;avour more of pride or of humility.</P>
<P><HI>When Chri&s;t offers him&s;elf, and grace,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 11.</NOTE> <HI>which are the things &s;ignified, to poor &s;in|ners, how can we have the con&s;cience to turn them away from the &s;ignes and means thereof in this Ordinance?</HI></P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> To wave at pre&s;ent the weakne&s;s of his Argument (which hath more rheto|rick then logick) is not this a &s;ad a&s;per|&s;ion of uncon&s;cionablene&s;s upon tho&s;e honourable, reverend, and pious per|&s;ons, who after &s;o long and &s;erious de|bate, have both voted and executed the Ordinance for &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Is Chri&s;t offered as a free gift in the Word,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 16.</NOTE>
<HI>and mu&s;t we not come without our price and money to this Ordinance? Why this is even as they conceive of</HI> Judas, <HI>who being about to &s;ell our Saviour, went out to make his bargain at the Supper.</HI></P>
<P>What other con&s;truction will the&s;e words bear, but that the friends of Su&s;|pen&s;ion with
<HI>Simon Magus</HI> think grace is vendible, and with <HI>Judas</HI> are about to make a bargain of Chri&s;t at the Sup|per?</P>
<P>Having urged the in&s;tance of <HI>Judas</HI>
<PB N="4" REF="8">as a ground of free admi&s;&s;ion, he con|cludes in the&s;e words; <HI>And what more need be urged, but that men when they are willing not to &s;ee, will let any hand put over their eyes be enough to blinde them?</HI> It &s;eems the Patrons of Su&s;pen&s;ion are wil|lingly ignorant, &amp;c. a charge laid by the Apo&s;tle upon profane &s;coffers, 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.3, 5. and by Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> upon pious Reformers.</P>
<P>Again, <HI>page</HI> 22. he makes <HI>the &s;electing of people to this Ordinance, a vanity, for|mality, and impo&s;sibility.</HI> An heavy Cen|&s;ure, though weakly made out, as &s;hall (God willing) appear in the en&s;uing di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
<P>Severall other har&s;h pa&s;&s;ages I might in&s;ert, but the&s;e fore mentioned may &s;uf|fice to convince the Reader, that Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> in &s;uffering both his tongue and pen &s;o to out-la&s;h, &s;inned him&s;elf very much again&s;t the law of charity and humility. But enough of this un|plea&s;ant &s;ubject. Let us proceed to the Di&s;cour&s;e it &s;elf, and weigh his Argu|ments in the balance of the Sanctuary and of &s;ound rea&s;on.</P>
<P>His &s;ubject is free admi&s;&s;ion. <HI>His ground is</HI> Matth. 26.27. <HI>compared with</HI>
<PB N="5" REF="8">Mark 14.23. <HI>from precept and example. All the Apo&s;tles were bid to receive, all of them did receive, and among&s;t the re&s;t</HI> Judas, <HI>though really and vi&s;ibly unworthy.</HI> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Ergo, Becau&s;e Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is &s;o confident upon <HI>Judas</HI> his receiving the Lords Sup|per; namely, 1. That he did receive it. 2. That his receiving is a &s;olid ground for free admi&s;&s;ion; I &s;hall therefore fir&s;t produce tho&s;e rea&s;ons which &s;eeme weighty to me, and have moved &s;undry godly and learned, both ancient and mo|dern, to be of a contrary opinion; and &s;econdly, Shall endeavour to make good, that &s;uppo&s;ing <HI>Judas</HI> did actually receive, it makes nothing for Mr. <HI>Humphreys</HI> free admi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>And 1. That <HI>Judas</HI> received not the Lords Supper, the&s;e Arguments &s;eem convincing.</P>
<P N="1">1. Chri&s;t knew him to be an hypocrite, a reprobate, and a devil, and &s;o utterly uncapable of any good by the Sacra|ment.</P>
<P N="2">2. Chri&s;ts blood was &s;hed for the remi&s;|&s;ion of their &s;ins who received the Lords Supper, compare <HI>Mat.</HI> 26.28. and <HI>Luke</HI> 22.20. It was not &s;hed for the remi&s;&s;ion of <HI>Judas</HI> his &s;ins; <HI>Ergo, Judas</HI> did not
<PB N="6" REF="9">receive the Lords Supper.</P>
<P N="3">3. Chri&s;t promi&s;ed to drink wine in his Fathers Kingdome with tho&s;e who received the Lords Supper; He did not promi&s;e to drink wine with <HI>Judas</HI> in his Fathers Kingdome;
<HI>Ergo, Judas</HI> did not receive the Lords Supper. See <HI>Matth.</HI> 26.29.</P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>Judas</HI> went out immediately after the Sop, <HI>John</HI> 13.30. This Sop was given him before the Sacrament; <HI>Ergo,</HI> he was not at the Sacrament. Yea, from <HI>John</HI>
13.1. &s;ome are of the minde, that <HI>Judas</HI> did not partake &s;o much as of the Pa&s;&s;eover, but onely of the common Supper which immediately forewent the Pa&s;&s;eover. See
<HI>Aarons Rod blo&s;&s;oming. lib.</HI> 3. <HI>cap.</HI> 9.</P>
<P N="5">5. All Chri&s;ts gracious and comfor|table expre&s;&s;ions to his Apo&s;tles, were allayed with exceptions while <HI>Judas</HI> was pre&s;ent, not &s;o at and after the Lords Supper;
<HI>Ergo, Iudas</HI> was not then pre|&s;ent. Compare <HI>Iohn</HI> 6.70. &amp; 13. <HI>ver.</HI>
10.18.21. with <HI>Matth.</HI> 26.29. <HI>Luke</HI> 22. <HI>ver.</HI> 28, 29, 30. He that excepted
<HI>Iudas</HI> in the former expre&s;&s;ions, would much more have excepted him in the latter, had he then been pre&s;ent. The&s;e and the like
<PB N="7" REF="9">grounds, have moved &s;undry both an|cient and modern Writers to beleeve that
<HI>Iudas</HI> did not receive the Lords Supper; namely, <HI>Clemens, Diony&s;ius Areopagita, Hilarius, Maximus, <HI>Pachymeres, Ammo|nius Alexandrinus, Tatianus, Innocen|tius</HI> 3.
<HI>Theophylactus, Rupertus Tuitien|&s;is, &amp; Victor Antiochenus,</HI> Among the Schoolmen,
<HI>Salmeron, Turrianus, Du|randus, Barradius,</HI> And of Prote&s;tants, Daneus, Kleinwitzius, Pi&s;cator, Beza, To&s;&s;anus, Mu&s;culus, Zanchius, Gomarus, Diodati, Grotius,</HI> &amp;c. See
<HI>Aarons Rod blo&s;&s;oming,</HI> l. 3. c. 8.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his foundation from <HI>Mark</HI> 14.23. (which as his Text is the ground, though mi&s;-interpreted and mi&s;-applyed, of that his unhappy Di&s;cour&s;e) will &s;tand him in little &s;tead. The Text &s;aies, <HI>They all drank of it.</HI> Thence Mr. <HI>Hum|phrey</HI> concludes, ergo, <HI>Iudas received the Sacrament.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. Under&s;tand it of all that were pre|&s;ent, but its ea&s;ier &s;aid then proved, that <HI>Indus</HI> was pre&s;ent at the Lords Supper.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>All,</HI> in Scripture, is &s;ometimes put for <HI>the mo&s;t part,</HI> e&s;pecially in order to the number of the Apo&s;tles, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15.7. yea <HI>ver.</HI> 5. of the &s;ame Chapter, <HI>twelve</HI>
<PB N="8" REF="10">is put for <HI>eleven</HI> by roundne&s;s of num|ber. Its then a meer <HI>non &s;equitur</HI> to ar|gue from all the Apo&s;tles drinking to <HI>Iu|das</HI> his drinking, or from the Twelves drinking to <HI>Iudas</HI> his drinking, &s;ince 1. <HI>All</HI> may very well be under&s;tood of all pre&s;ent. 2. Becau&s;e <HI>all</HI> in Scripture-phra&s;e is put to &s;ignifie
<HI>the mo&s;t part,</HI> and <HI>twelve</HI> in Scripture-expre&s;&s;ion is put for
<HI>eleven.</HI></P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="Object."> But doth not our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour im|mediately after the delivery of the Bread and Wine &s;ay, <HI>But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table,</HI> Luke 22. ver. 21. and if &s;o, was not <HI>Indas</HI> then pre&s;ent at the Lords Supper; and if all pre&s;ent received, mu&s;t not <HI>Iudas</HI> needs receive al&s;o?</P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. I might &s;ay, the con&s;equence is weak, to argue from pre&s;ence to recei|ving. But that I &s;hall not urge now, be|cau&s;e of my former conce&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P N="2">2. Its evident, that <HI>Luke</HI> writes <HI>per</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, not &s;o much ob&s;erving the order of time, as the &s;ub&s;tance of the matter; which as its frequent in Scripture, &s;o particularly the Harmony of the Evan|geli&s;ts evinceth it in this &s;ubject; we ha|ving two Evangeli&s;ts for one, to prove that tho&s;e words <HI>(Behold, the hand of him
<PB N="9" REF="10">that betrayeth me,</HI> &amp;c.) were &s;poken be|fore, not after the In&s;titution of the Lords Supper, and one of the&s;e Evange|li&s;ts was pre&s;ent and received the Lords Supper, &s;o was not <HI>Luke,</HI> who &s;tood not &s;o much upon the order, as upon the truth of the Narrative in this bu&s;ine&s;s of the Supper. See <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. <HI>ver.</HI>
21, 24, 26. <HI>Mark</HI> 14. <HI>ver.</HI> 18, 21, 22. It follows not then, that becau&s;e
<HI>Judas</HI> was at the Ta|ble, &s;hared in the common Supper, yea haply in the Pa&s;&s;over, that therefore he received the Lords Supper, or was pre|&s;ent at it.</P>
<P>But &s;uppo&s;e he was pre&s;ent &amp; received.</P>
<P N="1">1. The Apo&s;tles &s;carce &s;u&s;pected him, though di&s;covered, <HI>John</HI> 13.28,
29.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Judas</HI> had not yet actually betrayed Chri&s;t, his trea&s;on as well as
<HI>Peters</HI> de|niall was yet future; and its ab&s;urd to puni&s;h any for a future &s;in.</P>
<P N="3">3. Chri&s;t acting here as a Mini&s;ter, it was not fit he &s;hould be both Judge and Witne&s;s, and it might have been an ill pre&s;ident for Mini&s;ters to take upon them by their own power to deny the Sacrament judicially to whom they plea&s;e. Its farre otherwi&s;e with us, &s;ee|ing none are &s;u&s;pended, but 1. Such as
<PB N="10" REF="11">&s;u&s;pend them&s;elves by &s;lighting or refu|&s;ing due triall. 2. Such as upon triall are found unworthy through ignorance or &s;candall, and that onely till they gain better information, or give the Church ju&s;t &s;atisfaction. By all which it appears how weak Mr.
<HI>Humphreys</HI> fir&s;t foundati|on is, and that therefore the &s;uper&s;tru|cture cannot be &s;trong. <HI>Contr&agrave;</HI> from his own proof we argue again&s;t him thus: None of the Apo&s;tles were either igno|rant or &s;candalous, no not <HI>Judas</HI> him&s;elf, <HI>ergo,</HI> his or their receiving is no warrant for any ignorant or &s;candalous per&s;on to receive. The main que&s;tion is about <HI>Ju|das,</HI> and not as to ignorance, but &s;can|dall. And &s;candall cannot ari&s;e, but 1. From a &s;in committed by a profe&s;&s;or. 2. Known and divulged. But
<HI>Iudas</HI> had not yet betrayed Chri&s;t, no more then <HI>Peter</HI> had denied him;
<HI>ergo,</HI> he was not yet convicted of a &s;candalous &s;in. You will &s;ay <HI>Iudas</HI> had already done it in pur|po&s;e and compact. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> True, yet Chri&s;t charges him not with that, but onely foretels his actuall treachery, which being not yet perpetrated, was no vi&s;ible bar to his pre&s;ent receiving, but a &s;ad effect of his unworthy receiving
<PB N="11" REF="11">(&s;uppo&s;ing he did receive) the devil en|tring into him as well after the Sacra|ment as after the Sop, <HI>Iohn</HI> 13.27. Let all ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;ons take heed of <HI>Iudas</HI> his &s;in (unworthy recei|ving) le&s;t the fate of <HI>Iudas</HI> betide them; namely, 1. Spirituall po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion by Sa|tan. 2. Chri&s;t-murther. 3. Self-mur|der.</P>
<P>State the ca&s;e aright, and a mean ca|pacity may ea&s;ily apprehend how wide and wilde Mr.
<HI>Humphrey</HI> his conclu&s;ion is, <HI>Iudas</HI> a great profe&s;&s;or, and an emi|nent and extraordinary Mini&s;ter, plots and purpo&s;es a great &s;in; that he &s;hall commit this &s;in, is foretold by a &s;pirit of revelation, as al&s;o was <HI>Peters</HI> deniall and perjury. The que&s;tion is, Whether ei|ther or both of them &s;hall be &s;u&s;pended the Sacrament. For my part, I think nei|ther: 1. Becau&s;e tho&s;e &s;ins were not yet committed, and &s;o not &s;candalous. 2. Be|cau&s;e Chri&s;t acting as a Mini&s;ter could not be both witne&s;s, judge, and executioner. If you &s;ay he acted as God or as Media|tor. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> Its very dangerous to make Chri&s;ts Divine or Mediatory acts a pre&s;i|dent for imitation. Who will &s;ay, the Magi&s;trate &s;hould not condemn the
<PB N="12" REF="12">adultre&s;s, becau&s;e Chri&s;t did not con|demn her? <HI>Iohn</HI> 8.10, 11. Chri&s;t admini|&s;tred the Sacrament onely to men, onely to Mini&s;ters, after &s;upper, in ah upper room, mu&s;t we therefore do no other|wi&s;e? Whenever Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> preaches again upon this &s;ubject, let me intreat him to take a more pertinent Text, if at lea&s;t he can finde it; otherwi&s;e I mu&s;t tell him, he will &s;carce prove him&s;elf (what he is &s;tiled) a Ma&s;ter of Arts.</P>
<P>But to pa&s;s on. For the better mana|ging of his cau&s;e, <HI>pag.</HI> 3. Mr.
<HI>Humphrey</HI> premi&s;eth, <HI>That in the Church God hath &s;et up his Ordinances of the Word and Sacrament. Of the&s;e Ordinances &s;ome are capable, and &s;ome uncapable. Tho&s;e that are uncapable, are either &s;o by nature, as infants and di&s;tracted per&s;ons, or by the Churches. Cen&s;ure of Excommunication, and none others.</HI></P>
<P>Before we proceed, lets &s;ee what water &s;ome of the&s;e dictates will hold. And 1. How can he prove that Infants and di&s;tracted per&s;ons are uncapable of the Sacrament by nature, e&s;pecially upon his own principles: for now I &s;hall di&s;|pute partly <HI>ad hominem</HI> and partly <HI>ad|rem,</HI> and I doubt not but the judicious
<PB N="13" REF="12">Reader will ea&s;ily reach me in both. I &s;hall 1. in&s;tance in the word. Why are Infants and <HI>(pari ratione)</HI> di&s;tracted per&s;ons uncapable of the Word? or where hath God &s;aid they &s;hould be kept from it, unle&s;s by their crying or un&s;eem|ly ge&s;tures they prove trouble&s;ome to the Congregation? I can &s;hew him the contrary, where God would have them pre&s;ent at the Word and Ordinances. Let him con&s;ult <HI>Deut.</HI> 29.11, 12. &amp; 31.12.
<HI>Io&s;h.</HI> 8.35. <HI>Ioel</HI> 2.16. &amp; 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 20.13. and that to enter into Covenant, &amp;c. as is evident in &s;ome of the places quoted, e&s;pecially the two fir&s;t. If God bids them come, why &s;hould Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;ay they are uncapable? 2. Suppo&s;e them uncapable, yet who knows how God may work at the Word, though not by the Word? May not that Word be an occa&s;ion of conver&s;ion to Infants, which is an in&s;trument of conver&s;ion to elder per&s;ons?</P>
<P>Infants indeed may be uncapable in an active, but not in a pa&s;&s;ive &s;en&s;e; as to apprehen&s;ion and under&s;tanding, not as to Divine Impre&s;&s;ions. God can work upon per&s;ons at or by his Ordinances, occa&s;ionally or in&s;trumentally, when he
<PB N="14" REF="13">is honoured by their active or pa&s;&s;ive pre&s;entation before him, which may be the ca&s;e of blinde and deaf per&s;ons, as well as of Infants and innocents, and upon which account (as well as out of a de&s;ire to honour God) &s;ome pious per|&s;ons have thought it their duty to attend upon the publick Mini&s;try, though they were deaf. Why &s;hould not I believe that Chri&s;t is willing to &s;peak immedi|ately to him that loves to be where Chri&s;t &s;peaks mediately? If men can &s;peak by &s;ignes as well as words, &s;ure Chri&s;t can much more &s;peak by his Spirit to &s;uch deaf per&s;ons. If &s;ome in hearing do not hear, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 6.9, 10. why may not others hear in not hearing? An hearing heart is better then an hearing ear. More might be added, but I mu&s;t contract.</P>
<P>Next, for the Lords Supper. Suppo&s;ing that Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is for Paedobapti&s;me. I ask him in the next place, Why are Infants capable of Bapti&s;me, and not of the Lords Supper? If he &s;ay, Becau&s;e they cannot examine them&s;elves, nor di&s;cern the Lords Body, &amp;c. Then I an&s;wer, No more can gro&s;ly ignorant per&s;ons; who therefore <HI>(pari ratione)</HI> upon Mr.
<HI>Humphrey</HI> his principles, and
<PB N="15" REF="13">according to truth, mu&s;t be kept away: but that they cannot be unle&s;s di&s;cerned, nor can they be di&s;cerned unle&s;s tried; and who have more authority to try them, then &s;uch as are over them in the Lord, and delegated for that purpo&s;e both by God and man?</P>
<P>Further, that per&s;ons excommunica|ted are uncapable of the Word preached. How proves he that? Upon this account I dare challenge him and all the world for one proof of Scripture, either direct or by con&s;equence. An excommunicate per&s;on is but as an heathen, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.17. and heathens might be admitted to hear, why then not excommunicated per&s;ons, they needing that effectuall means of conver&s;ion as much or more then Hea|thens.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, Whereas in the clo&s;e he adds, <HI>That none others are uncapable;</HI> and &s;o by con&s;equence none others ought to be kept away, What thinks he 1. of per&s;ons infected with the plague, &amp;c. 2. What thinks he of per&s;ons &s;tark &s;taring drunk, or that with <HI>Zimry</HI> and <HI>Co&s;by</HI> &s;hall commit actuall uncleanne&s;s in the face of the Congregation, and the like? will Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> pro&s;titute the Sacrament
<PB N="16" REF="14">to the lu&s;ts of &s;uch bruits and &s;wine? For &s;hame then let him not plead that all mu&s;t be admitted but infants, mad men, and excommunicated per&s;ons.</P>
<P>In the &s;ame page, I wonder Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is &s;o diffident where he may be confident. His words are the&s;e, <HI>I dare not yet po&s;i|tively &s;ay, for the peoples part, that all are &s;o capable that they may come as they li&s;t.</HI> For my own part, I a&s;&s;ent to it as an un|doubted truth, that none are &s;o capable that they may come as they li&s;t. How doth this man &s;train at a gnat, and &s;wal|low a Camel; &s;tumble at a &s;traw, and leap over a block? doubts an evident truth, and pleads &s;trongly for a loo&s;e and undoubted errour, that all may be admitted pell mell. How ju&s;t is it with God, that he who is confident where he &s;hould be diffident, &s;hould al&s;o be diffident where he ought to be confident?</P>
<P>He a&s;&s;erts,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 4.</NOTE> <HI>Such an univer&s;all capacity for all men indefinitely, that if any come in as profe&s;&s;ing them&s;elves ready to enter into covenant with Chri&s;t, de&s;iring to &s;erve him in the wor&s;hip of this Ordinance (the former onely excepted) the Mini&s;ter and Church ought to admit him,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>From this Conce&s;&s;ion ler me be bold
<PB N="17" REF="14">to ask Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> before whom &s;hall they make this profe&s;&s;ion? If before the Mini&s;ter and the Church (as he &s;eems to hint) then may not the Mini&s;ter before the Church de&s;ire &s;ome evidence of the &s;incerity of this their profe&s;&s;ion? If not, then let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hew where he is forbid to make this &s;crutiny. If he may, then undoubtedly he may try that profe&s;&s;or as to his knowledge and grace; and do we de&s;ire any more? nay not &s;o much. Let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> per&s;wade the people but to make this profe&s;&s;ion before the Elder|&s;hip (we de&s;ire not to put their mode&s;ty to it before the Congregation) and we &s;hall either admit them at pre&s;ent, or undertake to fit them (by Gods grace) for the Sacrament, before we have done with them, if at lea&s;t they will but &s;ub|mit to be ruled by us.</P>
<P>If he mean, that the Mini&s;ter mu&s;t re&s;t in that verball profe&s;&s;ion, without any further &s;crutiny, then why may not a childe of three yeers old, or a mad man be admitted, &s;ince they may ea&s;ily be taught the words of that profe&s;&s;ion? Further, doth Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> admit none but &s;uch as make this profe&s;&s;ion? Here I appeal to his own conscience, and to his Congregation.</P>
<P><PB N="18" REF="15">If yet he fly from a verball to a virtuall profe&s;&s;ion, and think their very coming or &s;ending their names to their Mini&s;ter over night, &amp;c. be &s;ufficient, e&s;pecially if betake this cour&s;e with &s;trangers al&s;o, then how doth he know whether they be Chri&s;tians or heathen, &s;ober or di&s;tra|cted, children or elder per&s;ons, excom|municated or members of the Church. So that turn which way he plea&s;e, he will finde him&s;elf in a noo&s;e of his own making.</P>
<P>Lets now proceed to his proof from analogy of the Pa&s;&s;over,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 4. &amp;
5.</NOTE> to which he &s;aies there was a free admi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. Its well he corrects him&s;elf from <HI>Numb.</HI> 9. whereby it appears there was not a free admi&s;&s;ion to the Pa&s;&s;eover, and then where is his argument? If he plead, that onely legall uncleanne&s;s excluded them, I ask him why? He will an&s;wer, becau&s;e it defiled the Congregation, or the Ordinances and holy things, or both. Content. But what if it be proved that not onely Leviticall, but al&s;o morall uncleanne&s;s defiled the holy things, and that therefore &s;uch per&s;ons al&s;o were to be kept away. For proof hereof, com|pare
<HI>Levit.</HI> 18.24, 25. Morall pollutions
<PB N="19" REF="15">defiled fir&s;t the per&s;on, and then the Land, <HI>Levit.</HI> 16.16. They defiled the Sanctuary, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 23. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 37, 39. Adulterers and Murderers, and Idolaters, coming reak|ing out of their &s;ins into Gods Hou&s;e, defiled the Sanctuary thereby,
<HI>Hag.</HI> 2.14. For neglecting to build Gods Temple; them&s;elves, their actions and their Sa|crifices were unclean; and though the Temple were typicall and ceremoniall, yet their neglecting to build it at Gods command, was a direct breach of the &s;econd Commandment, and therefore a &s;in, or morall pollution. And that all unclean per&s;ons were to be &s;u&s;pended, is evident by
2 Chron. 23.19. <HI>Where Iehoja|dah is commended for &s;etting porters at the gates of the Hou&s;e of the Lord, that none which were unclean in any thing &s;hould enter in.</HI> The Lord &s;end us many &s;uch <HI>Ichojada</HI>'s. Where then were Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his eyes, who a&s;&s;erts &s;o confidently page 5. <HI>But as for any &s;pirituall pollution what&s;o|ever, we reade of none that might debar them from that Ordinance.</HI> Did he not reade, or did he not minde, or did he not under&s;tand, or did he not remember any of the forementioned places? for I will not be &s;o uncharitable as to conclude he
<PB N="20" REF="16">never read over the old Te&s;tament, or that again&s;t his con&s;cience he delivered the forementioned words, or that he quibbled and equivocated upon the pre|&s;ent Ten&s;e for the preter Ten&s;e.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, the in&s;tance of <HI>Hezekiahs</HI> Pa&s;&s;over, &s;hews that morall uncleanne&s;s made them more unworthy of the Pa&s;&s;o|ver then Leviticall uncleanne&s;s; the Lord then accepting the upright heart, <HI>though not clean&s;ed according to the purification of the Sanctuary,</HI> 2
<HI>Ch.</HI> 30.18, 19, 20.</P>
<P N="2">2. If Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> ground upon this in&s;tance of the Pa&s;&s;over, then not onely elder per&s;ons, but al&s;o Infants mu&s;t par|take of the Lords Supper, for Infants were admitted to the Pa&s;&s;over, &s;ince all circumci&s;ed per&s;ons were to eat thereof; and if &s;o, then where is his fir&s;t di&s;tin|ction that makes Infants uncapable.</P>
<P N="3">3. Wherea <HI>pag.</HI> 5. he makes the &s;eclu|ding of unclean per&s;ons a type of our excommunication. He mu&s;t excu&s;e me if I believe not his bare dilates without proof. I thought legall types had re&s;pe|cted Evangelicall graces, or &s;pirituall uncleanne&s;&s;es, but not Evangelicall Or|dinances, unle&s;s Chri&s;t, the onely great and effectuall Ordinance. Further, had
<PB N="21" REF="16">they not the Ordinance of Excommuni|cation among&s;t them as well as we, and why &s;hould that be typified which was vi&s;ibly pre&s;ent? And here by the way let me ask Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey,</HI> whether among&s;t the <HI>Jews</HI> an excommunicated per&s;on might have been admitted to the Pa&s;&s;over? That they had Excommuni|cation is evident <HI>John</HI>
9.22, 34 &amp; 12.42. &amp; <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.17. and that by the rules of the <HI>Jews</HI> &s;uch were neither to be eat nor drunk with. Further, that Excommu|nication was not for Leviticall pollutions, but &s;candalous &s;ins; and in particular, that not onely Leviticall pollutions, but al&s;o &s;candalous &s;ins were a barre to the receiving of the Pa&s;&s;eover. Contrary to Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> his A&s;&s;ertion above mentioned.</P>
<P>For clearing whereof con&s;ider, that there were 3 degrees of Excommunicati|on among&s;t the Jews: A per&s;on excom|municated in the fir&s;t degree, was called <HI>Niddui,</HI> &s;eparated or ca&s;t out of the Sy|nagogue, <HI>Ioh.</HI> 9.22. The &s;econd, <HI>Cherem,</HI> or delivered up to Satan, 1 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 5.5. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.20. The third, <HI>Schammatha,</HI> or
<HI>Maranatha,</HI> 1 Cor. 16.22.</P>
<P>In the Greek Church there were four degrees of Excommunication. 1. <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<PB N="22" REF="17">&s;uch were onely barred the Lords Table. 2. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;uch might hear onely be|hinde the Pulpit, and mu&s;t depart with the <HI>Catechumeni,</HI> &amp;c. 3.
<GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;uch might come no further then the Church porch, and might not joyn in Prayer, &amp;c. 4. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;uch &s;tood quite without the Church, reque&s;ting others with tears to pray for them, and thence they were called <HI>plorantes.</HI></P>
<P>By all which it appears, 1. That Su&s;|pen&s;ion is no new invention, but if juri|dically i&s;&s;ued forth, was a degree of ex|communication; which being in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his judgement a barre to the Lords Sup|per, he mu&s;t needs grant Su&s;pen&s;ion to be a barre to receiving, unle&s;s he will contradict both the truth and him&s;elf. 2. Its evident, that Excommunication is not a barre to pre&s;ence at all Ordinan|ces, &s;ince all the four degrees of excom|municated per&s;ons among&s;t the Greeks might partake of &s;ome Ordinances, at lea&s;t without the Church. And <HI>Niddui</HI> among&s;t the Jews <HI>might be pre&s;ent at Di|vine Service, to teach others, and learn of others, though he might not come neer any the distance of four cubits,</HI> &amp;c. 3. Its evident, that Excommunication was not
<PB N="23" REF="17">for Leviticall but morall pollutions (at lea&s;t in the apprehen&s;ion of tho&s;e who excommunicated) 1. By Scripture, <HI>Mat.</HI> 18.15, 17. where ob&s;tinacy in &s;in is made a ju&s;t ground of excommunication, <HI>If thy brother tre&s;pa&s;s again&s;t thee,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Iohn</HI> 9, <HI>ver.</HI> 22, 34. &amp; 12.42. they looked at the confe&s;&s;ion of Je&s;us as Chri&s;t, as a &s;in that de&s;erved excommunication; which though a gro&s;s and dangerous mi&s;take, yet evinceth that morall pollution was with them the ground of excommuni|cation. 2. Excommunication being a Church-cen&s;ure, had onely &s;in for its object; nor did a leprous man more de&s;erve excommunication with them, then a plaguy man doth with us. Ex|communication is the key of Di&s;cipline, to &s;hut out of heaven, <HI>Matth.</HI> 16.19. a bond to retain &s;in; compare <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.18. with <HI>Iohn</HI> 20.23. a thunderclap, not again&s;t naturall infirmities, but &s;infull enormities. Indeed per&s;ons Levitically polluted, might for pre&s;ent be materially excommunicated, as being &s;eparated or &s;hut without the Camp for fear of con|tagion, and &s;o are plaguy per&s;ons with us; but this is as far from formall Ex|communication, as a dead body is from
<PB N="24" REF="18">a living man. 3. Its evident by the practice of the Jews, among&s;t whom the fir&s;t degree of Excommunication, called <HI>Niddui,</HI> la&s;ted for thirty daies, unle&s;s it were &s;hortened by repentance; but onely &s;in is the object of repentance, and not a bloudy i&s;&s;ue, or other Leviti|call pollutions. See <HI>Buxtorf, Budaeus, Godwin,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P N="4">4. Its evident that this fir&s;t degree of Excommunication,<NOTE PLACE="marg">See
<HI>Aarous Rod blo&s;|&s;oming,</HI> l. 1. c. 9. &amp; 10. &amp; 12.</NOTE> called <HI>Niddui,</HI> was a barre in particular to the Pa&s;&s;eover (which an&s;wers our Lords Supper) &s;ince it
<HI>&s;ignified a &s;eparation from all commerce with any man or woman for the di&s;tance of four cubits, and particularly from eating or drinking with any.</HI> And hence probably flowed that expre&s;&s;ion of the Apo&s;tle, I <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.11. <HI>With &s;uch a one no not to eat.</HI> Which is as extendable with us to our Sacramentall eating, as it was with the Jews. I might bring as a proof of Ex|communication <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.14. which is a cutting off from the Church of God, and that not for Leviticall pollutions, but for wilfull omi&s;&s;ions or commi&s;&s;ions. See
<HI>Mercer</HI> upon the place.</P>
<P>His Argument then from <HI>the elder Brother the Pa&s;&s;eover,</HI> is like <HI>Reuben,</HI>
<PB N="25" REF="18">un&s;table as water. Let us &s;ee whether he can draw a &s;tronger argument from <HI>the younger brother our Sacrament</HI> (as he is plea&s;ed to tearm it.)</P>
<P>His fir&s;t proof is from 1 Cor. 10.17. <HI>We being many, are all partakers of one bread.</HI> Thence he concludes, <HI>That divers of the Corinthians were ready to go to Idols.</HI> ver&s;e 14.
<HI>yet all were admitted to the Sa|crament.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. The dehortation doth not nece&s;&s;a|rily prove they were Idolaters, though indeed too many of them, e&s;pecially the &s;tronger Chri&s;tians, abu&s;ed their liberty in eating things &s;acrificed to Idols, to the offence of their weaker brethren, and &s;ometimes (which was more &s;candalous) in the Idols Temple: this they did as apprehending the thing was indifferent; and by u&s;ing their utmo&s;t liberty, went beyond the bounds, judging any place of eating lawfull (and that without weighing circum&s;tances) as well as any meats lawfull, 1
<HI>Cor.</HI> 8.10. This, though bad, was not (e&s;pecially before &s;ufficient admonition given) a ju&s;t barre to their receiving.</P>
<P N="2">2. Yet taking it for granted, many of them were guilty of greater &s;ins, as ap|pears
<PB N="26" REF="19">pears by 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15. &amp; 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.21. How proves he from the place, that all the&s;e were notwith&s;tanding admitted. As all Jews might eat the Pa&s;&s;eover, &s;o all Church Members might receive the Lords Supper. All circumci&s;ed per&s;ons had a right to the Pa&s;&s;eover, yet &s;ome of them might not injoy it at all times,
<HI>Numb.</HI> 9.7. So all baptized per&s;ons have a right to the Lords Supper, yet may not alwaies actually u&s;e this their right; nay not all true converts neither, till they be worthy actually as well as habitually. A per&s;on may be capable <HI>in actu primo,</HI> yet not <HI>in actu &s;ecundo.</HI> All the Prie&s;ts had a right to the holy things, yet were not permitted at any time to make u&s;e of that right, <HI>Levit.</HI> 22.2, 7.</P>
<P N="3">3. Suppo&s;ing all did receive it promi&s;|cuou&s;ly, how proves he from this place, that the Apo&s;tle did allow that free admi&s;&s;ion? doth the drawing an argument from practice, allow that practice? Then by arguing from baptizing for the dead, the Apo&s;tle &s;hould allow baptizing for the dead, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15.29. From their actuall communicating the Apo&s;tle proves they were one body; and &s;econdly, That they ought not to communicate with
<PB N="27" REF="19">Idols. Doth this manner of arguing ne|ce&s;&s;arily ju&s;tifie their admitting all to communicate pell mell at any time?</P>
<P>Whereas <HI>pag.</HI> 7. he urges, <HI>That they were drunken together at the Lords Table.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. Then it &s;eems they were not drunk before, but at the Table; and how can that be a let to receiving which was cau&s;ed by receiving, unle&s;s he will make the Effect an impediment to the Cau&s;e, the Con&s;equent to the Antecedent.</P>
<P N="2">2. But granting this drunkenne&s;s were at their love Fea&s;ts, which preceded the Lords Supper, I an&s;wer, Its more then Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can prove, that they were drunken in the ordinary and &s;trict &s;en&s;e, &s;ince in Scripture phra&s;e the words <GAP DESC="foreign"> and
<HI>Shachar</HI> &s;ignifie, though liberall drinking, yet within the bounds of temperance, as is evident, <HI>Iohn</HI> 3.10. <HI>Gen.</HI> 43.34. <HI>Cant.</HI> 5.1. And the Apo&s;tle reproves them rather for di&s;order and uncharitablene&s;s, then for exce&s;s; that they &s;tayed not for their Brethren, whereby the rich fed and drunk liberally when the poor were hungry and thir&s;ty. Compare <HI>ver.</HI> 22. &amp;c 33. 3. What Logick is in this con&s;equence (&s;uppo&s;ing they were drunk indeed?) Saint <HI>Paul</HI> reproves them for coming drunk to the
<PB N="28" REF="20">Sacrament; <HI>ergo,</HI> they ought to come to the Sacrament, even though they be drunk. Is not the quite contrary more rationall, St. <HI>Paul</HI> reproved them for coming when drunk to the Sacrament; <HI>ergo,</HI> they ought not to come when drunk to the Sacrament.</P>
<P>His next proof is from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.4, 5. By the way, where he &s;aies, <HI>They were all admitted freely to our Sacrament.</HI> He &s;peaks <HI>gratis.</HI> Indeed, if he &s;peak as to the thing &s;ignified, undoubtedly their and our Sacraments are all one, and thus even Circumci&s;ion and the Pa&s;&s;eover were the &s;ame with our Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper; but as to the outward elements, I think there's a great diffe|rence between their Manna and our Bread, their Water out of the rock, and our Wine, But for the thing it &s;elf, if he will make that a pre&s;ident for free admi&s;|&s;ion, then unbaptized per&s;ons, yea per|&s;ons di&s;tracted, Infants, and excommuni|cated per&s;ons, by this rule may partake of the Lords Supper, as there uncircum|ci&s;ed per&s;ons, &amp;c. did partake of tho&s;e Sacraments. Yea, many who were born after their pa&s;&s;ing the Sea, and &s;o not baptized neither, yet ate of the Manna,
<PB N="29" REF="20">and drank of the rocks. Witne&s;s 1. The mixed multitude that went out of
<HI>Egypt</HI> with them, <HI>Exod.</HI> 12.38. 2. Many of the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> them&s;elves who were uncir|cumci&s;ed in the wilderne&s;s, <HI>Jo&s;h.</HI> 5.5. yet did eat of the Manna and drank of the rock.</P>
<P N="2">2. Their partaking univer&s;ally of that Sacramentall Meat and Drink, is no argument for our free admi&s;&s;ion, till Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can make out as great a nece&s;&s;ity for our univer&s;all receiving as for theirs; namely, that all who receive not, mu&s;t both &s;tarve and choak, that Sacramentall Bread and Water being their daily and nece&s;&s;ary repa&s;t. Nor will Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> evade this an&s;wer by his parallels <HI>pag.</HI> 8. which do not run on four feet, as we &s;ay. And however their Sacraments and ours, their condition and ours may agree in divers re&s;pects; and it be very true, that God is not well plea&s;ed with many Re|ceivers among&s;t us, no more then among&s;t them; yet herein is a manife&s;t difference, that their Sacramentall Elements had a double u&s;e and end; namely, to nouri&s;h their bodies as well as their &s;oules; nor had they ordinarily in the Wilderne&s;s other food to live upon, and therefore
<PB N="30" REF="21">they mu&s;t either receive tho&s;e Sacraments or die. I hope there is not &s;uch an ab&s;o|lute nece&s;&s;ity of our Sacramentall Bread and Wine. Had God made our daily food (as he did to them) a Sacrament, I &s;ay then it were cruelty and murder to deny any man the Sacrament, and then not onely monthly, but al&s;o weekly, yea daily Sacraments had been nece&s;&s;ary: but that mu&s;t have been by accident, not from the nature of a Sacrament.</P>
<P>His next Argument is drawn from the generall invitation to the Marriage Fea&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 9.</NOTE> <HI>Matth.</HI> 22, &amp; <HI>Luke</HI> 14.</P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. Let him prove, that by the Marri|age Fea&s;t is there meant in particular the Lords Supper. Chri&s;t indeed is the Fea&s;t to which all are invited; the Ordinances, and e&s;pecially the Word and Sacraments, are the Di&s;hes in which this Fea&s;t is &s;er|ved. Now the que&s;tion is not, Whether all ought to come to the Fea&s;t? but, Whe|ther all mu&s;t eat of the Fea&s;t in the Di&s;h of the Sacrament, as well as of the Word? The former is a&s;&s;erted, but not proved by Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Since the main &s;cope of the parable is to hold forth the rejecting of the Jews and calling of the Gentiles (which is the
<PB N="31" REF="21">rule Mr. <HI>H.</HI> him&s;elf goes by <HI>pag.</HI> 9.) <HI>Mat.</HI> 22.43. compared with <HI>Mat.</HI> 22.1. will it not follow then, that not onely Church members, but al&s;o Heathen &s;hould im|mediately be admitted, yea forced to this Sacrament.</P>
<P N="3">3. Yet further, if all mu&s;t be admitted,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Lu. 14 29</NOTE> how came the unthankfull Gue&s;ts to be excluded by the Lords own command? who yet had farre better excu&s;es to keep from the Sacrament then many of our Profe&s;&s;ors have, <HI>Luke</HI> 14. 18, 20.</P>
<P N="4">4. If this be meant particularly of the Lords Supper, then let me ask Mr. <HI>H.</HI> whether &s;ome worldly occa&s;ions may not ju&s;tly excu&s;e our ab&s;ence? and whether all are judged there unworthy, who are &s;ometimes kept from the Lords Supper by their worldly occa&s;ions? The weigh|tie&s;t occa&s;ions cannot excu&s;e any from the Marriage Fea&s;t. But I think Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> will not deny, but &s;ome worldly occa&s;ions may excu&s;e a man from the Sacrament, as is evident by analogy, <HI>Numb.</HI> 9.10.</P>
<P>More might be added to &s;hew the weakne&s;s of his plea from the&s;e parables. But whereas he addes <HI>pag.</HI> 10. <HI>Now who is that faithfull &s;teward, that gives the hou&s;hold their portion of meat in due &s;ea&s;on,
<PB N="32" REF="22">but the&s;e that are thus doing, that is, who admit all comers, as him&s;elf there interprets.</HI> What a gro&s;s, &s;en&s;le&s;s, and profane inter|pretation is this? For 1. What an ea&s;ie matter is it to be a faithfull &s;teward, if this faithfulne&s;s lie in admitting all pell mell to the Sacrament. 2. Will it not follow by this rule, that the profane&s;t Mini&s;ters, who are mo&s;t for free admi&s;&s;i|on, are the mo&s;t faithfull &s;tewards. 3. That the mo&s;t pious and con&s;cientious Mini&s;ters, who dare not give this bread of children to dogs, are therefore un|faithfull &s;tewards? Lord! whither will not a &s;elfi&s;h opinion lead a man?</P>
<P>Whereas he there addes, <HI>That Iohn Bapti&s;t admitted all comers to Bapti&s;me, yea even tho&s;e whom he calls vipers.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. He &s;aies, but proves not, that <HI>Iohn</HI> did baptize all comers. 2. <HI>Matth.</HI> 3.6. Its noted that they who were baptized confe&s;&s;ed their &s;ins, and &s;o made publick profe&s;&s;ion of their repentance. Let our people do that privately before the Elder|&s;hip which the&s;e did publickly before all the world; or (if they plea&s;e) let them do it publickly before all the world, as the former did, and &s;ee if we refute them to the Sacrament. Should we require con|fe&s;&s;ion
<PB N="33" REF="22">of &s;ins in every Receiver before admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper, we &s;hould be branded with a witne&s;s, as pleaders for Auricular confe&s;&s;ion. We onely de&s;ire a profe&s;&s;ion of their faith before receiving, which though weak, yet if true in the judgement of charity, we dare not refu&s;e &s;uch. And becau&s;e we are &s;ure there can be no faith without knowledge, there|fore as we our &s;elves have been tried by others, and that willingly, we think it our duty to try the faith and knowledge of all under our charge: and if we finde any gro&s;ly ignorant, as we dare not at pre&s;ent admit them, &s;o we are willing to take pains with them, by in&s;truction to fit them for the Sacrament in future. Whether this be more plea&s;ing to God, or the admi&s;&s;ion of all hand over head, I appeal to the Readers judgement, and to Mr.
<HI>Humphrey</HI> his con&s;erence.</P>
<P>Whereas for further confirmation he adds, <HI>Adultis eadem e&s;t ratio utriu&s;que Sacramenti,</HI></P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>I mean</HI> Catechu|meni.</NOTE>I deny it, if taken in the latitude. For 1. Heathen may be admitted to bapti&s;me, but not to the Lords Supper, by his own grant. 2. Taking this Maxime for granted, what follows, but that as per|&s;ons
<PB N="34" REF="23">to be baptized mu&s;t profe&s;s faith and repentance, <HI>Mat.</HI> 3.6.
<HI>Act.</HI> 8.37. &s;o mu&s;t they al&s;o before receiving; which makes much for our purpo&s;e, and again&s;t Mr. <HI>Humphrey.</HI></P>
<P>His la&s;t proof is drawn from <HI>Act.</HI> 10.28. upon which in&s;tance he concludes with a rhetoricall Doxology, <HI>pag.</HI> 11. <HI>I thank God I have learned this &s;ame le&s;&s;on with a &s;atisfied con&s;cience, to e&s;teem no man un|clean, but all (unle&s;s excommunicated) free in the u&s;e of Gods Ordinances.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. That God, who had 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.</HI> 1.15, 16.</P>
<P N="2">2. Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;hew me the force of this con&s;equence, <HI>Peter</HI> was commanded to conver&s;e with a godly man, though levitically unclean (as not being circumci&s;ed and a pro&s;elyte) which uncleanne&s;s after the death of Chri&s;t was taken away; <HI>Ergo, Paul</HI> ought to con|ver&s;e with a profane Chri&s;tian that is morally unclean. How &s;utable this is to Scripture, &s;ee 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.11. Further, <HI>Peter</HI> is commanded to preach the Word to Heathen, that were comers on, and
<PB N="35" REF="23">ready to receive it; <HI>ergo, Paul</HI> may ad|mini&s;ter the Sacrament to all ignorant and wicked Chri&s;tians that reject Chri&s;t and his Word. I wi&s;h he would play the Logician more, and the Rhetorician le&s;s, in matters of this nature, le&s;t he be found in the number of tho&s;e, <HI>Rom.</HI> 16.18. who by good words and fair &s;peeches deceive the hearts of the &s;imple.</P>
<P N="3">3. Con&s;ider how he contradicts him|&s;elf as well as the truth; <HI>pag.</HI> 3. he ex|cluded Infants and di&s;tracted per&s;ons, here his charity is &s;o large as to exclude none but excommunicated per&s;ons.</P>
<P N="4">4. That by excluding excommunica|ted per&s;ons from the Word preached, he runs into an uncharitable and dangerous errour, hath been formerly proved, which I will not here repeat. Much more might be added, had I lea&s;ure to follow him in his wild-goo&s;e-chace. I think he may well be accounted a Ma&s;ter of Arts at wre&s;ting the Scripture; and whether he hath writ more words or errours, &s;eems to me a di&s;putable point.</P>
<P>For a further flouri&s;h, in the &s;ame Page he heaps up Texts of Scripture that hold forth the offers of free grace to all, which make as much for free admi&s;&s;ion
<PB N="36" REF="24">to the &s;eal of this Sacrament, as an offer of pardon to all rebels, proves, that even tho&s;e rebels mu&s;t have their pardons &s;ealed who &s;tand out again&s;t their Prince, as well as tho&s;e that come in and &s;ubmit upon pardon offered. Let Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> and all the world know, that we de&s;ire to keep none from the &s;eal, who will plea&s;e to make it out to us, that (but in the judgement of charity) they have a right to the thing &s;ignified. Which may &s;erve to take away that wonder of his, <HI>How we can have the con&s;cience to turn them away from the &s;ignes and means of grace in this Ordinance, to whom the Go&s;pel offers Chri&s;t freely.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. With what con&s;cience can he exclude Infants, di&s;tracted and excommunicated per&s;ons, to whom the Go&s;pel offers Chri&s;t as freely as to any? yea each of which may have the things &s;ignified, and yet be denied the &s;igne.</P>
<P N="2">2. Not generall offers of Chri&s;t, but our actuall receiving of him vi&s;ibly, is the rule of admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament. But how many per&s;ons do vi&s;ibly reject Chri&s;t, at lea&s;t by con&s;equence, <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.16. and they who vi&s;ibly reject the thing &s;ignified, may ju&s;tly be debarred the
<PB N="37" REF="24">&s;ign, till they manife&s;t their repentance. Thus much for his proofs from Scripture. Let us now proceed to his rea&s;ons, and &s;ee whether he be better at argument then at quotation.</P>
<P>His fir&s;t Argument is, <HI>The Sacraments are</HI> verbum vi&s;ibile, <HI>a vi&s;ible Go&s;pel,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>therefore the &s;ame latitude mu&s;t be granted to them both</HI> (meaning the Word preached and the Sacrament) <HI>in their admini&s;trati|on.</HI> And here he triumphs (poor man) before the victory, in the&s;e words imme|diately following, <HI>Vpon this ground, me thinks, I &s;tand as upon a rock, again&s;t which all objections, like waves, do but da&s;h them&s;elves in pieces.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. If the Sacrament have the &s;ame lati|tude with the Word, then a Turk or Heathen may receive as well as a Chri&s;ti|an; but this is contrary to Mr.
<HI>Humphrey</HI> his profe&s;&s;ed principles, as well as to the truth it &s;elf.</P>
<P N="2">2. His con&s;equence will not hold, un|le&s;s he can prove that <HI>verbum vi&s;ibile</HI> con|verts as well as <HI>verbum audibile,</HI> and that it was in&s;tituted for that purpo&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3. Though it &s;hould convert, it proves onely that all &s;hould be pre&s;ent, not that all &s;hould receive.</P>
<P N="4"><PB N="38" REF="25">4. Granting his foundation, I retort it upon him&s;elf. As the Word preached is applicable to all, &s;o al&s;o the Sacraments; But the Word preached is not immedi|ately applicable to all; I mean as to that part of its gracious offer which is parti|cularly tendered and &s;ealed in the Sacra|ment. For in&s;tance, there are &s;ome righ|teous per&s;ons (in their own conceit) that Chri&s;t came not to call. <HI>Mat.</HI> 9.13. many &s;elf-ju&s;titiaries and conceited
<HI>Laodiceans,</HI> to whom in that condition mercy is not immediately applicable; But to whom
<HI>in &s;tatu quo,</HI> the Covenant is not applica|ble, to them the &s;eales of it are not ap|plicable; and where &s;uch may be di&s;cer|ned by their gro&s;s ignorance or &s;candall, they are vi&s;ibly as well as really unwor|thy, and &s;hould not be permitted to re|ceive, where there is a ju&s;t Authority to exclude them.</P>
<P N="2">2. To come a little clo&s;er to Mr. <HI>H.</HI> As the Word preached may be heard by all, yet cannot be applied to all in divers things, &s;o the word <HI>vi&s;ible</HI> (the Lords Supper) may be &s;een by all, but ought not to be applied to all in divers ca&s;es; namely, when that which is &s;ealed in the Sacrament is not immediately appli|cable
<PB N="39" REF="25">to them by the Word, for the Word and Sacrament mu&s;t go hand in hand to|gether. <HI>Ergo,</HI> where the covenant of grace is not vi&s;ibly applicable, there the vi&s;ible &s;ign of that covenant is not appli|cable. But the covenant of grace is vi&s;i|bly unapplicable to many per&s;ons in the bo&s;ome of the vi&s;ible Church; <HI>ergo.</HI> And thus Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> his rock proves but a quick|&s;and, and his vi&s;ible Word makes again&s;t him&s;elf.</P>
<P>His amplification from <HI>pag.</HI> 11. to the 15. is as impertinent as his Argument is weak. We ea&s;ily grant, the Lords Supper declares the covenant of grace as a &s;ign, and ratifies it as a &s;eal; but that its there|fore to be applied to all, is a meer <HI>non &s;e|quitur.</HI> Indeed where grace is freely of|fered by an audible word, all may, yea and &s;hould hear it; and where its offered by a vi&s;ible word, all have liberty to &s;ee it, and &s;o may be pre&s;ent at the admini|&s;tration of the Lords Supper, as well as at preaching and Bapti&s;me: But that all ought actually to partake (be they in what &s;tate they will, unle&s;s uncapable by age, dotage, or excommunication) is a new light &s;tarted by Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> which like an <HI>ignis fatuus</HI> will lead thou&s;ands
<PB N="40" REF="26">into utter darkne&s;s. Had Mr. <HI>H.</HI> either read or under&s;tood our meaning (as ea&s;ily he might, had he plea&s;ed, by what is ex|tant in print in a fir&s;t and &s;econd di&s;cour&s;e by the Antiquaeri&s;t) he would not have &s;hot &s;o wide at rovers as now he doth. The hinge of the controver&s;ie turns not upon this point, Whether all may be pre|&s;ent when the covenant of grace is &s;ign|ed, offered, and &s;ealed in the Sacrament, but whether all pre&s;ent may actually partake thereof; and in particular tho&s;e who vi&s;ibly reject the covenant of grace that is &s;igned, offered, and &s;ealed by it. To keep to Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his own &s;imilitude, <HI>pag.</HI> 14. A generall pardon &s;ent by a Prince, may be offered to all Rebels within his Dominion, all of them may hear the pardon read, and if need be, &s;ee it &s;ealed; upon which &s;ome come in and &s;ubmit really, others profe&s;&s;edly &s;tand out again&s;t pardon offered; a third &s;ort &s;eemingly &s;ubmit, yet &s;ecretly carry about them daggers or poy&s;on to murder their Prince. The King knows this, and his Amba&s;&s;adours &s;trongly &s;u&s;pect it. Now I ask Mr. <HI>H.</HI> 1. Whether pardon &s;hall be &s;ealed particularly to them that openly &s;tand it out? 2. Whether the
<PB N="41" REF="26">Amba&s;&s;adours ought not to try all that &s;ubmit, that it may appear who &s;ubmit really and who treacherou&s;ly; and the latter being found out, is Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> of the minde that pardon &s;hould parti|cularly be &s;ealed to them, as well as to tho&s;e who &s;ubmit really? If &s;o, I think he is a better friend to Traytors then to good Subjects or good Government. Apply this ca&s;e to the Lords Supper, and it will quickly put an end to this contro|ver&s;ie, now again unhappily rai&s;ed by Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> to the no &s;mall joy of profane and ignorant per&s;ons, and grief of Gods people. Every Sacrament &s;eals, 1. The truth of the covenant of grace. 2. Its generall offer. 3. By &s;ome of the Sa|cramentall actions it doth in&s;trumentally apply the Covenant to every worthy Re|ceiver, and to none el&s;e. Now (if Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> and other di&s;&s;enters will plea&s;e to under|&s;tand us aright) all may &s;ee the truth of the Covenant of Grace, and its generall offer &s;ealed, and &s;o may be pre&s;ent at the whole admini&s;tration, which is made up of &s;everall Ordinances, the &s;ight and hearing whereof may be very profitable for all &s;orts. But that the Covenant of Grace &s;hould be in&s;trumentally applied,
<PB N="42" REF="27"><HI>per &s;igilla,</HI> to all &s;orts, is in a manner as bad as if it &s;hould be applied to them by word of mouth, and haply in &s;ome &s;en&s;e wor&s;e. Dares Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ay to any per&s;on vi&s;ibly in the &s;tate of nature, Sir, be a&s;|&s;ured that Chri&s;t and all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are actually and for ever yours? And will he dare to &s;eal that which he dares not &s;ay? The lan|guage of every actuall giving is. Chri&s;t is thine in particular, and of every actuall receiving is, Chri&s;t is mine in particular. And &s;hall any Mini&s;ter dare &s;olemnly to deceive any &s;elf-deceiving per&s;on, and confirm him in pre&s;umption, to the ru|ine of his &s;oul, when he may regularly prevent that mi&s;chief? If this be not a &s;trengthening of the hands of the wick|ed, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 13.22. I be&s;eech you what is?</P>
<P>To an&s;wer therefore briefly to his four Con&s;iderations, held forth by way of conclu&s;ion,
<HI>pag.</HI> 15.16. &amp; 17. To the fir&s;t I an&s;wer, Tho&s;e whom we would not baptize, bad they been to have been baptized at yeers of di&s;cretion, tho&s;e we cannot admit to the Lords Supper, though baptized in their infancy. And I ask Mr. <HI>H.</HI> whether there be not many &s;uch in <HI>England,</HI> who yet are neither
<PB N="43" REF="27">children, nor fools, nor excommunicated? And here let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> remember his own rule, p. 10. <HI>Adultis cadem e&s;t ratio utri|u&s;que Sacramenti.</HI></P>
<P>To the &s;econd. The que&s;tion is not about the freene&s;s of the offer, but about the freene&s;s of acceptance; and whether they who vi&s;ibly reject grace freely of|fered, ought to be admitted to the &s;ign and &s;eal of that grace. And here let me ask Mr. <HI>H.</HI> again, whether his con&s;cience did not check him for a&s;per&s;ing us with that &s;oul &s;lander, <HI>pag.</HI>
16. <HI>That we admit none but &s;uch as are qualified to our own minde.</HI> Doth not Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> know that we plead not onely the Word of God (which is abundantly enough) but al&s;o the Au|thority of Parliament, for what we do in this point; by who&s;e Ordinance, not repealed, we are civilly inabled to do what we do; and have al&s;o from them (after mature deliberation with the A&s;|&s;embly of Divines) a rule to walk by, again&s;t which if we tran&s;gre&s;s, we are accountable to the civill Magi&s;trate; and dares he notwith&s;tanding charge us with admittance of none but &s;uch as are quali|fied to our minde? Or, 2. That in thus doing, <HI>we will not let people come without
<PB N="44" REF="28">their price and money to this Ordinance?</HI> Do godly Parents and Ma&s;ters, by keep|ing their children and &s;ervants from the Sacrament till they be &s;ufficiently in&s;tru|cted in the main grounds of Religion, do they, I &s;ay, in this pious act put them upon it, not to come to the Lords Supper, till they can bring their price and money to this Ordinance? and yet &s;hall godly Mini&s;ters and Elders, who are &s;pirituall parents, and al&s;o &s;pecially inabled by the Magi&s;trate, a civil Parent, to do the like, be judged (by one &s;carce out of the &s;hell, either in Learning or Divinity) as if they were all the children of <HI>Simon Magus,</HI> and drove a bargain of Chri&s;t and the Sa|crament for money, becau&s;e they are carefull that per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unqualified, and who think to purcha&s;e Chri&s;t and grace for money, may not have either him or it upon &s;uch ba&s;e tearms? 3. Is he not yet more a&s;hamed, in the &s;ame page to affirm, <HI>Why this is even as they conceive of</HI> Judas, <HI>who being about to &s;ell our Saviour, went out to make his bargain at the Supper.</HI> It &s;eems, if Mr. <HI>H.</HI> may be judge, 1. We are a company of <HI>Ju|da&s;&s;es.</HI> 2. We betray Chri&s;t, becau&s;e we will not &s;uffer others to murder him.
<PB N="45" REF="28">3. We drive a bargain for the buying and &s;elling of Chri&s;t, becau&s;e we u&s;e a rod made by Chri&s;t and publick Autho|rity, to whip the buyers and &s;ellers out of Gods Temple. Thus in the judgement of greater and wi&s;er men then Mr. <HI>H.</HI> Chri&s;t was an enemy to <HI>Cae&s;ar, Paul</HI> a &s;editious fellow, &amp;c. The very mention of this &s;lander is enough to refute it. I &s;ay no more, but the Lord rebuke and forgive the Authour of it.</P>
<P>To his third Con&s;ideration I an&s;wer, 1. Its very dubitable, whether full con|viction be enough to conver&s;ion; yea, the &s;tronger conviction is in the under|&s;tanding, the higher doth the will and affections ri&s;e again&s;t it (if not conquered and &s;anctified by grace,
<HI>Rom.</HI> 7.8, 9.) yea to the commi&s;&s;ion of the &s;in again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t,
<HI>Heb.</HI> 6.4, 5, 6.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That by application of the &s;eal, the me&s;&s;age of reconciliation comes in its full vertue, for the working this conviction and faith unto &s;alvation,</HI> is both a gro&s;s and implicated errour, as hath in part been formerly proved. For 1. Conviction of the truth and generall offer of the Co|venant comes not by the Sacrament, as &s;ealing and applying to per&s;ons (which
<PB N="46" REF="29">rather conduceth to the faith of particu|lar evidence) but as &s;ignifying and offer|ing Chri&s;t to all, who therefore may with great profit be pre&s;ent at the Ordi|nance. 2. Conviction that Chri&s;t is mine in particular, cannot be wrought by actuall receiving in any but the wor|thy receiver, and &s;uch is no ignorant per&s;on, or any that lives and lies in a known &s;in, who therefore cannot receive but to his own prejudice, nor by Church-officers be admitted to receive (if vi&s;ibly &s;o) without their prejudice al&s;o, who &s;uffer him to contract the guilt of Chri&s;ts body and blood, to eat and drink judge|ment to him&s;elf, and to do an act that cannot either convert or edifie him <HI>in &s;tatu quo,</HI> but aggravate his &s;in and judge|ment; as hereafter (by Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance) &s;hall more fully appear.</P>
<P>Before I pa&s;s to his fourth con&s;idera|tion, there lies in the way one objection which is worth the an&s;wering, which &s;eems to cro&s;s our former a&s;&s;ertion.</P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="Object."> Chri&s;t &s;uffered <HI>Judas</HI> to partake of the Lords Supper as well as the re&s;t, yet by that act &s;ealed not to him that Chri&s;t was his, and him&s;elf was in the &s;tate of grace, &amp;c. for then he mu&s;t have &s;ealed
<PB N="47" REF="29">to a fal&s;ity, &amp;c. <HI>Ergo,</HI> the act of giving and receiving in the Sacrament is no &s;eal of evidence to any, much le&s;s to all.</P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Suppo&s;ing the objection were true; actuall giving and receiving, &s;eals either Chri&s;t or judgement to every Receiver, and he that eats and drinks not Chri&s;t, eats and drinks judgement to him&s;elf, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.29.</P>
<P N="2">2. In its own nature and primary in|tention it &s;eals Chri&s;t and mercy.</P>
<P N="3">3. The Mini&s;ter in his acting <HI>ex officio,</HI> applies mercy
<HI>charitativ&egrave;</HI> to all the Re|ceivers who are vi&s;ibly worthy.</P>
<P N="4">4. When therefore the Mini&s;ter &s;ees any pre&s;ent who are vi&s;ibly unworthy, if he he inabled by judiciall power, he mu&s;t not permit him to receive: if not (as it falls out where no Presbytery is &s;ettled) he mu&s;t either per&s;wade &s;uch a per&s;on to forbear, or el&s;e in plain tearms tell him the danger of his unworthy receiving, and that he will prove a murderer of Chri&s;t, as our Saviour did unto <HI>Judas:</HI> by which forewarning, I humbly con|ceive where Church-Government is not &s;ettled, the Mini&s;ter may clear his own &s;oul, as having not power of him&s;elf to admit or keep back without judiciall
<PB N="48" REF="30">proce&s;s, wherein him&s;elf cannot be both judge and witne&s;s, And thus both word and &s;eal go together, and a&s;&s;ure particu|lar mercy or judgement to Receivers, as they are worthy or unworthy; as the Prie&s;ts word went along with the bitter water, to do the hone&s;t woman good, but the adultre&s;s hurt, <HI>Numb.</HI> 5.19, 22, 27, 29. <HI>Contra,</HI> though the Word make mo&s;t wor&s;e, yet it makes very many bad ones good: but the Sacrament makes onely good ones better.</P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="Object."> But doth not the Mini&s;ter &s;eal to a lie, by giving the Sacrament to tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly worthy, yet really unworthy?</P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> He may po&s;&s;ibly &s;eal to an untruth, but doth not &s;eal to a lie, as admitting that per&s;on whom in charity (being approved upon due triall) he may and ought to judge worthy: As I may &s;peak comfort to one whom I judge to be in the &s;tate of grace, yet may very ea&s;ily be mi&s;taken about his condition. 2. If the Mini&s;ter notwith&s;tanding &s;u&s;pect a per&s;on, though legally approved, he may and ought the more carefully to warn him to look to it he be what he profe&s;&s;es him&s;elf to be, le&s;t otherwi&s;e for all mans approbation, he eat and drink judgement to him&s;elf. And
<PB N="49" REF="30">by this means I conceive he may clear him&s;elf, but cannot keep back him that is approved by the major vote of the El|der&s;hip: onely afterwards hath power to appeal to the Cla&s;&s;is, in ca&s;e he per|ceive the Elder&s;hip prevaricate and con|&s;pire to admit unworthy ones out of by-re&s;pects; as they likewi&s;e may do of the Mini&s;ter. But all this doth not counte|nance the admi&s;&s;ion of any who may be regularly &s;u&s;pended, no more then of him who is to be excommunicated, but is not, through corruption of the Elder|&s;hip.</P>
<P>For his fourth Con&s;ideration,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 26.</NOTE> we grant the Go&s;pel is the Go&s;pel of peace, &amp;c. yet its as true, that whereever it comes it occa&s;ions war; not of its own nature, but by means of humane corruption, <HI>Mat.</HI> 10.34, 35. and that by means of &s;eparation which it makes whereever it comes. And is it any wonder then, that the &s;eals of this Go&s;pel by making &s;epa|ration, make al&s;o divi&s;ion? Where the promi&s;es are not applicable &s;o much as vi&s;ibly, there &s;ure the &s;eals of tho&s;e pro|mi&s;es are not applicable; the deniall whereof yet mu&s;t needs vex hypocrites, who by this means are pried into, and
<PB N="50" REF="31">unca&s;ed, as a &s;oul-&s;earching Mini&s;try doth; and no wonder then if the devil of contention be conjured up, and Gods <HI>Jeremies,</HI> who &s;eparate the precious from the vile, be men of contention to the whole Earth. <HI>Cain</HI> will be angry if <HI>A|bel</HI> finde better acceptance then him&s;elf; and hypocrites, who care lea&s;t for reall goodne&s;s, yet are very ambitious of all the priviledges of piety, and proclaim war again&s;t &s;uch as deny them, though never &s;o ju&s;tly, (as the Phari&s;ees did a|gain&s;t our Saviour) but I pray who de|&s;erve blame for this contention, Gods faithfull Mini&s;ters or hypocrites them|&s;elves, who by vi&s;ible unworthine&s;s de|prive them&s;elves of tho&s;e priviledges, and yet malign Chri&s;ts Stewards, who dare not be &s;o lavi&s;h and prodigall of their Ma&s;ters provi&s;ions as the&s;e per&s;ons would have them. What therefore he adds by way of rhetoricall amplification is frivolous as to his purpo&s;e, &s;ince none are Saints but &s;uch &s;inners, and none to be approved for Saints by the Church, but &s;uch as acknowledge them&s;elves great &s;inners. But the que&s;tion is, Whe|ther &s;uch as think them&s;elves righteous, though ea&s;ily convinceable of gro&s;s ig|norance
<PB N="51" REF="31">or wickedne&s;s (as the Phari&s;ees) are to be admitted to this Sacrament among&s;t humbled and repenting &s;inners?</P>
<P>His provi&s;ion in&s;erred in his third Edi|tion, <HI>pag.</HI> 17. will &s;tand him in little &s;tead, &s;ince his very &s;tating the que&s;tion, over|throws his great <HI>Diana</HI> of free Admi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>For 1. He will have free Admi&s;&s;ion, and yet him&s;elf rails about the Commu|nion Table from Infants, di&s;tracted per|&s;ons, &amp;c. He that cries out of Su&s;pen&s;i|on, yet takes upon him&s;elf to &s;u&s;pend a world of per&s;ons far more worthy then, or not &s;o unworthy as many he pre&s;umes to admit. Shall the Lords Supper be free for bla&s;phemers, murderers, &amp;c. and not free for Infants, di&s;tracted per&s;ons? &amp;c.</P>
<P N="2">2. If he can prove it is again&s;t Scripture|order and decency, to admit to the Lords Supper a per&s;on vi&s;ibly worthy, though unbaptized, I will ea&s;ily prove its more again&s;t order and decency to admit to the Lords Supper a per&s;on vi&s;ibly unworthy, though baptized. Had
<HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the great and <HI>Julian</HI> the Apo&s;tate been con|temporary, I &s;hould rather have admit|ted the former to receive, when unbapti|zed, then the latter, though baptized.</P>
<P N="3">3. Whatever Mr. <HI>H.</HI> in&s;inuates in the
<PB N="52" REF="32">clo&s;e of his Provi&s;ion, we are as much both for Order and for the Ordinances as him&s;elf; and could not the Ordinan|ces be had without di&s;order, we had ra|ther di&s;pence with Order, then part with the Ordinances. The difference then be|tween us is this, We plead for, and (ble&s;|&s;ed be God) injoy the Lords Supper with order and decency; Mr. <HI>H.</HI> pleads for it, and injoyes it with di&s;order and confu&s;i|on, whatever he pretends in his Provi&s;ion to the contrary.</P>
<P><HI>His &s;econd Argument he draws from the nature of the vi&s;ible Church; which he de|fines or de&s;cribes to be a number of &s;uch as make profe&s;&s;ion of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and &s;o are Saints by calling, whatever they are in truth. The e&s;&s;entiall marks whereof (where|by it &s;ub&s;ists as vi&s;ible) is the preaching of the Word, and admini&s;tration of the Sacra|ments. Now unle&s;s men will be &s;o bold as to dive&s;t our mixed Congregations</HI> (<HI>and &s;o con&s;equently all</HI> England <HI>formerly</HI>) <HI>of the name of the vi&s;ible Church, they cannot take from us one of its e&s;&s;entiall notes, in the free u&s;e of this Ordinance.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> 1. His de&s;cription is liable enough to exception, &s;ince a vi&s;ible Church &s;trictly is not a bare number of Profe&s;&s;ors, but
<PB N="53" REF="32">of &s;uch as combine for Church ends. The Church is a Corporation, and not members as &s;o, make a body, but as united either by virtuall or actuall con&s;ent, &amp;c. and that either in their di&s;tinct Societies, which we call Pari&s;hes or particular Congregations, or in their Repre&s;entees and Officers delegated for the publick concernment of particular Churches, ei|ther in a Cla&s;&s;is, Province, Nation, divers Nations, or the whole world, whence a|ri&s;e Cla&s;&s;icall, Provinciall, Nationall, or Oecumenicall A&s;&s;emblies, &amp;c.</P>
<P>But &s;uppo&s;ing this to be his meaning, though not &s;o clearly expre&s;&s;ed,</P>
<P N="2">2. I ask him in the next place, Whe|ther all Profe&s;&s;ors or Saints by calling, are
<HI>eo nomine</HI> to be admitted to the Lords Supper; if &s;o, then why doth he &s;hut out children and di&s;tracted per&s;ons, who are as truly Saints by calling, and profe&s;|&s;ors as others. Its apparent then that out|ward profe&s;&s;ion is not the ultimate rea|&s;on of admi&s;&s;ion, unle&s;s accompanied with &s;utable knowledge and conver&s;ati|on, at lea&s;t vi&s;ibly; and that gro&s;s ig|norance appearing, or a &s;candalous con|ver&s;ation, do &s;o far contradict Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his out&s;ide profe&s;&s;ion, as to make that per|&s;on
<PB N="54" REF="33">for pre&s;ent vi&s;ibly unworthy.</P>
<P N="3">3. Taking it for granted, that the Word and Sacraments are notes of a true vi&s;ible Church, how doth it follow that ours are not true Churches, unle&s;s every particular member may partake of the Lords Supper? How many children and &s;ervants were in the daies of the Prelates kept from the Lords Supper, till they could give &s;ome tolerable account of their faith, and of the nature and u&s;e of the Sacrament; yet never was &s;uch a mad inference as this drawn from it, that therefore the Church of <HI>England</HI> was not a true vi&s;ible Church. And certainly, if the deniall of &s;ome Church priviledge (though unju&s;tly) were enough to un-Church a people, I &s;carce know where there is any one true vi&s;ible Church in all the world.</P>
<P N="4">4. Therefore let all the world take notice of the too too gro&s;s fallacy of this Argument, The Word and Sacraments are notes of a true vi&s;ible Church; <HI>Ergo,</HI> Without free admi&s;&s;ion we have no true vi&s;ible Church. May not any ordinary capacity ea&s;ily di&s;cern there are four tearms in this Syllogi&s;me.</P>
<P>The Syllogi&s;me &s;hould run thus: The
<PB N="55" REF="33">Word and Sacraments are e&s;&s;entiall notes of a true vi&s;ible Church;
<HI>Ergo,</HI> without the Word and Sacraments there is no true vi&s;ible Church. But that Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> &s;aw well enough would conclude nothing a|gain&s;t us, who (ble&s;&s;ed be God) have both Word and Sacraments, and there|fore in &s;tead thereof (again&s;t the known rules of Logick) he &s;huffles in free Ad|mi&s;&s;ion into the conclu&s;ion, which was not at all in the premi&s;es. A clear evi|dence he is more skill'd in Sophi&s;try then in Logick, and can better deceive then convince.</P>
<P>If on the other hand, he will make free admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper an e&s;|&s;entiall mark of a true vi&s;ible Church; let him &s;ee how he is confuted by the practice of our Church under the Pre|lates, in which many were kept from the Lords Supper, that were neither chil|dren, fools, nor excommunicated, and that without any prejudice to the e&s;&s;ence of our Churches, as was before in&s;tan|ced. Yea, the very Rubrick before the Communion in the Book of Common-Prayer, &s;hews the fondne&s;s of this opi|nion; the Curate being there authorized to &s;u&s;pend &s;candalous and malicious per|&s;ons
<PB N="56" REF="34">without (I hope) any prejudice to the true being of our Churches. Yea, the very Exhortation in the Communion commands &s;uch to bewail their &s;ins, and not to come, le&s;t after the taking of the Sacrament, the Devil entred into them as he did into <HI>Judas.</HI> Now were it a duty for all to come, then were it a &s;in to for|bid any to come.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> If yet he will object, This practice of ours, if it be not again&s;t the nature and e&s;&s;ence, yet its again&s;t the wellbeing of a true vi&s;ible Church, when the members thereof, or any of them, are denied their ju&s;t priviledges.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. True, if the Lords Supper were a priviledge due to all Members; but this is the thing to be proved on Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his part; and in the proof whereof (though his great <HI>Diana</HI>) he falls &s;o exceeding &s;hort.</P>
<P N="2">2. The well being of a Church con|&s;i&s;ts much in its Government and Di&s;ci|pline, (of which not one word from Mr. <HI>H.</HI> in his notes of a true vi&s;ible Church) Good Government lies in the Geometri|call (not Arithmeticall) admini&s;tration of priviledges and Cen&s;ures: the lowe&s;t of which la&s;t (Admonition) and highe&s;t
<PB N="57" REF="34">(Excommunication) we have clear e|nough in the Scripture: but becau&s;e Su&s;|pen&s;ion and the like, are not in tearms mentioned in Scripture, therefore Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will have it wholly expunged; as if be|cau&s;e a man will not be gained by words, there were no other way but pre&s;ently to knock him on the head. Certainly, he that puts the extreames, cannot deny the middle from one extream to another. And as he who hath power of life and death, hath much more power to mulct, impri&s;on, &amp;c. &s;o the Church who hath power to excommunicate, hath much more power to &s;u&s;pend, as being an in|feriour Cen&s;ure, and but the way to that highe&s;t. Will Mr. <HI>H.</HI> deny, that the well|being of a Church lies much in its puri|ty, and this in the knowledge and con|ver&s;ation of the Members? and whether our way or his conduce more to this, let all the world judge. Let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> tell me ingenuou&s;ly, whether he would have all gro&s;ly ignorant per&s;ons excommunicated? I hope he is more charitable, and thinks they rather need in&s;truction. And is not this previous triall before the Elder&s;hip u&s;ed of purpo&s;e, that ignorant per&s;ons might be put upon enquiry after know|ledge.
<PB N="58" REF="35">as ever they value the priviledge of Sacramentall communion. Nor is the proper end of it exclu&s;ion from, but preparation of all &s;orts for the Sacra|ment, for which in few months (by Gods grace) we dare undertake to fit the mean|e&s;t, if they will be ruled by us.
<HI>Contra,</HI> if Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his free Admi&s;&s;ion obtain uni|ver&s;ally without check, &s;ee if in a few years a Chaos of darkne&s;s and ignorance do not over&s;pread the face of this glo|rious Church. But I &s;ee I mu&s;t contract.</P>
<P>For his confirmation of this argument from the parable of the field, &amp;c. which he &s;tiles an <HI>invincible &s;upport, pag.</HI> 17. Alas poor man, how feeble mu&s;t he needs be, when his be&s;t &s;trength is but weak|ness? If the Tares and Wheat mu&s;t be &s;eparated till the day of judgement, then I pray what will become of Excommuni|cation? Its apparent by the parable, 1. That the Tares were &s;owen by the carele&s;ne&s;s of the Servants, or other Church members,
<HI>Matth.</HI> 13.25. 2. That the prohibition to take them away, was not ab&s;olute, but onely with a caution or <HI>provi&s;o, ver&s;e</HI> 29. And in truth, &s;o tender is the Lord of the Wheat, that he had rather many Tares &s;hould &s;tand, then
<PB N="59" REF="35">one ear of Corn &s;hould be pluckt up. Where therefore there is danger of wronging the wheat, better let the tares &s;tand; not &s;o if we can &s;eparate them without prejudice to, yea with advantage of the wheat: And therefore a bare &s;u&s;pition is not enough to keep any from the Sacrament, but by gro&s;s ignorance or &s;candall it mu&s;t appear he is a tare, and not wheat, before he can be &s;u&s;pended judicially. For as for negative &s;u&s;pen&s;ion before triall, that is not properly a Church Cen&s;ure (no more then the non-admitting of Infants or di&s;tracted per|&s;ons) but onely a prudentiall forbearing to admini&s;ter the Lords Supper to a per&s;on, till he have been approved as vi&s;ibly worthy, which yet may i&s;&s;ue out into a formall Su&s;pen&s;ion, if any &s;hall wilfully obtrude without triall, or upon triall &s;hall be found vi&s;ibly unworthy, and yet will not be per&s;waded to forbear till better prepared.</P>
<P>For his in&s;tance of Chri&s;ts conver&s;e with Publicanes and &s;inners; it makes much for us, and again&s;t him&s;elf. Such Publicanes and &s;inners who are not a&s;ha|med publickly to profe&s;s their repentance and high re&s;pects to Chri&s;t, &s;hall be very
<PB N="60" REF="36">welcome to us as the worthie&s;t receivers; but the que&s;tion is, Whether blinde and &s;candalous Phari&s;ees ought to be admit|ted with the&s;e Publicanes and &s;inners?</P>
<P>For his grand in&s;tance of <HI>Judas,</HI> it hath been already an&s;wered. Onely I cannot but &s;tand amazed at his high flown confidence and cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;s, pag. 19. <HI>The evidence of which fact</HI> (he means of Chri&s;ts admitting <HI>Judas</HI> to receive the Lords Supper)
<HI>has ever appeared &s;o fully to the Church, that this alone has been ground &s;ufficient to deduce their right of free admi&s;&s;ion; and what need more indeed be urged, but that men when they are willing not to &s;ee, will let their hand (put over their eyes) be enough to blinde them.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Sundry famous Lights in the Church beleeved this long before Mr. <HI>H.</HI> either preached or wrote, and yet thought it not ground enough for free admi&s;&s;ion. But haply Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is &s;o chari|table, as to judge not onely the reformed Churches, but al&s;o the whole Church of <HI>England</HI> (ever &s;ince the dawning of Re|formation after the
<HI>Marian</HI> per&s;ecution to this day) to have wilfully put their hands over their eyes, and knowingly to
<PB N="61" REF="36">have &s;inned again&s;t their con&s;ciences. We may well bear this &s;harp cen&s;ure with the more comfort and patience, con&s;ider|ing we &s;uffer with &s;o good company.</P>
<P N="2">2. See you not how the vizard of humility falls off, and both his breath and pen &s;avour rankly of pride in this unchri|&s;tian cen&s;ure? Were we as bad as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> would make us, we had undoubtedly made a great progre&s;s in the high way to the &s;in again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t, and de&s;er|ved our &s;elves not onely to be &s;u&s;pended, but al&s;o to be excommunicated. In the mean time I mu&s;t be bold to tell Mr. <HI>H.</HI> that he who takes upon him&s;elf to be &s;o free an admitter of others, de&s;erves, I fear, more then &s;u&s;pen&s;ion for this his &s;candalous and wicked cen&s;ure of the generality of the mo&s;t pious per&s;ons of all the reformed Churches, and particularly his own Nation.</P>
<P><HI>His third rea&s;on he takes from the nature of Chri&s;tian communion and Church fel|low&s;hip, which ought to be in charity, in humility, without judging, every one e&s;teem|ing others better then them&s;elves, &amp;c. e&s;pecially in the Mini&s;ter, who is to be gentle to all, &s;uffering the evil (<GAP DESC="foreign">) to win them by this free way to repentance. And
<PB N="62" REF="37">how impo&s;sible is this, if we mu&s;t go to cen|&s;uring of mens worthine&s;s and unworthi|ne&s;s, preferring our &s;elves; rejecting others; the ready way to nothing but heart burnings and divi&s;ions, as we have too &s;ad experience already in mo&s;t Congregations.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. When men are out of the right way once, whither will they not ramble? Ra&s;h judgement and private judgement cannot &s;tand with charity and humility (out of his own mouth I con|demn the man, who may well be &s;tiled Ma&s;ter of Arts at ra&s;h and private judg|ing,)
<HI>ergo,</HI> true and publick judging cannot &s;tand with charity and humility. Doth he not in this deal with the Church, as &s;ome Anabapti&s;ts deal with the State, take away the Sword of Go|vernment, and &s;o make a fair bridge for univer&s;all Toleration.</P>
<P N="2">2. If there mu&s;t be no judging in the Church, where then are Church Cen&s;ures and Excommunication?</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> is commended for trying and judging, <HI>Rev.</HI> 2.2. and that &s;he could not bear tho&s;e that were evil, &amp;c. and not therefore charged by Chri&s;t as proud or uncharitable.</P>
<P N="4">4. The Apo&s;tle 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.12,13. com|mands
<PB N="63" REF="37">them to judge Church Members, that is (in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his Language) to be proud and uncharitable.</P>
<P N="5">5. Do we de&s;ire anymore of the mea|ne&s;t then we &s;ubmit to our &s;elves; yea, to a far &s;tricter triall then they are like to undergo? how then do we lift up our &s;elves above them, or e&s;teem our &s;elves better then they?</P>
<P N="6">6. Doth the gentlene&s;s required in a Mini&s;ter, forbid him to try and in&s;truct his people? I thought gentlene&s;s there required, had been rather a qualification then a prohibition of Mini&s;teriall triall.</P>
<P N="7">7. Doth <GAP DESC="foreign"> there &s;ignifie a &s;uffering the people in their &s;ins, that Mini&s;ters &s;hould be dumb dogs, and drow&s;ie &s;hepherds, &s;uffering the &s;heep to ramble as they plea&s;e, and the &s;wine to wallow as they plea&s;e, &amp;c, and admit them to the &s;ame priviledges with the be&s;t? Such a Mini&s;ter may well be counted a good fellow, but &s;ure Chri&s;t will never reckon him for a good and faithfull &s;hepherd. Doth Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> think the way to bring to repentance, is to &s;uffer them in their &s;ins? ot that there is no way to reduce them, but either admonition or excommunication? May
<PB N="64" REF="38">not per&s;ons be won by deniall of &s;ome priviledges due to regular members, if they have not lo&s;t ail &s;pirituall inge|nuity?</P>
<P N="8">8. That hereby heart burnings and divi&s;ions are occa&s;ioned, blame not this excellent cour&s;e, which of its own nature is a means of love and unity by the mu|tuall communication of Pa&s;tor and Flock, Elders and People, in gifts and graces: but the pride of mo&s;t, and igno|rance or prejudice of &s;ome well meaning people, who will not &s;ubmit to this ea&s;ie yoke,
<HI>P&s;al.</HI> 2.1, 3. <HI>Matth.</HI> 11.29. nor do con&s;ider, that the ruling Elders are either elected or eligible, 1. By them|&s;elves. 2. Out of them&s;elves. 3. For their advantage, to allay the power of Mini&s;ters, who if &s;ole Judges of Sacra|mentall worthine&s;s, might at lea&s;t be under a temptation to wrong weaker Chri&s;tians, and through pa&s;&s;ion or pre|judice to keep them away, whom Chri&s;t would have to be admitted.</P>
<P N="9">9. If by trying and judging others, we prefer our &s;elves before others, then there mu&s;t be no trying or judging of any in the Church; quite contrary to the Scripture, and the power of the Keyes
<PB N="65" REF="38">given to Church-Officers. Be&s;ides, let the Reader further take notice of the uncharitablene&s;s of this man. 1. In char|ging us to prefer our &s;elves before others. True indeed, what the Apo&s;tle &s;aith of ble&s;&s;ing, <HI>Heb.</HI> 7.7. that may we of triall and judgement, The Trier and Judge is in that act above him that is tried and judged: but did we prefer our &s;elves to this &s;uperiority? or were we called to it both by Civill and Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Au|thority? Doth not Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> try and judge others in the exerci&s;e of his Mini|&s;try, doth he therefore prefer him&s;elf above his people? indeed if he ran be|fore he was &s;ent, well may he bear that charge. But we challenge Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> and all the world, to name any among us who take upon them to try or judge others, before they were called to that Office. Let him take heed le&s;t in this ra&s;h cen&s;ure he be not like <HI>Corah</HI> and his company, <HI>Numb.</HI> 16.3.</P>
<P N="3">3. To load us the more, he brands us in the clo&s;e with the odious charge of
<HI>rejecting others,</HI> as if that were all the work of the Presbytery, to &s;it and reject their brethren. He takes no notice how many are admitted, to the mutuall com|fort
<PB N="66" REF="39">and edification of them&s;elves and tho&s;e who are over them in the Lord, who ble&s;s God for the care our Builders take in purging and repairing Gods Hou&s;e and the new
<HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> however oppo&s;ed and di&s;couraged by <HI>Sanballat, Tobiah,</HI> and other
<HI>Samaritans:</HI> and I wi&s;h too many (I hope reall <HI>Jews</HI>) did not too much corre&s;pond with them, <HI>Neh.</HI> 6.17, 18, 19. 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 for|give him.</P>
<P>For amplification of his third Argu|ment,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 20.</NOTE> he pre&s;ents the example of the Phari&s;ee and Publicane; and in&s;inuates that we at lea&s;t <GAP DESC="foreign"> act the Phari&s;ee.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. How doth it follow, that by triall of others we think better of our &s;elves then of others, as the Phari&s;ee did here? His judgement was purely private. 2. Without any triall: Ours is publick, upon ju&s;t and indifferent triall, whereby often we are brought to think better of others, wor&s;e of our &s;elves, but never to think better of our &s;elves then others, whom yet in &s;ome ca&s;es we dare not ad|mit, &s;ince its po&s;&s;ible one really worthy
<PB N="67" REF="39">may be &s;u&s;pended, and another onely vi&s;ibly worthy may be admitted; &s;ince in this, as well as other trials, the Eider-&s;hip mu&s;t proceed only <HI>&s;ecundum allegata &amp; probata,</HI> and he who is worthy per|&s;onally, may be unworthy di&s;po&s;itively. And here again he chargeth us with &s;uper&s;tition and uncharitablene&s;s, becau&s;e we will not admit all freely; as if there were no Meane between profane&s;s and &s;uper&s;tition, between charity and licen|tiou&s;ne&s;s.</P>
<P>His &s;econd in&s;tance for amplification, is from <HI>Luk.</HI> 5.31, 32. (the quotation is mi&s;taken by his Printer, and the &s;en&s;e by him&s;elf) wherein Chri&s;t is repre&s;ented as a Phy&s;ician onely of the &s;ick, and came to call, not the righteous, but &s;inners.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. What is this again&s;t us who make it our de&s;ign to admit none but &s;uch &s;ick ones and &s;inners as Chri&s;t did?</P>
<P N="2">2. It makes much again&s;t him&s;elf, if he will urge it in order to the Sacrament, &s;ince its evident Chri&s;t here makes a di&s;tinction and &s;eparation; and 1. Would not have all admitted; and 2. In parti|cular he rejects &s;ound and righteous ones, namely that were &s;o in their own conceit, and &s;uch were mo&s;t of the Phari&s;ees:
<PB N="68" REF="40">and do we &s;u&s;pend any others then tho&s;e who ate wi&s;er in their own eyes then &s;even men that can render a rea&s;on, and fitter for the Lords Supper (if them&s;elves may be judges) then the be&s;t of the ap|proved or approvers?</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 22. His third in&s;tance is <HI>John</HI> 8. from the woman taken in adultery, ac|cu&s;ed by the Phari&s;ees, but not con|demned by our Saviour.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Doth this man take the Scripture for a no&s;e of wax, that he perverts it &s;o gro&s;ly, cither through ignorance, in&s;tability, or prejudice? (to &s;ay no wor&s;e) what is this to our Sacra|mentall triall? The Phari&s;ees came to trap Chri&s;t with a practicall ca&s;e and a civill ca&s;e, <HI>John</HI> 8.5, 6. Had Chri&s;t bid them &s;tone her, he had been accu&s;ed to the Romans as &s;tirring the Jews up to act the &s;upreme power which was taken from them by the Romans; &s;ee <HI>John</HI> 18.31. Had he forbid them to &s;tone her, he had been &s;landered to the Jews, as an enemy to, and contradictor of the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es.</HI> Our Saviour at fir&s;t waves an|&s;wering to &s;o captious a que&s;tion, <HI>ver.</HI> 6. But when that would not &s;atisfie their malicious importunity, he gives them &s;o
<PB N="69" REF="40">wi&s;e an an&s;wer, as 1. He avoyded both extreams; and 2. He caught them who came to catch him; And for the woman, though he condemn not her per&s;on either to civill death, as being no civill Judge, <HI>Luk.</HI> 12.14. nor eternally, as not coming (in the &s;tate of humiliation) to de&s;troy, but to &s;ave, <HI>Luk.</HI> 9.56. <HI>John</HI> 12.47. yet he condemns her &s;in, and gives her good coun&s;el, <HI>John</HI> 8.11. What is this to our keeping per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy from the Sacrament, and that by ju&s;t authority in a publick and judiciall way? I wonder this man doth not now condemn the civill Magi&s;trate for executing adulterers, ince&s;tuous per&s;ons, Sodomites, &amp;c. which Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles would not, 1
<HI>Cor.</HI> 5.1, 6, 9, 11. onely they judged them &s;pi|ritually, &s;hewed them the danger of tho&s;e &s;ins, and Gods mercy in pardoning and purging them. Are not many ju&s;tly cut off both by the Civill and Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Sword, whom yet Chri&s;t, as ab&s;olute Lord of life and death, may pardon? Shall not man do ju&s;tice, becau&s;e Chri&s;t &s;hews mercy? Had this woman been &s;toned to death, had that been any barre to Chri&s;ts Pardon? The mo&s;t righteous Judge in the world is con&s;cious of the
<PB N="70" REF="41">&s;eeds of ince&s;t, murder, &amp;c. in him&s;elf, &s;hall he not therefore condemn &s;uch per&s;ons legally convicted before him? The mo&s;t pious Mini&s;ter or Church Of|ficer is con&s;cious of the like, &s;hall he not therefore either &s;u&s;pend or excom|municate &s;uch per&s;ons, when legally converged and convicted upon ju&s;t triall? <HI>David</HI> him&s;elf was actually guilty both of murder and adultery, was it ever after unlawfull for him as a King and Judge, to condemn &s;uch per&s;ons? Indeed the con&s;ciou&s;ne&s;s of our own weakne&s;s and guilt, &s;hould make us put forth &s;uch acts with abundance of &s;elf-reflection and pity to &s;uch offenders, but hath not the leaft &s;hew of warrant to root up or make void the power of triall and judgement, either in Church or State. Fooli&s;h pitty mars a City in this ca&s;e, &s;hall the woolf be &s;pared to worry the &s;heep? If &s;uch pity be not the greate&s;t cruelty both to &s;oul and body, I know not what is.</P>
<P>Pag. 22. <HI>His fourth rea&s;on ari&s;es from the vanity, formality, and impo&s;&s;ibility of &s;electing people to this Ordinance. For put the ca&s;e you will have a gathered company, I pray whom do you account to be fit and worthy receivers? if not all that make pro|fe&s;&s;ion
<PB N="71" REF="41">as we do mixtly, then tho&s;e only that have an intere&s;t in Chri&s;t, and are true Believers. Well, but how will you be able to know them? The heart of man is deceitfull above all things, who can know it? And if we can hardly di&s;cover our own hearts, how &s;hall we ever di&s;cern others? So that all will come but to tho&s;e that have the faire&s;t &s;hew, tho&s;e that &s;eem &s;uch; and you cannot be &s;ecured but there may be and will be &s;ome hypocrites; and &s;o this true partaking, as all one body and one blood, in &s;uch a mixt communion as you pretend, vani&s;hes, and there can be no &s;uch matter. But now if men here &s;tand upon a formall purity, and will have the outward pure&s;t Church they can, they go to &s;eparating again (as we have daily te&s;timony) till they are quite &s;eparated one from another; even as in the peeling of an onyon, where you may peel and peel till you have brought all to nothing, unle&s;s to a few teares perchance, with which the eyes of good men mu&s;t needs run over in the doing.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Here Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> thinks he hath us fa&s;t: But let me intreat him not to boa&s;t before he put off his harne&s;s. And that both him&s;elf and others may &s;ee how wide he roves from the mark,
<PB N="72" REF="42">we &s;hall deny both his Extreams, and tell him that neither bate profe&s;&s;ion on the one hand, nor troth of grace on the other hand, is the rule we walk by in admitting per&s;ons to the Sacrament, if con&s;idered <HI>quatenus.</HI> Could not all the art Mr.
<HI>Humphrey</HI> hath, think of <HI>medium participationis,</HI> between the&s;e two ex|treams, which will do very good &s;ervice for his conviction and our ju&s;tification?</P>
<P N="1">1. Therefore let him know, that we look at his rule of bare profe&s;&s;ion, as a very loo&s;e principle, which will open a door not onely for the wickede&s;t var|lets, as murderers, &amp;c. but al&s;o for chil|dren and fools, contrary to his own principles, now in print. And indeed, if bare pro&s;e&s;&s;ion were enough to warrant admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacrament, how dares Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> excommunicate any bap|tized per&s;on, though he be the wickede&s;t villain that ever <HI>Tyburn</HI> groaned for, &s;ince even the wor&s;t of them are profe&s;|&s;ors, as well as the true&s;t <HI>Nathanael?</HI> Therefore &s;ay we, Profe&s;&s;ion, if joyned with &s;ufficiency of knowledge in funda|mentals, and &s;utable practice in conver|&s;ation, at lea&s;t negatively, that there be no evidence again&s;t a per&s;on, as living
<PB N="73" REF="42">after conviction in a known &s;in; this is the rule we walk by in admi&s;&s;ion to the Sacraments; though withall, we do not neglect inquiry after truth of grace, &s;o far as may &s;tand with charity.</P>
<P N="2">2. Let him and the world know, that truth of grace in the heart on the other hand is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper. The rea&s;on is, becau&s;e we cannot admit divers per&s;ons, though we &s;hould infallibly know they had truth of grace; as 1. Children and fools, di|vers of whom undoubtedly have truth of grace in their hearts; and that becau&s;e they cannot examine them&s;elves, nor di&s;cern the Lords body according to the rule of the Apo&s;tle, 1
<HI>Cor.</HI> 11.28, 29. Nor 2. Such, who though they have truth of grace, yet fall into &s;ome foul and &s;can|dalous &s;in, for which they de&s;erve ex|communication it &s;elf, and much more &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, which is but an inferiour degree of excommunication. As truth of grace cannot excu&s;e a man from death, if he be a murderer, &amp;c. &s;o neither can it excu&s;e him from Church Cen&s;ures, if he be foully &s;candalous, e&s;pecially if wilfull; which yet for a time may &s;tand with truth of grace, witne&s;s <HI>A&s;a,</HI> 2 <HI>Chr.</HI>
<PB N="74" REF="43">16.10, 12. Doth not Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> know that a per&s;on habitually worthy may be actually unworthy? or that a per&s;on in|vi&s;ibly unworthy may be vi&s;ibly worthy; and <HI>contra?</HI> Did he never hear of the worthine&s;s of per&s;on and the worthine&s;s of preparation, vi&s;ible worthine&s;s and reall worthine&s;s? Reall and compleat worthine&s;s (I mean as to its parts, when a per&s;on hath grace, and in &s;ome mea&s;ure of truth labours to fit him&s;elf) is onely known to God: outward or vi&s;ible wor|thiness may be known to man by due &s;earch and triall, accompanied with cha|rity and prudence, in which better to fail on the right hand then on the left; and where we &s;ee competent knowledge and have nothing to object again&s;t a mans conver&s;ation, the per&s;on profe&s;&s;ing his univer&s;all &s;ubjection to Chri&s;t, and de&s;ire to receive for his further edificati|on, the Elder&s;hip ought to give &s;uch a one the right hand of fellowship. And &s;hould he afterwards be unca&s;ed, the &s;ame power of the Keyes which admitted him, can either &s;u&s;pend or excommuni|cate him, according to the demerit of his carriage.</P>
<P>And whereas he objects, That do what
<PB N="75" REF="43">we can, hypocrites will creep in: That we ea&s;ily grant, but its nothing to his purpo&s;e, &s;ince not hypocrites &s;imply, but hypocrites as unca&s;ed, or godly men as gro&s;ly extravagant, are the object of Church Cen&s;ures. The be&s;t u&s;e therefore can be made of his peel'd onyon, is to draw tears from his own and others eyes for the&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 wick|ed, and &s;adned the hearts of the righte|ous, whom God hath not made &s;ad, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 13.22. Had we the peeling of his onyon, we would take off onely the skin, and make good u&s;e of the pulp, either for food, &s;auce, or medicine. And &s;o much good do him with his Onyon, whether he feed upon it, or weep over it.</P>
<P>Pag. 23. <HI>His fifth rea&s;on he gathers from the uniformity of the &s;ervice of God. If all other Wor&s;hip lies in common, it is an in|trenchment upon the common liberty, to put an enclo&s;ure upon the Sacrament.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Let him an&s;wer him&s;elf; if all other wor&s;hip lie in common (for this I &s;uppo&s;e he means by uniformity) for chil|dren and di&s;tracted per&s;ons (unle&s;s they
<PB N="76" REF="44">trouble the Congregation) why doth Mr. <HI>H.</HI> enclo&s;e the Lords Supper from them? Let him extricate him&s;elf, and then &s;ee if we come not out at the &s;ame gap. Where hath Chri&s;t <HI>in terminis</HI> for|bid children and di&s;tracted per&s;ons to receive? If Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> can exclude them by con&s;equence, the &s;ame or like conse|quence will &s;erve us to exclude divers far more unfit to receive then either of them.</P>
<P N="2">2. Mu&s;t all Divine Service be laid in common, becau&s;e mo&s;t parts of it are? Why then not all time, becau&s;e &s;ix parts of time are &s;o? why not all places and per&s;ons, becau&s;e many are? Let us ble&s;s God &s;o much of his Service lies in com|mon, and not quarrell that all lies not in common, &s;ince the be&s;t are unworthy that any part of Gods Wor&s;hip &s;hould lie in common.</P>
<P N="3">3. There is no part of Gods Wor&s;hip &s;o enclo&s;ed, but all per&s;ons of age and di&s;cretion may injoy it, if the fault be not their own, and that upon very ho|nourable and equall, yea ea&s;ie conditi|ons.</P>
<P N="4">4. As in every Ordinance &s;ome part is in common, &s;ome part inclo&s;ed, &s;o is
<PB N="77" REF="44">it in the Sacrament. In every Ordinance a great part of the Letter is common to all, the &s;pirit of it is inclo&s;ed. In prayer I can ble&s;s God for truth of grace wrought in &s;ome, but can I without ly|ing prai&s;e him for true grace wrought in all? In preaching the Mini&s;ter ought to apply &s;ome commands univer&s;ally, others to &s;uch and &s;uch &s;tates, conditions, and &s;exes; threatnings to ob&s;tinate &s;inners, promi&s;es to the penitent, &amp;c. Is not here a plain inclo&s;ure? If all parts of prayer or preaching be not applicable to all, &s;hall all parts of the Sacrament be appli|cable to all? We deny not but all may be pre&s;ent at the exhortation, con&s;ecration, admini&s;tration; but the que&s;tion is, Whether all may actually receive, and whether the &s;eal may be applied to them whom the Covenant of grace <HI>in &s;tatu quo</HI> is vi&s;ibly inapplicable.</P>
<P>Hereby al&s;o will appear the weakne&s;s of what he adds by way of amplification, <HI>Are all the commands of God univer&s;all? why not (Do this) al&s;o?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Many commands of God are not univer&s;all, as was &s;hewed before; and why then may not this be of that number?</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="78" REF="45">2. If this command of actuall recei|ving be univer&s;all, why doth him&s;elf li|mit it by excluding &s;ome per&s;ons?</P>
<P N="3">3. Then it were a &s;in for the Mini&s;ter or any other to per&s;wade any to forbear the Sacrament, though he came with his hands imbrewed in blood, or actually drunk, or played the part of <HI>Zimri</HI> or <HI>Cosby</HI> in the face of the Congregation immediately before the Sacrament: For neither can my wickedne&s;s, nor the per|&s;wa&s;ion of any creature, loo&s;e the bands of an univer&s;all command. Were I cer|tain this were Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his judgement, as I have ground to &s;u&s;pect from what he de|livers <HI>pag.</HI> 7. haply I might &s;ay more to him, but till then &s;hall forbear.</P>
<P>What further he objects is truth, <HI>That an unregenerate man &s;ins in every &s;ervice and duty, yet mu&s;t not&punc; thereupon plead a</HI> quietus e&s;t <HI>from &s;ervice:</HI> but there is not <HI>par ratio</HI> in order to receiving. 1. Becau&s;e its not every mans duty to receive.
2, Be|cau&s;e other duties, though &s;infully by him performed (in&s;tance particularly in hearing the Word preached) may be means of his conver&s;ion, not &s;o the Sa|crament unworthily received; of which more hereafter.</P>
<P><PB N="79" REF="45">In the &s;ame Page he throws his glove, fir&s;t to the Independents, then to the Presbyterians. To the former in the&s;e words:</P>
<P><HI>Let our Independents an&s;wer, Why do you allow a</HI> Syntax <HI>in the whole Service of God be&s;ides, and bring in a</HI> Quae genus <HI>of Anomal&aacute;s and Heteroclites onely at this Ordinance?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. The Independents are much beholding to him for his favourable opi|nion of them, as good Proficients in Chri&s;ts School. They are good Gramma|rians indeed, if they have perfected the Chri&s;tian Grammar &s;o, as to leave in it but one <HI>Anomalum</HI> or
<HI>Heteroclite.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. I think its rather <HI>optandum</HI> then <HI>credendum,</HI> that they allow a
<HI>Syntaxis</HI> in the whole Service of God be&s;ides.</P>
<P N="3">3. Yet as to free admi&s;&s;ion in order unto pre&s;ence at all Ordinances, I be|leeve they (as well as we) allow a <HI>&s;yntax</HI> in the whole wor&s;hip of God.</P>
<P N="4">4. Heteroclites and Anomala's are no more ab&s;urd in Wor&s;hip, then they are in Grammar. As no rule in Grammar but bath its exception, &s;o no part of Wor&s;hip but hath its inclo&s;ure. Of which after|ward.</P>
<P><PB N="80" REF="46">And therefore though I cannot ju&s;tifie any of the Independents in &s;eparating from our Congregations, yet if in exclu|ding from the Lords Supper per&s;ons vi&s;i|bly unworthy, they act upon the &s;ame principles with us; in &s;o doing, though <HI>they bring in a</HI> Quae genus <HI>of Anomalacs and Heteroclites at the Lords Supper,</HI> yet they violate not the <HI>Syntax</HI> of Divine Wor&s;hip. If they walk by other rules or principles not warranted, let them plead for them&s;elves, I am not of their Coun|&s;ell.</P>
<P>But for his challenge to the Presbyteri|ans (or at lea&s;t &s;ome of them) <HI>How we can admit of children as Members of the vi&s;ible Church (being born of Chri&s;tian Parents) unto Bapti&s;me, and yet turn away the Parents of tho&s;e children from the Sa|crament? Tho&s;e that have gone about to an&s;wer this, had better haply have &s;aid no|thing: for our free cour&s;e of Bapti&s;me and a deniall of this, is &s;uch a &s;eam-rent as will never be hand&s;omely drawn up, though &s;titcht together. Neverthele&s;s in yeelding the one, they have granted the other.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. How can Mr. <HI>H.</HI> admit the children them&s;elves to Bapti&s;me, and yet deny them the Lords Supper? If herein
<PB N="81" REF="46">he act by faith, let him &s;hew a Divine Precept by which he excludes them. If he bring a proof by con&s;equence, let him con&s;ider if that or a like con&s;equence will not exclude others (as well as children) for whom he keeps the door open.</P>
<P N="2">2. How can him&s;elf admit children to Bapti&s;me, and yet excludes their parents from the Lords Supper? If the parents of a child baptized be either di&s;tracted or excommunicated, Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> being Judge, they ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper; whereby its apparent, that even in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his judgement, the childes bapti&s;me is no nece&s;&s;ary medium to prove the Parents mu&s;t be admitted to the Lords Supper; which yet he urgeth a|gain&s;t us, but forgets how he wounds him&s;elf with the &s;ame weapon.</P>
<P N="3">3. To come clo&s;er to the Objection; two things by way of an&s;wer are very con&s;iderable, 1. That we clear and ju|&s;tifie the promi&s;cuous baptizing of chil|dren of Chri&s;tian Parents, be the Parents them&s;elves never &s;o unworthy. 2. That the promi&s;cuous admi&s;&s;ion of children to Bapti&s;me, is no ground for the pro|mi&s;cuous admi&s;&s;ion of their parents to the Lords Supper.</P>
<P><PB N="82" REF="47">For the fir&s;t of the&s;e: We admit chil|dren to Bapti&s;me, 1. By vertue of their remote parents, who may be good though their immediate parents be bad, Acts 2.39. <HI>The promi&s;e is made to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off,</HI> &amp;c. To your children indefi|nitely, not to your next children onely. Which is yet more evident by comparing
<HI>Levit.</HI> 26.45. &amp; <HI>Micah</HI> 7.20. where the Covenant of Ance&s;tors and Parents ex|tends to the children for many genera|tions, till the children them&s;elves in per|&s;on renounce the Covenant. This al&s;o is hinted in the Text under the notion <HI>of them that are afar off,</HI> which is ex|tendable not only to remotene&s;s of place or of &s;tate, but al&s;o to remotene&s;s of time; that is, as <HI>Beza</HI> notes, to your children in remote ages to come,
<HI>Omni|bus long&egrave; po&s;t futuris.</HI> Nor is it in the Originall <GAP DESC="foreign">, but
<GAP DESC="foreign">. The Gentiles were <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 2.17. and &s;o oppo&s;ed to <GAP DESC="foreign"> ; but future generations are <GAP DESC="foreign">. In this par|ticular, mercy triumphs over ju&s;tice, in that God who puni&s;hes the parents &s;in to the fourth generation, extends Co|venant-mercy to a thou&s;and generations,
<PB N="83" REF="47"><HI>Exod.</HI> 20. <HI>ver.</HI> 5, 6. Nor was <HI>Peters</HI> de&s;ign here to foretell the calling of the Gen|tiles, but to incourage his Auditors to faith and repentance; &s;ince (as <HI>Beza</HI> well notes upon the place) the my&s;tery of the Gentiles votation was not yet known to <HI>Peter</HI> him&s;elf, nor was expe|dient to be revealed to the&s;e new Con|verts, had he known it never &s;o well. As the Covenant of <HI>Adam,</HI> &s;o the Co|venant of
<HI>Abraham;</HI> as the Covenant of Works, &s;o the Covenant of Grace is extendible to many generations: and where the root is holy, there not only the immediate, but al&s;o the mo&s;t re|mote branches are federally holy, <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.16. and that whether the branches be naturall or ingrafted, <HI>ver.</HI> 17.</P>
<P N="2">2. Children may be admitted by &s;ti|pulation of others to &s;ee them educated in the faith into which they are baptized, be the parents them&s;elves never &s;o wic|ked, yea excommunicated, yea Papi&s;ts, and thus ba&s;tards and foundlings may be baptized. See
<HI>Ame&s;ius</HI> his Ca&s;es, <HI>lib.</HI> 4. <HI>cap.</HI> 27. Nay upon this account divers learned men very probably conceive, that even Heathen children may be baptized, if once taken into a Chri&s;tian
<PB N="84" REF="48">Family, where the Governour or Go|vernours undertake for their Chri&s;tian education, and they are out of the po|wer of their Heathen parents; for by being members of a Chri&s;tian Family, they are made members of the vi&s;ible Church, as civill, though not naturall children of Chri&s;tians. I am &s;ure this Doctrine is con&s;onant to the Analogy of Circumci&s;ion, <HI>Gene&s;.</HI> 17.12. where not onely the childe born in the hou&s;e, but al&s;o bought with money, was to be circumci&s;ed, yea bought of &s;trangers, and not of the &s;eed of
<HI>Abraham,</HI> as is expre&s;s and evident in the Text. Thus an Hea|then born in the hou&s;e, or bought with money might eat of the holy things, <HI>Levit.</HI> 21.11.</P>
<P N="3">3. The&s;e is &s;omething con&s;iderable in the immediate parents, which makes their children capable of Bapti&s;me; and 1. Though they tran&s;gre&s;s, yet they do not renounce the Covenant (as Turks do.) 2. They are Members of the vi&s;ible Church till excommunicated, and why may not the children be admitted to the &s;ame priviledge the parents yet injoy? provided their tender age be capable of that priviledge; and children are as ca|pable
<PB N="85" REF="48">of Bapti&s;me as they were of Cir|cumci&s;ion, both being pa&s;&s;ive Ordinan|ces.</P>
<P>The &s;econd thing to be cleared is, That the promi&s;cuous admi&s;&s;ion of children to Bapti&s;me, is no ground for the pro|mi&s;cuous admi&s;&s;ion of their parents to the Lords Supper. This is evident, 1. Be|cau&s;e more is required to make a per&s;on capable of the Lords Supper, then an Infant capable of Bapti&s;me.</P>
<P N="2">2. Per&s;onall unworthine&s;s may ea&s;ily appear in the parent, which cannot ap|pear in the Infant.</P>
<P N="3">3. It is not &s;imple member&s;hip gives an immediate right to the Lords Supper: and therefore though the parents mem|ber&s;hip do regularly make the childe ca|pable of Church member&s;hip (and &s;o give it a right to Bapti&s;me) yet neither his own nor his childes Church member&s;hip can make the parent capable of the Lords Supper, a priviledge not for every Church member, but for a vi&s;ibly worthy Church member. Suppo&s;e the &s;ame per&s;on (<HI>Ti|mothy</HI> for in&s;tance) baptized regularly in his riper years, yea and admitted to the Lords Supper al&s;o, as vi&s;ibly worthy: afterwards he walks &s;candalou&s;ly; he is
<PB N="86" REF="49">1. Admoni&s;hed. 2. Su&s;pended. 3. If per|&s;i&s;ting ob&s;tinate, di&s;membred. I be&s;eech you what irregular proceeding is here?</P>
<P N="4">4. Therefore if the promi&s;cuous ad|mi&s;&s;ion of children to Bapti&s;me is no ground for their own promi&s;cuous ad|mi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Supper, much le&s;&s; is the promi&s;cuous dimi&s;&s;ion of children to Bapti&s;me, any ground of their parents promi&s;cuous dimi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Sup|per. The parent gives to his child what him&s;elf hath, namely Church member|ship, but cannot thence claim what is the priviledge of a worthy Church mem|ber, namely Sacramentall Communion. The &s;on of a Jew or Pro&s;elyte (being clean) might eat of the Pa&s;&s;eover, when at the &s;ame time the father (in who&s;e right the childe was circumci&s;ed) being unclean, might not partake of that Sacra|ment. A Prie&s;ts &s;on or daughter might in their fathers right (being clean) eat of the holy things: when at the &s;ame time the father him&s;elf (being unclean) was forbid to eat of them. Compare <HI>Levit.</HI> 10.14. <HI>Numb.</HI> 18.11. &amp; <HI>Levit.</HI>
22.4, 6. There is <HI>par ratio</HI> of morall pollutions. A wicked parent who de&s;erves the high|e&s;t degree of excommunication, yet being
<PB N="87" REF="49">a Church member, his childe &s;hall be baptized in his right, and by Bapti&s;me be &s;olemnly admitted into the priviledge of Church member&s;hip, which yet the father injoyes; when at the &s;ame time the father &s;hall be debarred the privi|ledge of a worthy Church member; namely, Sacramentall communion at the Lords Table. The parents foederall ho|line&s;s &s;hall benefit his childe at the very &s;ame time when his antifoederall wicked|ne&s;s &s;hall prejudice him&s;elf.</P>
<P>There is then no &s;eam rent in our pra|ctices or principles, unle&s;s it be in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his brain, which if we can neither draw nor &s;titch, well may it be our &s;orrow, but we tru&s;t it &s;hall never be our &s;in.</P>
<P>In his third Edition, <HI>pag.</HI> 25. he makes an addition to fortifie his fifth rea&s;on, by impeaching us, <HI>That by urging our form as nece&s;&s;ary, we violate a branch of Chri|&s;tian liberty, equalizing Ordinances of men,</HI> Col. 2.18, 20. <HI>with Divine Ordinances; which humane Ordinances, though we might &s;ubmit to as prudentiall onely, yet he dares not &s;uffer them to creep into the &s;eat of God, namely con&s;cience. Its ill putting Gods Wor&s;hip upon &s;tilts, le&s;t by &s;eeking to ad|vance it higher, we give it a fall into
<PB N="88" REF="50">dangerous &s;cruples and divi&s;ions.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Let the Reader take notice that (in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his judgement) the put|ting of a barre to free admi&s;&s;ion is an humane, not a Divine Ordinance. Could we be of his faith, we would be more again&s;t this barre then him&s;elf is. We ble&s;s God that an humane Ordinance doth civilly or eccle&s;ia&s;tically back a Divine Ordinance, but like not the pre&s;|&s;ing of humane inventions upon con&s;ci|ence, e&s;pecially in Divine Wor&s;hip.</P>
<P N="2">2. We ask him, whether his excluding of Infants and di&s;tracted per&s;ons, be a Divine Ordinance? If &s;o, let us &s;ee his patent out of Scripture either in tearms or by con&s;equence; and if the very &s;ame or a like Divine Patent do not exclude all per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy, we &s;hall be of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his Religion, to admit all pell mell.</P>
<P N="3">3. Suppo&s;ing the barre to free admi&s;|&s;ion had been only a prudentiall humane Ordinance, I &s;ay Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> had done God and the Church more &s;ervice in &s;ubmitting to it, then in di&s;puting again&s;t it; &s;ince 1. As a prudentiall it is not a|gain&s;t the rule of Scripture. 2. And there|fore might by con&s;equence be deduced
<PB N="89" REF="50">from Scripture, as a thing 1. Lawfull. 2, Expedient. 3. Commanded by lawfull authority, Civill and Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, yea in the very times of the Prelates. And if the lawfull commands of Superiours <HI>(caeteris paribus)</HI> be not obligatory to con&s;cience, let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> ra&s;e out the fifth Commandment.</P>
<P N="4">4. We put Gods Wor&s;hip no more upon &s;tilts then him&s;elf doth, excluding onely per&s;ons that are vi&s;ibly uncapable of the Lords Supper; and if di&s;tracted per&s;ons are uncapable in his judgement, &s;candalous per&s;ons are more uncapable in our judgement. Therefore in his Rejoyn|der der let him either ju&s;tifie us, or condemn him&s;elf.</P>
<P><HI>His &s;ixth and la&s;t Argument is drawn from his innocency in free admi&s;&s;ion,</HI> and that upon a &s;ixfold account: 1. <HI>Becau&s;e therein he doth but his duty.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This is but <HI>petitio principii,</HI> the main thing to be proved, e&s;pecially if he lay it down as a generall rule for all Mini&s;ters.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Becau&s;e he hath no power to turn away any.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I take this for one of the true&s;t pa&s;&s;ages in all his book, upon &s;uppo&s;ition
<PB N="90" REF="51">that he hath no Presbytery &s;ettled in his Congregation. But little doth Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> con&s;ider how this conce&s;&s;ion makes a|gain&s;t him&s;elf, and &s;ubverts a main argu|ment of his, drawn from the example of <HI>Judas:</HI> For &s;uppo&s;ing him to have been vi&s;ibly unworthy, yet &s;ay we, Chri&s;t as a Mini&s;ter had no juridicall power to turn him or any other away, &s;ince he could not legally be both Judge and Witne&s;s; and there being then no Presbytery con|&s;tituted to try unworthy Receivers by. Which al&s;o at this day is the ca&s;e of mo&s;t Pari&s;hes in <HI>England.</HI> And for my own part, I much doubt whether a Mini&s;ter by his own power can exclude any Church member from the Sacrament.</P>
<P N="3">3. Becau&s;e <HI>he hopes the be&s;t of all.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. So did the Angel of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> who yet tried and unca&s;ed the fal&s;e Apo|&s;tles, <HI>Rev.</HI> 2.2, 4. 2. So did the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul,</HI> who yet commanded Chri&s;tians to mark and avoid unworthy Church mem|bers, <HI>Rom.</HI> 16.17. &amp; 1 <HI>Cor.</HI>
5.11. &amp; 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3.14, 15. 3. So mu&s;t Magi&s;trates, yet I hope they may and do condemn Malefa|ctors. 4. If this be a good argument, may not Mr. <HI>H.</HI> as well conclude, I hope the be&s;t of all, therefore I will excom|municate
<PB N="91" REF="51">none. Though charity hope the be&s;t, yet it is not &s;tark blinde; and I think its no mean point of charity to prevent the ruine of many poor &s;oules, who ru&s;h on headlong to contract the guilt of the Body and Blood of the Lord.</P>
<P N="4">4. Becau&s;e <HI>he knows God can turn even the wor&s;t at this Ordinance if he plea&s;e.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Suppo&s;e a &s;candalous Pro|fe&s;&s;or actually converted by the prece|ding exerci&s;es at the Sacrament, this is not ground enough for the Church to permit him at that time to receive, &s;ince the rule they walk by is vi&s;ible worthi|ne&s;s. 2. The que&s;tion is not what ab&s;o|lutely God can do, but what God doth or hath undertaken to do. Let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hew one promi&s;e or pre&s;ident for &s;o much as one per&s;on coming to the Lords Supper in the &s;tate of nature, and con|verted by it or at it. 3. Whatever any may be by the exhortation, &amp;c. at the Sacrament, yet the main que&s;tion is, Whether any be converted by actuall receiving the outward Elements, who immediately before receiving was uncon|verted. A promi&s;e or pre&s;ident in this kinde will be much to the purpo&s;e; but till then, we mu&s;t crave pardon if we hold
<PB N="92" REF="52">not free admi&s;&s;ion in order to participa|tion, though we &s;hall not deny free ad|mi&s;&s;ion in order to univerfall pre&s;ence at the whole Service. Prove actuall recei|ving a converting Ordinance, and we &s;hall be as zealous for free admi&s;&s;ion as Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> can be.</P>
<P N="5">5. <HI>Becau&s;e he endeavours his utmo&s;t</HI> de jure <HI>that all come prepared.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. So high a commendation were fitter to come out of any mans mouth then Mr.
<HI>H. Prov.</HI> 22.7. 2. Its a commendation too high for any mortall.</P>
<P N="3">3. I &s;hall be bold to tell him, that in this &s;elf <HI>Encomium</HI> he &s;peaks fal&s;ly. Did ever any meer man &s;ince the fall indea|vour his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure</HI> that all his Flock might be worthy receivers (&s;uch are all that come prepared.) Doth he not know that one worthy in Chri&s;ts account, mu&s;t 1. Be converted. 2. Unblameable, yea exemplary in his conver&s;ation. 3. Actu|ally prepared, by exciting and acting the Sacramentall graces? And hath Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> indeavoured his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure</HI> that all his people &s;hould be &s;uch? nay, hath he indeavoured his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure</HI> that him|&s;elf may be &s;uch? Did he never &s;ince he was a Mini&s;ter fail (through carele&s;ne&s;s,
<PB N="93" REF="52">yea wilfulne&s;s &s;ometimes) in praying for his people, in preaching, in example, in private reproof, admonition, encourage|ment, triall? &amp;c. Is he without &s;ins of weakne&s;s, carele&s;ne&s;s, yea &s;ometimes wilfulne&s;s as a Mini&s;ter? and dares he cry at Chri&s;ts Barre (as he boa&s;ts in his Book) <HI>That he hath endeavoured his utmo&s;t</HI> de jure
<HI>that all come prepared?</HI> If this &s;mell not &s;trong of &s;ublime Phari&s;ai&s;me,
<HI>Luk.</HI> 18.11,12. I be&s;eech you what doth? You &s;aw his pride formerly in cen&s;uring others, and very many far his betters, mark now how the bladder &s;wells with &s;elf conceit and applau&s;e. The Lord help him to &s;ee the beam in his own eye, who is &s;o quick&s;ighted to e&s;py a moat in his Brothers eye.</P>
<P>Its well therefore that in his la&s;t and third Edition he begins in part to cry <HI>peccavi, pag.</HI> 26. in the&s;e words: <HI>This I &s;uppo&s;e, but wo is me if I ju&s;tifie my &s;elf, who am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the mid&s;t of a people of unclean lips, emi|nent onely in our failings.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. It &s;eems then this proud and confident a&s;&s;ertion proves at la&s;t (by his own grant) but a &s;uppo&s;ition. 2. Suppo|&s;itions, though fal&s;e, may be grounds of
<PB N="94" REF="53">truth, but fal&s;e &s;uppo&s;itions a&s;&s;erted (as here) are many times dangerous and per|nicious untruths. 3. For any to a&s;&s;ert he hath endeavoured his utmo&s;t
<HI>de jure</HI> in a cour&s;e or &s;eries of actions, is a mo&s;t dan|gerous fal&s;hood both for the A&s;&s;ertor and the receivers. 4. That his own con&s;cience checkt him for this proud and fal&s;e a&s;&s;ertion, is apparent by tho&s;e ex|pre&s;&s;ions, <HI>But wo is me if I ju&s;tifie my &s;elf,</HI> &amp;c. Yet what higher &s;elf ju&s;tifica|tion can there be, then to &s;tand upon tip|toes with God, and &s;ay, I have endea|voured my utmo&s;t <HI>de jure?</HI> A godly man may in humility and &s;incerity u&s;e the words of the Phari&s;ee, <HI>I thank thee, O God, I am not like other men.</HI> But what godly man dares &s;ay to God, I have en|deavoured my utmo&s;t <HI>de jure?</HI> The Lord give him grace fully and publickly to re|tract, and not to min&s;e or excu&s;e his pride in this particular, le&s;t God one day &s;hew him to his co&s;t the vanity of his former a&s;&s;ertion and latter &s;uppo&s;ition, and he be found in the number of tho&s;e righte|ous ones, who need no repentance of pardon, <HI>Matth.</HI> 3.13. <HI>Luk.</HI> 15.7.</P>
<P N="6">6. <HI>He humbly confe&s;&s;eth all their and his own &s;ins</HI> (<HI>as</HI> Hezekiah)
<HI>de&s;iring true
<PB N="95" REF="53">repentance, and a pardon for all his and their omi&s;&s;ions.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If here he &s;peak really, and confe&s;s and beg pardon for his Mini&s;teri|all as well as per&s;onall omi&s;&s;ions, I can|not but approve it as an act of humility after his former vaunting. But then note how he contradicts his former proud a&s;|&s;ertion (I wi&s;h his book and heart too were fuller of &s;uch contradictions, both for his own and his peoples &s;ake.) If he have done his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure,</HI> what need he de&s;ire pardon for his omi&s;&s;ions? If he be guilty of too many omi&s;&s;ions, how hath he endeavoured his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure?</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Will confe&s;&s;ion of our own and others &s;ins &s;erve the turn, without pro|portionable indeavour to reform our &s;elves and others in our places? What is this but to lye in the ditch and cry God help us? And if the unworthie&s;t may enjoy the priviledges of the mo&s;t penitent and humble Chri&s;tians, is this like to re|form, or to harden them, as if they were as good as the be&s;t? Should a Phy&s;ician thus venture the i&s;&s;ue upon God, and give phy&s;ick that might kill as well as cure, I think no wi&s;e man would judge it an act of faith, but of high pre&s;umpti|on.
<PB N="96" REF="54">on Should any onely give warning of danger, and not labour actually what he could to prevent it, all his warning will not quit him of murder before God. Is crying after a wandring &s;heep enough to &s;ave it out of the pit? the Apo&s;tle <HI>Jude</HI> &s;ure was of another minde, <HI>Jude ver&s;.</HI> 23. <HI>pulling them out of the fire.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. What doth he in his confe&s;&s;ion and prayer for pardon, more then we do, be Communicants either really or vi&s;ibly never &s;o worthy in an Evangelicall &s;en&s;e? onely here we go beyond him in our actu|all care and indeavour to fit all &s;orts for the Sacrament by per&s;onall and particu|lar examination, coun&s;ell and prayer, which he doth not: yet he thinks he hath indeavoured his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure;</HI> we, though we do far more then Mr. <HI>H.</HI> are a&s;&s;ured we fall very &s;hort of doing or indeavouring out utmo&s;t <HI>de jure,</HI> and be|lieve that the be&s;t Mini&s;ter under heaven never yet indeavoured his utmo&s;t <HI>de jure</HI> to fit his people for the Lords Supper. Upon all which accounts well weighed, I believe Mr. <HI>H.</HI> hath little cau&s;e to boa&s;t of his innocency, or bring that for an argument to ju&s;tifie his free admi&s;&s;ion, as he doth <HI>pag.</HI> 25.</P>
<P><PB N="97" REF="54">Two other con&s;iderations he is plea|&s;ed to adde <HI>ex abundanti:</HI> the fir&s;t drawn <HI>from the command and good of coming, p.</HI> 25.</P>
<P>For the Command, I ask, Where doth Chri&s;t command all to receive? If it be urged, He bid all the Apo&s;tles to receive,</P>
<P><HI>An.</HI> Were there no other Church mem|bers but the Apo&s;tles? what thinks he of <HI>Mark, Luke, Nathanael,</HI> and many o|ther Di&s;ciples that received not?</P>
<P>I, but he bid all pre&s;ent to receive, yea <HI>Judas</HI> him&s;elf.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Suppo&s;ing <HI>Judas</HI> were pre&s;ent, he as well as the re&s;t being an eminent profe&s;&s;or. 2. A very knowing per&s;on. 3. Not legally convinced of &s;candall, I &s;ee not how he could have been denied the Sacrament.</P>
<P>I, but the Apo&s;tle bids all members of the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> come and receive.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Let him &s;hew that al&s;o if he can from the Text, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 2. I am &s;ure he convinces and threatens all that come unworthily, but I &s;ee not where he com|mands all to receive ab&s;olutely. 3. Why &s;hould Mr. <HI>H.</HI> or any put tho&s;e a&s;under which God hath joyned together; name|ly, examination and receiving. The A|po&s;tle 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.28. &s;aies, <HI>Let a man exa|mine
<PB N="98" REF="55">him&s;elf and &s;o let him eat;</HI> Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;aies, Let a man eat though he do not examine him&s;elf.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> Upon this account a naturall man al&s;o &s;hould not attend the Word preached, &s;ince he cannot hear it wor|thily before conver&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Not &s;o, the Word is the in&s;tru|ment of conver&s;ion, &s;o not the Sacrament, therefore naturall men as well as others mu&s;t hear that, but may not receive this. And this leads me to an&s;wer the other branch of his fir&s;t Argument drawn from <HI>the good of coming, becau&s;e its a means by which they who want grace may receive it,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. An Ordinance may be a means of grace in order either to conver|&s;ion or edification. In order to conver&s;ion we deny that actuall receiving is a means of grace: In order to edification, we ac|knowledge it to be a &s;ingular means of grace to the worthy receiver; but what is this to Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his purpo&s;e?</P>
<P>If he &s;ay, The Word and Prayer in order to con&s;ecration may convert.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That we deny not, and there|fore here permit a freer dimi&s;&s;ion then M.<HI>H.</HI> namely, both for children, di&s;tra|cted
<PB N="99" REF="55">and excommunicated per&s;ons to at|tend the Sacrament; but not actually to receive till they be actually capable as per&s;ons vi&s;ibly worthy.</P>
<P N="2">2. Want of grace is either graduall and &s;en&s;ible, or totall and in&s;en&s;ible. The Sacrament (as before) is an e&s;peciall means of grace for the former, but not for the latter. But this will come hereafter to be di&s;puted in its proper place, which makes me here to pa&s;s it over only with a touch. By the way let the Reader ob&s;erve the&s;e words of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> pag.
26.</P>
<P><HI>Though we may &s;cruple how an unrege|nerate man can receive it as a pledge, yet as it is a means whereby grace is conveyed, there is no difficulty.</HI></P>
<P>Doth not the former branch ju&s;tifie what hath formerly been proved, that the Lords Supper being a &s;peciall pledge of grace, may not be applied to one vi|&s;ibly unworthy? and where is Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> then (him&s;elf being judge) if we prove its no means of grace in order to conver|&s;ion? But that work I &s;hall &s;u&s;pend till I come to clear the grand objection a|bout the converting power of the Sacra|ment.</P>
<P>His la&s;t &s;upernumerary Argument is
<PB N="100" REF="56">drawn from <HI>the evil of omi&s;&s;ion, ibid.</HI> This he confirms from the parallel neglect of Circumci&s;ion and the Pa&s;&s;eover, of which who&s;oever were guilty <HI>were in danger to be cut off.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An.</HI> There's a wide difference between not receiving and neglecting of the Sa|crament; the latter is a great &s;in, &s;o not the former. Nor doth that man, who being convinced of his pre&s;ent unfitne&s;s, forbeares receiving, &s;in as a neglector, but rather &s;hews his high re&s;pect of the Sacrament.</P>
<P>For his in&s;tance from <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. it hath been an&s;wered already. Only where now he adds, <HI>That tho&s;e which came not to the Fea&s;t were de&s;troyed.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> In that he goes beyond the Text, which &s;aies indeed, that they who murthered his &s;ervants were de&s;troyed; not &s;o of the re&s;t, but onely that they were excluded the Supper. And though it be a truth by con&s;equence they were de&s;troyed, as being judicially deprived of Chri&s;t and of his grace, yet that makes not for, but again&s;t Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> and &s;hews clearly that by that Marriage Fea&s;t is not meant the lords Supper, there being many &s;aved who never ta&s;te
<PB N="101" REF="56">of the Lords Supper, but none can be &s;aved who ta&s;te not of the Marriage Fea&s;t.</P>
<P>Whereas therefore he adds in the &s;ame Paragraph, <HI>They are mo&s;t unworthy of all who come not in to the Supper.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. It will not hold water on either hand, &s;ince 1. Tho&s;e who mur|dered the Servants that invited them were more unworthy. 2. If we may judge by the penalty, he that came with|out the Wedding Garment was more un|worthy, the neglecters being for pre&s;ent onely deprived of the Supper, but he bound hand and foot and ca&s;t into utter darkne&s;s, <HI>Matthew</HI> 22.13.
2. Dare Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> &s;ay they are unworn|thy who come not alwaies to the Lords Supper? May not &s;ome &s;cruple of con|&s;cience, yea &s;ometimes worldly occa|&s;ions, ju&s;tly excu&s;e a per&s;on for not coming? But I am &s;ure he that comes not to the Marriage Fea&s;t is alwaies unworn|thy; another clear evidence that by the Marriage Fea&s;t is not meant the Lords Supper.</P>
<P>To draw then to a clo&s;e of our an&s;wer to his fir&s;t part, In oppo&s;ition to Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> his a&s;&s;ertion, <HI>pag.</HI> 26, Its neither a certain
<PB N="102" REF="57">duty on the Mini&s;ters part to admit all, nor on the peoples part for all to receive, unle&s;s you under&s;tand it <HI>mediately,</HI> as the getting 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;u|rance. So all mu&s;t come to the Sacrament; true, but fir&s;t they mu&s;t be prepared. All mu&s;t be admitted to receive; true, but fir&s;t they mu&s;t be vi&s;ibly worthy. We keep not any away <HI>for fear of accident all &s;candall, or of committing an uncertain &s;in, in the doing,</HI> as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> would make the world believe <HI>pag.</HI> 26. (I &s;peak as to the rule we walk by, for what particular men upon occa&s;ion may do through weakne&s;s or otherwi&s;e, I am no Patron of that) but to prevent certain &s;candall by the admi&s;&s;ion of per&s;ons vi&s;ibly un|worthy, as al&s;o the &s;in and ruine of un|worthy receivers, who being admitted, would murder Chri&s;t, and eat and drink judgement to them&s;elves; as al&s;o our own partaking with other mens &s;ins, and bring acce&s;&s;ary to the ruine of their poor &s;ouls: from all which guilt I be&s;eech the Lord to free Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> and others of his minde and practice, who by this loo&s;e principle of free admi&s;&s;ion, &amp;c. have
<PB N="103" REF="57">laid the axe to the root of reformation. And whereas he is plea&s;ed to charge us in a rhetoricall way, <HI>as doing evil</HI> (by &s;u&s;pending from the Sacrament) <HI>that good may come of it, and that therefore our dam|nation is ju&s;t,</HI> We &s;hall make no other re|turn but this, to be&s;eech God to forgive him, as we heartily do, this bitter &s;pirit of cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;s.</P>
<P>Whatever therefore he may think of the childe of his own begetting, as ap|pears by that expre&s;&s;ion in the foot of the &s;ame Page, <HI>I will not give you my rea&s;ons by the heap, but by the weight,</HI> I leave it to the indifferent Readers judgement, whe|ther Mr. <HI>H.</HI> be not better at number then at weight. For my own part, I conceive that one good argument (which makes no number) would have weighed far more in the balance of the Sanctuary, and of &s;olid rea&s;on, then all his eight arguments heaped up together.</P>
<P>I like his caution in the clo&s;e, <HI>That no man take occa&s;ion from hence to pre&s;ume;</HI> but I fear one &s;ingle caution will not be able either to prevent or redre&s;s the Tythe of that mi&s;chief which is in part already and every day will be more and more wrought by his eight Arguments.</P>
<P><PB N="104" REF="58">And here I &s;hould lay down my wea|pons, but that I perceive he is re&s;olved upon a skirmi&s;h after the pitcht battell. Haply he may be better at <GAP DESC="foreign"> then he hath been at <GAP DESC="foreign">. Too many in our daies are better at pulling down then at building up; I &s;hall make bold to try whether Mr. <HI>H.</HI> be of the number. Nor &s;hall I blame him if he pull down onely rotten hou&s;es, provided he hurt not him|&s;elf or his neighbours by their downfall.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>The &s;econd part an&s;weered.</HEAD>
<P>PA&s;&s;ing his premonitory Preface, I come directly to his Objections &amp; An&s;wers. <HI>The Doctrine of free admi&s;&s;ion will take away the u&s;e of the keyes, excommunicate Excommunication, and leave us no Di&s;ci|pline in the Church.</HI></P>
<P><MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="Obj."> This Objection I conceive Mr. <HI>H.</HI> might have &s;pared, there being no great &s;trength in it again&s;t free admi&s;&s;ion, in his &s;en&s;e, which admits not excommuni|cated per&s;ons.</P>
<P>Yet withall I mu&s;t tell him, that his &s;atisfaction of the objection is un&s;atisfa|ctory, and not we, but him&s;elf will be found guilty of fal&s;e &s;urmi&s;es about Ex|communication and Su&s;pen&s;ion.</P>
<P><PB N="105" REF="58">And here I value not what the Obje|ction &s;urmi&s;es, &s;ince Mr. <HI>H.</HI> may frame it as he plea&s;e, and &s;o make it &s;urmi&s;e what he will: but if thereby he intends to in|&s;inuate, that <HI>we look at Church Di&s;cipline as lying &s;olely in Su&s;pen&s;ion,</HI> I mu&s;t tell him, he acts not the part of a fair re&s;pon|dent. 1. Therefore for negative Su&s;pen|&s;ion (which is a bare non-admi&s;&s;ion) we account it no part of Church Di&s;cipline, no more then him&s;elf doth the non ad|mi&s;&s;ion of Infants or mad folk. 2. For po&s;itive Su&s;pen&s;ion (whereby 1. Per&s;ons upon triall found unworthy by the El|der&s;hip. 2. Per&s;ons who ob&s;tinately re|fu&s;e triall, yet will obtrude them&s;elves upon the Sacrament, are by vote of the Elder&s;hip denied participation) this we &s;ay is an act of Church Di&s;cipline, and a le&s;&s;er degree of Excommunication, whereof I conceive there is a threefold degree, 1. From private communion, 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 3.14. 2. Not onely from private but al&s;o from Sacramentall Communion, 1. <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.11. <HI>Eating</HI> there being extended to Sacramentall eating as well as dome|&s;ticall eating; as is cleared by the Anti|quaeri&s;t in his Vindication or An&s;wer to <HI>Su&s;pen&s;ion &s;u&s;pended,</HI> to which therefore
<PB N="106" REF="59">I refer. 3. From Church member&s;hip, <HI>Mat.</HI> 18.17, 18. &amp; 1
<HI>Cor.</HI> 5.5.</P>
<P>Yet withall I adde, this po&s;itive &s;u&s;|&s;pen&s;ion is not i&s;&s;ued out again&s;t any, unle&s;s by their ob&s;tinacy they force the Elder&s;hip to it. For 1. if a per&s;on upon triall be found ignorant, the Elder&s;hip doth not pre&s;ently proceed to Su&s;pen&s;i|on, but intreat him to forbear a Sacra|ment or two, till he have attained to &s;ome competency of knowledge, in or|der whereunto they give him direction, and offer him their a&s;&s;i&s;tance. If for all this he thru&s;t him&s;elf upon the Sacra|ment, they de&s;ire him to forbear, and tell him they dare not admit him till more capable. And la&s;tly, if all this will not &s;erve, they are forced to i&s;&s;ue out a Vote of Su&s;pen&s;ion, which yet I believe is very rare, &s;ince too many &s;u&s;|pend them&s;elves by keeping away becau&s;e they will not be tried. 2. If a per&s;on be found &s;candalous, they admoni&s;h him being before them, if he profe&s;s repen|tance, and be willing to give &s;atisfaction, they dare not refu&s;e him: otherwi&s;e they proceed with him as with the former after conviction. And if the &s;in and &s;can|dall be great, and aggravated by ob&s;tina|cy,
<PB N="107" REF="59">they proceed not onely to Su&s;pen&s;ion, but al&s;o to di&s;member&s;hip. Having given this account of out judgement and pra|ctice, let us weigh Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his judgement about Church Cen&s;ures.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 31. He &s;aith, <HI>They are puni&s;hments upon &s;candalous per&s;ons (after a legall conviction) whereby they are debarred from Chri&s;tian &s;ociety in generall.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. In this de&s;cription he &s;ur|mi&s;es ami&s;s, by omitting one main end of Church Cen&s;ures, namely the amend|ment of the party cen&s;ured, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.5.</P>
<P N="2">2. In re&s;trayning them onely to &s;can|dalous per&s;ons as to practice, which are extendible to any wilfull &s;inner; and if per&s;ons wilfully ignorant be not wilfull &s;inners, I know not who are, 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.5.</P>
<P N="3">3. In debarring per&s;ons cen&s;ured of all Chri&s;tian &s;ociety in generall. And here I challenge Ma&s;ter <HI>Humphrey</HI> and all the world to &s;hew me any one place in Scrip|ture, which requires that per&s;ons excom|municated &s;hould not be pre&s;ent at any publick Ordinance. I grant, that by Excommunication they are made as Hea|then and Publicanes, and are <HI>in &s;tatus quo</HI> no Church members, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.17. but I &s;ee no place that proves per&s;ons out of
<PB N="108" REF="60">the Church may not be pre&s;ent at any publick Ordinance. I am &s;ure 1
<HI>Corinth.</HI> 14.24, favours the contrary. He is there|fore much mi&s;taken about us, who neither &s;hut the Church doores nor the Chancell doores again&s;t any per&s;on cen&s;ured, but admit them to be pre&s;ent at all Ordinan|ces; nor do we believe their pre&s;ence will leaven any, &s;ince &s;pirituall defilement is not contracted by pre&s;ence, but by connivance or imitation, &amp;c. And there|fore if any gratifie profane per&s;ons, it mu&s;t be they who exclude from all Or|dinances, not we who admit them to be pre&s;ent at all Ordinances, though we re&s;train them from actuall receiving, and that upon very weighty rea&s;ons, yet withall let me tell Mr.
<HI>Humphrey</HI> that he is mi&s;taken in &s;aying, pag. 32. <HI>That profane per&s;ons never care to come to the Sacrament.</HI> Did he never hear of poor ignorant and profane creatures, that mu&s;t needs come and eat their Maker at <HI>Ea&s;ter</HI> e&s;pecially? or is he onely a &s;tranger in <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> and knows not the&s;e things? May not igno|rant and profane ones de&s;ire the Sacra|ment partly out of cu&s;tome and fa&s;hion, partly becau&s;e they apprehend its a di&s;|grace for them to be turned away, and
<PB N="109" REF="60">for many &s;uch triviall grounds?</P>
<P>For his &s;econd &s;nrmi&s;e, pag. 32. <HI>That Su&s;pen&s;ion is in&s;tituted onely in reference to the Ordinances, to keep them pure and holy, if the Sacrament e&s;pecially would he de|fied otherwi&s;e to the Receivers.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. We think the Ordinances are defiled onely to tho&s;e who u&s;e them &s;infully. 2. That per&s;ons are defiled not by pre&s;ence with unworthy Receivers, but by partaking in their &s;ins. 3. That they partake in the &s;ins of unworthy Re|ceivers, who do not their duty to reform them, or to keep them from receiving in ca&s;e they will not be reformed.</P>
<P>Its therefore fal&s;e which he a&s;&s;erts, pag. 32. <HI>That Church Cen&s;ures concern not tho&s;e who are admitted to the Ordinances, but are u&s;ed in reference onely to offenders,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>For 1. It concerns all Church members in their places to look to it, that Church Cen&s;ures be duly executed. 2. Their very execution doth much concern Church members, by fear to keep then from tho&s;e inordinate cour&s;es which bring Church Cen&s;ures upon others. And its con&s;iderable how he contradicts him&s;elf in the clo&s;e of this paragraph, when he makes <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp;
<PB N="110" REF="61"><GAP DESC="foreign"> to be the ends of Church Cen&s;ures. And I appeal to all the world, whether admonition (which better ren|ders the &s;en&s;e of the fir&s;t Greek word) &s;atisfying the Congregation, and warning or example, concern more of the Con|gregation but the parties offending?</P>
<P>His third pretended &s;urmi&s;e is, That we conceive <HI>there is a mo&s;t neer e&s;&s;entiall relation between this Excommunication and the Communion, as if it were a part of it, at lea&s;t &s;ome nece&s;&s;ary antecedent, as if the Sacrament could not be admini&s;tred with|out it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. The Objection it &s;elf pro|pounded <HI>pag.</HI> 30. and elevated to the height of Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his de&s;ign, in|fers no &s;uch mad con&s;equence. For grant|ing it were a truth, that free admi&s;&s;ion did takeaway the u&s;e of the Keyes, &amp;c. how doth it follow from thence, that there is an e&s;&s;entiall relation between Excommunication and the Communion? or (which is more gro&s;s) that Excommu|nication is a part of the Communion? Do not
<HI>e&s;&s;entialiter relata</HI> put or take away each other? but doth the taking away of Excommunication take away the Communion? what is this, but to
<PB N="111" REF="61">conclude that the admitting of all &s;orts to the Communion takes away the Com|munion? So belike there is a Communion which all partake of, and yet there is no Communion becau&s;e all partake of it. Is not this excellent Logick? The Sun &s;hines which all men &s;ee, and yet it doth not &s;hine becau&s;e all men &s;ee it. Its therefore both a fal&s;e inference and an ab&s;urd fal|&s;ity in it &s;elf, that there is an e&s;&s;entiall relation between Excommunication and the Coram union, &s;ince the Communion may be without Excommunication, and Excommunication without the Commu|nion. (I &s;peak as to matter of fact, not as to <HI>jus</HI> or
<HI>fas,</HI> for I believe all Ordi|dinances &s;hould be maintained in the Church, yet withall that the ab&s;ence of one Ordinance doth not null another.) There is indeed a neer relation between the Communion and Excommunication in point of duty, &s;ince we mu&s;t not &s;eparate tho&s;e things which God hath joyned (God having commanded all his Ordinances to be u&s;ed) but not in point of being or exi&s;tence, &s;ince they depend not &s;o one upon the other, that all mu&s;t needs be aboli&s;hed if one be univer&s;ally neglected.</P>
<P><PB N="112" REF="62">The latter &s;urmi&s;e framed by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is farre more ab&s;urd, as if either we or the objection by him propounded <HI>made Excommunication a part of the Communi|on.</HI> What is this but a contradiction <HI>in terminis,</HI> to make keeping from the Sa|crament a part of the Sacrament, or keeping from receiving a part of recei|ving! From &s;uch receiving we &s;hall &s;u&s;|pend no unworthy per&s;on. We wi&s;h Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> much good with &s;uch contra|dictions, but de&s;ire him not to pin them upon our &s;leeve. 2. How follows it from the Objection that Excommunication is a part of Communion? The Argument mu&s;t &s;tand thus, If free admi&s;&s;ion to the Communion excommunicate Excommu|nication, then Excommunication is a part of the Communion; but free admi&s;|&s;ion doth &s;o. <HI>Ergo.</HI> Do not the Antece|dent and the Con&s;equent here hang to|gether like ropes of &s;and? Is it not rather true, that if free admi&s;&s;ion to the Com|munion excommunicate Excommunica|tion, then Excommunication is no part of the Communion? Is it not again&s;t nature for one part to excommunicate another?</P>
<P>His di&s;tinction between acts of Di&s;ci|pline
<PB N="113" REF="62">and acts of Wor&s;hip makes little for his purpo&s;e. We grant them indeed to be di&s;tinct things; yet withall we adde, that acts of Di&s;cipline are no bars to acts of Wor&s;hip, excepting onely actuall receiving in the Sacrament; (If he plea&s;e to call that an act of Wor&s;hip) I mu&s;t therefore pa&s;s his following di&s;|cour&s;e <HI>pag.</HI> 33. &amp; 34. as wholly imperti|nent, and tell him, that the friends of Su&s;pen&s;ion are more both for Di&s;cipline and Wor&s;hip then he is. 1. Becau&s;e we are for all the parts and degrees of Di&s;ci|pline, he is onely for &s;ome of them. 2. We exclude no excommunicated per|&s;on from any part of publick Wor&s;hip but only from actuall receiving; <HI>Contra,</HI> he excludes all excommunicate per&s;ons from all publick acts of Wor&s;hip, <HI>pag.</HI> 31.</P>
<P N="2">2 Object. <HI>The mo&s;t of men are wholly unfit, and not capable of this Ordinance, as wanting both the preparatory and execu|tory part, &amp;c. therefore no free admi&s;&s;ion hither.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I commend Mr. <HI>H.</HI> who will be &s;ure to choo&s;e Adver&s;aries weak enough: He may well &s;ay there is mani|fe&s;t weakne&s;s in this Argument. But he doth ill to right again&s;t our weake&s;t Ar|guments,
<PB N="114" REF="63">and then triumph as if we had no &s;tronger.</P>
<P>We have &s;hewed formerly, That fit|ne&s;s or unfitne&s;s ab&s;olutely con&s;idered is no rule for the Churches admi&s;&s;ion or &s;u&s;pen&s;ion, but either of the&s;e as vi&s;ible. We &s;ay not, that all who are unfit mu&s;t be kept from the Sacrament, but onely all who are vi&s;ibly unfit. 2. That for the di&s;cerning of tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly un|fit, the Church mu&s;t proceed by a rule to finde them out. 3. That triall by examination of per&s;ons, and witne&s;s if need be, is a Scripture and approved rule. 4. That all are bound to &s;ubmit either to publick or private triall, as God offers occa&s;ion for either, when it may be for Gods glory and their own or others edi|fication, yea though it &s;hould tend to their outward prejudice, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.15. 5. That being discovered to be unfit, they ought to repent and &s;tudy to be fit, but not to thru&s;t them&s;elves again&s;t light and conviction upon the Sacrament, When God &s;aies, <HI>Let a man &s;o cat,</HI> 1 Cor. 11.28. how dares any man &s;ay, Let him eat though not &s;o? 6. If notwith&s;tand|ing per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unfit will thru&s;t them|&s;elves upon the Sacrament, its the Chur|ches
<PB N="115" REF="63">duty not to let them eat and drink judgement to them&s;elves, by murdering the Lord of glory, unle&s;s Mr. <HI>H.</HI> be of <HI>Cains</HI> Religion, that Church Officers are not their brethrens keepers, <HI>Gene&s;.</HI> 4.9. Neither let him object, That then they may as well keep him from hearing, &amp;c. for in part it hath, and (God willing) &s;hall be more fully &s;hewed, that there is a wide difference between hearing and receiving.</P>
<P>Now let's hear what Mr. <HI>H.</HI> hath to &s;ay again&s;t this Objection of his own fra|ming.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t I thank him that <HI>pag</HI> 35. he laies down, <HI>That the Church can but look upon an outward capacity.</HI> He might have added (&s;ince <HI>contrariorum eadem e&s;t ratio</HI>) That the Church may al&s;o look upon and judge of outward incapacity, but &s;ee and judge of it they cannot without evidence and triall; therefore 3. They may enquire after per&s;ons capable or uncapable. 4. Since triall is in vain without execution, therefore they ought to admit all per&s;ons outwardly capable, and &s;u&s;pend all per&s;ons outwardly inca|pable; otherwi&s;e how &s;hall they &s;u&s;pend (negatively at lea&s;t) Infants, di&s;tracted
<PB N="116" REF="64">and excommunicated per&s;ons?</P>
<P>As to his three An&s;wers, I an&s;wer briefly, 1. A naturall man mu&s;t hear, pray, &amp;c. though he cannot do them rightly, becau&s;e the&s;e are converting Ordinances, &s;o is not the Lords Supper, I mean as to actuall receiving; he may therefore hear, &amp;c. but not receive. <HI>I wonder a wi&s;e man &s;hould</HI> mi&s;take a moun|tain for <HI>a feather.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Its true, every man mu&s;t do what he can: but many things are naturally po&s;&s;ible which are morally impo&s;&s;ible; and thus I cannot do that which I may not, that is impo&s;&s;ible which is unlawfull. Let him prove that actuall receiving is a debt on the part of a naturall man, or that to admit a per&s;on vi&s;ibly unworthy is a debt on the Churches part, and we &s;hall be far enough from hindering any in the payment of their debts either to God or man.</P>
<P N="3">3. In his la&s;t An&s;wer, though he have borrowed a good di&s;tinction from Ma&s;ter
<HI>Pemble,</HI> yet he &s;huffles wofully in the application of it. In a legall &s;en&s;e no man is either worthy, or receives wor|thily; in an Evangelicall &s;en&s;e no man receives worthily, but he is a worthy
<PB N="117" REF="64">Receiver, But I ask Mr. <HI>H.</HI> whether he dares apply either branch of this di&s;tin|ction to all whom he admits &s;o freely? To come to his own words, Do all that he admits. 1. Labour their be&s;t to pre|pare their hearts. 2. Judge and humble them&s;elves really before God. 3. Come to Chri&s;t heavy laden. 4. Look at them|&s;elves as dogs, and yet importune Chri&s;t for the crums of mercy? I &s;ay then he hath the worthie&s;t Congregation in the world. 2. All his Communicants are not onely worthy, bun eminently godly. But now to retort. How ea&s;ie were it to evince the contrary again&s;t mo&s;t whom he would have admitted. For 1. How many ignorant ones are therein our Con|gregations, that &s;carce know their right hands from their left in matters of Reli|gion. 2. How many profane ones, &s;wea|rers, drunkards, &amp;c. 3. How many out|wardly pious, who upon triall might ea&s;ily be unca&s;ed, to live in &s;ome known &s;in. Each of the&s;e fearing (and that not without cau&s;e) to be unca&s;ed before the Elder&s;hip, no wonder they are &s;o aver&s;e to triall, le&s;t their &s;heeps cloathing &s;hould be pull'd off, and them&s;elves di&s;|covered to be ignorant, profane, or hypo|criticall,
<PB N="118" REF="65">criticall, far enough from the foremen|tioned graces of humility, repentance, and faith. If he object that &s;uch per&s;ons &s;hould be excommunicated, I an&s;wer, 1. Whoever de&s;erve Excommunication, do much more de&s;erve Su&s;pen&s;ion; and it &s;eems then, that the Presbyterians of|fend rather in being too favourable then too rigid. 2. We deny not, but in ca&s;e of ob&s;tinacy or foul &s;candall, di&s;membring may follow Su&s;pen&s;ion, the greater Ex|communication the le&s;&s;er. 3. I hope Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> is more charitable then to profe&s;s that all ignorant per&s;ons &s;hould be excommunicated. I am &s;ure we are &s;o charitable, as by Su&s;pen&s;ion to put them upon endeavours after knowledge, that they may be fitted for, and &s;o comfortably admitted to the Sacrament, Which his free admi&s;&s;ion is not like to do; but ra|ther to harden and flatter them in their ignorance.</P>
<P>He notes well, <HI>pag.</HI> 37. That on the unworthy receivers part, <HI>the Ordinance is taken in vain, again&s;t the third Command|ment.</HI> But whereas he adds, <HI>not &s;o on the admitters part.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The admitters having regularly the power of the Keyes, if they admit
<PB N="119" REF="65">per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy, are acce&s;&s;ary to their guilt; as any one is an acce&s;&s;ary in Gods account, who prevents not the &s;in of his neighbour when he hath power to do it.</P>
<P N="3">3 Object. <HI>Holy things to holy men.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An.</HI> I may &s;ay of this as of the former, There is little &s;trength in it. Yet withall, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his An&s;wer falls &s;hort, and is too too feeble likewi&s;e. For 1. All outward holy things are not to be admini&s;tred to all outwardly holy per&s;ons, &s;ince Infants and di&s;tracted per&s;ons (if Chri&s;tians) are outwardly (yea divers of them inwardly) holy, yet by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his vote are not ca|pable of the Sacrament. 2. Some things outwardly holy may be admini&s;tred to per&s;ons not &s;o much as outwardly holy by profe&s;&s;ion, <HI>Mat.</HI> 28.19. &amp; 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.24. 3. What is bare profe&s;&s;ion if contradi|cted by profane&s;s? That which cannot &s;ecure a man from Excommunication, but rather makes him capable of it, much le&s;s can &s;ecure him again&s;t Su&s;pen&s;ion, an inferiour Cen&s;ure. But &s;uch is bare pro|fe&s;&s;ion if accompanied with profane&s;s. 4. Many per&s;ons excommunicated do &s;till profe&s;s, and &s;o are outwardly holy, yet the&s;e Mr. <HI>H.</HI> will have excluded from
<PB N="120" REF="66">all Ordinances. From all which I con|clude, 1. That M. <HI>H.</HI> his An&s;wer may vye with the Objection for weakne&s;&s;e. 2. That M. <HI>H.</HI> here as well as other where contra|dicts him&s;elf, in &s;aying that the &s;ame per|&s;on at the &s;ame time mu&s;t be admitted to all the Ordinances, and yet he mu&s;t be ad|mitted to none of the Ordinances; to all the Ordinances as a profe&s;&s;or, to none of the Ordinances as excommunicated; a cruel a&s;&s;ertion and a flat contradiction.</P>
<P>For the Reply <HI>pag.</HI> 38, &amp; 39. <HI>Do we not hereby make our &s;elves one with the wicked with whom we joyn and &s;o have communion with Belial?</HI> His an&s;wer is good, <HI>That joyning with a wicked mans per&s;on is not having communion with Belial, but accom|panying of him in his evil wayes.</HI></P>
<P>But our difference here with M. <HI>H.</HI> is not &s;o much about joyning with the wicked, as accompanying of him in his evil wayes: It being fir&s;t his &s;in to re|ceive unworthily; Secondly, The peoples &s;in who know him to be unworthy and do not inform the Church: Thirdly, The Churches fault if they &s;tudy not the di&s;|covery of per&s;ons unworthy, or admit them to the Sacrament when vi&s;ibly un|worthy: Nor is pre&s;ence with the wicked
<PB N="121" REF="66">at Ordinances, but fo&s;tering of them in their &s;ins, communion with Belial, which I wi&s;h too many do not fall into by this free admi&s;&s;ion, pleaded for with more &s;trength of affection then power of con|viction.</P>
<P>We ea&s;ily agree with him, <HI>That wicked per&s;ons in the Church, are in &s;ome &s;en&s;e in Chri&s;t and &s;anctified by him:</HI> But if this be enough for admi&s;&s;ion to the Lords Sup|per, then why doth him&s;elf &s;hut the Chan|cel door (as he other where calls it) again&s;t Infants arid mad men, who are as much if not more in Chri&s;t, and as much if not more &s;anctified then the former, and again&s;t whom him&s;elf dares not &s;hut the Church door. Therefore &s;ay I, if M. <HI>H.</HI> be really for free admi&s;&s;ion, let him ex|cluded none out of the Chancel that are within die Church. For the places of Scripture that he quotes <HI>page</HI> 40. I am confident the Orthodox interpreta|tion of them, will never open the Chancel to gro&s;ly ignorant or prophane Church-members; the latter of which are &s;o far from having right to be admitted into the Chancel, that they de&s;erve to be &s;hut out of the Church.</P>
<P>To clo&s;e up this third Objection: How
<PB N="122" REF="67">gro&s;&s;e is that a&s;&s;ertion <HI>pag.</HI> 41. <HI>That there is an hi&s;toricall vi&s;ible faith, that gives an outward Church-right unto the Elements.</HI></P>
<P>For then fir&s;t excommunicated per&s;ons have a right to the Elements, who though ca&s;t out for their prophanene&s;&s;e, have &s;till an hi&s;toricall faith, &s;ince excommunica|tion doth not deprive you of their hi&s;to|ricall faith, yet cuts them off 1. from vi&s;i|ble Church-member&s;hip, 2. from vi&s;ible Chri&s;t-member&s;hip.</P>
<P N="2">2. Saving faith it &s;elf doth not alwayes give a right to the Elements (it being po&s;|&s;ible that a godly man for &s;ome foul &s;candall may be excommunicated) much le&s;&s;e then doth vi&s;ible hi&s;toricall faith, when contradicted e&s;pecially by cu&s;toma|ry prophane&s;&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3. As hi&s;toricall faith gives not a right to Chri&s;t (for that the devils have,
<HI>Iames</HI> 2.19.) but the faith of adhe&s;ion &s;eated in the will not in the under&s;tanding, &s;o not vi&s;ible hi&s;toricall faith, but vi&s;ible faith of adhe&s;ion gives a Church-right to Chri&s;t &s;acramentall, and &s;hould any man pro|fe&s;&s;e hi&s;toricall faith but prote&s;t again&s;t faith of adhe&s;ion, I appeal to M. <HI>H.</HI> his con&s;cience, whether he dur&s;t admit &s;uch a wretch to the Sacrament. For my own
<PB N="123" REF="67">part,, &s;hould any per&s;on profe&s;&s;e, I be|leeve Je&s;us Chri&s;t to be the Son of God, the only Saviour and Mediator between God and man, but I will not re&s;t upon him for righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e and &s;alvation; let this man be never &s;o pious outwardly, I &s;hould &s;ooner admit a common adulterer, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> then him.</P>
<P>Objection 4. <HI>page</HI> 41. <HI>The Seal is &s;et to a blank if be admitted.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An.</HI> 1. For under&s;tanding this Obje|ction the better, we mu&s;t know, that what the Philo&s;opher &s;aid in generall, that <HI>Ani|ma e&s;t ra&s;a tabula,</HI> is too true of all men &s;ince the fall in order unto &s;aving grace. They are <HI>Tabulae,</HI> as capable of the Spi|rits writing; they are <HI>ra&s;ae tabulae,</HI> which notes 1. They are naturally de&s;titute of this writing. 2. This writing was ra&s;ed out by <HI>Adams</HI> fall, and thus all men naturally are blanks, in order to the writing of the new Covenant in their hearts: The &s;imili|tude you have
2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3.3. <HI>Heb.</HI> 8.10.</P>
<P N="2">2. This Blank is either vi&s;ible or invi|&s;ible. To God all blanks are vi&s;ible, and he may u&s;e his liberty to &s;et his &s;eal where he plea&s;es, by commanding to bapti&s;e all Infants of beleeving parents, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and to admit to the Lords Supper all vi&s;ible
<PB N="124" REF="68">Saints that are Church-members.</P>
<P>The Que&s;tion is then, Whether man may apply the Seals to vi&s;ible blanks. It's clear he may not; for then Heathen them|&s;elves before in&s;truction and profe&s;&s;ion, as al&s;o their Infants might be bapti&s;ed. I a&s;&s;ume, But there are vi&s;ible blanks in the Church as well as in the world, namely per&s;ons that are as notoriou&s;ly ignorant and profane as Heathen, and who if they had not been bapti&s;ed in their infancy, &s;hould not be now admitted to bapti&s;m, without evidence fir&s;t given of their knowledge and piety. Therefore &s;ay I, &s;eeing (according to M. <HI>H.</HI> his own rule) <HI>Adultis eadem e&s;t ratio utriu&s;&abque; Sacramen|ti,</HI> they who at pre&s;ent would be unca|pable of bapti&s;me had they not been bap|ti&s;ed, are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper though bapti&s;ed in their infancy. The Objection thus &s;tated we conceive to be good: Lets &s;ee now what M. <HI>H.</HI> hath to object again&s;t it. I &s;hall at pre&s;ent pa&s;&s;e his fir&s;t di&s;tinction as waved yet by him|&s;elf.</P>
<P>Page 41, and 42. <HI>He conceive it's a gene|rall mi&s;take, that people take the Sacrament to be a Seal to their faith, and if there be m true faith, that it is &s;et (they think) to a blanks.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="125" REF="68"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Sacramentall &s;eals (as others) relate either to parties or to things. 1. To parties, namely the Covenanters on both parts, God and the creature in Covenant; from God to the creature they &s;eal the Covenant of grace, from the creature to God they &s;eal dutifulne&s;&s;e and thankful|ne&s;&s;e. Here we &s;ay, the Church cannot ap|ply the &s;eals of the Covenant to any who are vi&s;ibly out of the Covenant; but in our Congregations there are many gro&s;|ly ignorant and prophane per&s;ons vi&s;ibly out of the Covenant. You will &s;ay, they are vi&s;ibly in the Covenant as Church|members and profe&s;&s;ors though at large; True, but their vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion is not e|quivalent to their vi&s;ible ignorance and prophanene&s;&s;e, no more then profe&s;&s;ion of hone&s;ty is to open cheating: as a chea|ter unca&s;ed lo&s;es the repute and priviled|ges of an hone&s;t man, &s;o an hypocrite unca&s;ed forfeits the priviledges of his pro|fe&s;&s;ion, and the Church both may and ought to take the forfeiture, till the breach made upon his profe&s;&s;ion be re|paired by a new profe&s;&s;ion of his repen|tance and promi&s;e of reformation, yea and vi&s;ible reformation too, &s;o far as it can be had: and certainty, if &s;uch a per&s;on may
<PB N="126" REF="69">be denied all publike Ordinances (in M. <HI>H.</HI> his judgement) much more may he be de|nied one Ordinance. He that de&s;erves the greater penalty, much more de&s;erves the le&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>Secondly, To come neerer to his An&s;wer: Sacramentall Seals relate to things as well as to per&s;ons: And thus as Seals, 1. They confirm the Covenant. 2. They confirm the faith of the worthy receiver. 3. They confirm judgement to the unworthy re|ceiver. To apply the di&s;tinction: 1. All &s;orts may be pre&s;ent to &s;ee the Covenant &s;ealed. 2. None but per&s;ons Evangelically worthy may partake, the&s;e only having faith to be confirmed. 3. None vi&s;ibly un|worthy may by the Church be admitted to partake, as being vi&s;ibly without faith, either in the habit or actings thereof; which la&s;t I note in reference to godly per&s;ons who &s;ometimes may be ju&s;tly either &s;u&s;pended or excommunicated. 4. Suppo&s;ing they may be admitted on the Mini&s;ters part where the power of the Keyes is imperfect, yet to clear his own &s;oul the Mini&s;ter is to deal plainly with every unworthy receiver, and let him know that he will but betray and murther Chri&s;t, as our Saviour did to <HI>Iudas</HI> (&s;up|po&s;ing
<PB N="127" REF="69">he did receive,) and that the Sa|crament which confirms other mens faith, will confirm his unbelief and &s;eal judge|ment unto him. To &s;umme up all: That which confirms or ratifies is tropically a Seal; but the Sacrament doth confirm faith and ratifie the Covenant to faith, <HI>Ergo,</HI> Its both a &s;eal of faith, and a &s;eal to faith; <HI>&amp; contra,</HI> where there is no faith to confirm, as to that particular it mu&s;t needs &s;eal to a blank, as &s;ealing to a blank is a known expre&s;&s;ion to note the appli|cation of a &s;eal to a paper that hath no writings, and where nothing is writ there nothing can be confirmed.</P>
<P N="2">2. That the Sacrament &s;eals Chri&s;ts bloud in particular for pardon to the re|ceivers by vertue of its primitive in&s;titu|tion, is evident by comparing <HI>Matth.</HI> 26.28. with
<HI>Luk.</HI> 22.20. The latter place &s;aith, <HI>This cup is the new Te&s;tament in my bloud which is &s;hed for you:</HI> the former place &s;heweth for what end, namely <HI>for remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins.</HI> The language then of the Sacrament given to every receiver is; the body and bloud of Chri&s;t is thine for the remi&s;&s;ion of thy &s;ins, and how dares any Mini&s;ter &s;ay or &s;eal this to a per&s;on known to be gro&s;ly ignorant or profane?</P>
<P><PB N="128" REF="70">Pag. 42. <HI>God doth not atte&s;t our faith, but the truth of his own promi&s;es, but the Sacraments are Seals properly of the Cove|nant.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I know none &s;o &s;imple as to a&s;&s;ert that God doth <HI>in terminis</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">My mea|ning is, the Sacrament doth not &s;ay in ex|pres terms thou <HI>Roger</HI> beleeve&s;t, no more then the word doth, but only by con&s;e|quence.</NOTE> atte&s;t our faith in the Sacrament, as M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;eems to in&s;inuate; the Sacrament doth not &s;o atte&s;t but &s;uppo&s;e and require faith, and then &s;eals the Covenant to faith. 2. In vain doth it &s;eal the Covenant, if to no per&s;ons: A Covenant cannot be but with &s;ome body, and if it be &s;ealed it mu&s;t be &s;ealed to tho&s;e with whom it is made: therefore the Covenant being &s;ealed in the Sacrament, it mu&s;t be &s;ealed to &s;ome body, and &s;ealed regularly it cannot be to tho&s;e who vi&s;ibly reject it: but gro&s;ly ignorant and prophane per&s;ons unca&s;ed, do vi&s;ibly reject the Covenant of grace,
<HI>Ergo,</HI> the Covenant of grace cannot re|gularly be applied to them by the Seals. 3. If the Sacraments are &s;eals properly of the Covenant, why may not Infants and di&s;tracted per&s;ons partake of them, who have a more vi&s;ible right to it then gro&s;ly ignorant and prophane per&s;ons have? 4. As the Sacraments are &s;eals of the Co|venant, &s;o they may be applied to the
<PB N="129" REF="70">Covenant before all, but the Covenant may not by them be applied or &s;ealed to any but to per&s;ons vi&s;ibly worthy. Its well therefore in the &s;ame page he cor|rects him&s;elf, and grants <HI>the Sacraments may be &s;eals of our faith</HI> con&s;ecutiv&egrave;,
<HI>be|cau&s;e they confirm and &s;trengthen faith:</HI> But he &s;huffles in &s;aying, <HI>They are not for|maliter, and in a true and proper &s;en&s;e &s;eales unto any thing but the Covenant.</HI> In a pro|per &s;en&s;e a &s;eal is an artificiall thing fit to make a vi&s;ible repre&s;entation or impre&s;|&s;ion and confirmation. This the Sacra|ment is not properly but figuratively to the Covenant it &s;elf, namely as it hath the office of a &s;eal, which is to repre&s;ent and confirm, and this it doth to faith as well as to the Covenant: For 1. As it repre&s;ents the Covenant, it mu&s;t needs repre&s;ent faith as an e&s;peciall branch promi&s;ed in the Covenant. 2. As it confirms the Co|venant, &s;o it confirms faith gradually of|fered and promi&s;ed in it, and thereby al&s;o confirms faith inherent in the worthy re|ceiver, as a Bond &s;ealed unto me confirms my belief that the particulars &s;ealed unto &s;hall be performed, and if this be not to &s;eal in a formal and proper &s;en&s;e (theolo|gically) I know not what is. And thus
<PB N="130" REF="71">increa&s;e of faith and all other graces are &s;ealed by the Sacrament to the worthy receiver, but neither the beginnings nor increa&s;e of faith are &s;ealed to the unwor|thy receiver.</P>
<P>Nor will his in&s;tance of Circumci&s;ion, <HI>pag.</HI> 43. help him as to the point in hand, &s;ince Circumci&s;ion was applied to none but vi&s;ible Saints, either by Covenant, election, or by actuall profe&s;&s;ion, not con|tradicted by living in &s;candalous &s;ins, or notorious ignorance of the Covenant of grace, which is the rule we walk by in ad|mi&s;&s;ion or non-admi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>And as little advantage will his cau&s;e gain by his illu&s;tration (here again repea|ted) drawn from a Proclamation &s;ealed and offered to rebels that refu&s;e it. True, the &s;imilitude holds in &s;ome particulars: 1. The Covenant of grace is proclaimed by the Mini&s;ter. 2. The truth of it is &s;eal|ed by the Sacrament. 3. The benefits of it offered to all, and therefore we deny not but all &s;orts may be pre&s;ent at the Ordi|nance, as all rebels whether ob&s;tinate or &s;ubmi&s;&s;ive may be pre&s;ent at the Procla|mation and &s;ealing of a Pardon. But what is offering a &s;ealed Pardon in generall and conditionally, to the particular applica|tion
<PB N="131" REF="71">and &s;ealing of the &s;ame Pardon to &s;ingular per&s;ons? Or how can a Com|mi&s;&s;ioner without breach of his tru&s;t, a&s;|&s;ure (either by word of mouth or &s;eal.) pardon to a Traytor that vi&s;ibly &s;tands out again&s;t his Prince? In like manner at the Sacrament, not only the Elements do repre&s;ent and &s;eal the Covenant of grace as to its truth in generall, but &s;ome of the Sacramentall actions (as giving and recei|ving) do particularly apply it to every re|ceiver: And how dares any Mini&s;ter, ha|ving regular power to deny it, by word and &s;eal apply the Covenant of grace to any per&s;on that vi&s;ibly rejects it? To il|lu&s;trate this by the initiall Sacrament; Bapti&s;m when ever admini&s;tred, &s;eals the Covenant of grace as well as the Lords Supper; but only to the per&s;on baptized doth it make particular application of the Covenant, and therefore cannot be ap|plied to any unbaptized per&s;on that is vi|&s;ibly out of the Covenant, be he born of Heathen or of Chri&s;tian Parents: But all who are vi&s;ibly in the &s;tate of nature are vi&s;ibly out of the Covenant, and &s;uch are gro&s;ly ignorant, and &s;candalous per|&s;ons willfully per&s;i&s;ting in both. Since therefore both Sacraments &s;eal one and
<PB N="132" REF="72">the &s;ame Covenant, he who &s;hould not be admitted to the fir&s;t were he unbaptized, mu&s;t not <HI>pari ratione</HI> be admitted to the &s;econd though baptized.</P>
<P><HI>Page.</HI> 44. <HI>Rep.</HI> by M. <HI>H. But is it not al|&s;urd for a man to &s;et his &s;eal where there hath been no agreement and tran&s;actions be|fore,</HI> &amp;c. M. <HI>H.</HI> grants it's ab&s;urd on the receivers part; <HI>but as for the Mini&s;ter or Church who offer it as a &s;eal on Gods part, there is a true &s;eal to a true copy, and no|thing out of order.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> There's nothing out of order if the Mini&s;ter proceed not to delivery of the writing and &s;eal to tho&s;e who vi&s;ibly refu&s;e the Covenant offered. But &s;hould M.
<HI>H.</HI> or any el&s;e deliver a purcha&s;e &s;ealed to a per&s;on who refu&s;ed the bargain, let him&s;elf be Judge whether it were not an act both di&s;orderly and imprudent: And as di&s;orderly is it to deliver unto any per|&s;on bond and &s;eal for the promi&s;ed Land who vi&s;ibly prefers <HI>Aegypt</HI> and <HI>Babylon</HI> before it. God will not Mini&s;ters &s;hould deliver precious pearls to &s;uch &s;wine.</P>
<P>What he addes <HI>Pag.</HI> 45. is al&s;o weak, in which re&s;pect he doth well to cover the nakedne&s;&s;e of it with a blinde and mi&s;ty parenthe&s;is. His words are the&s;e: <HI>As they
<PB N="133" REF="72">are Gods &s;eals, for the &s;ame rea&s;on they cannot be &s;eals of faith, becau&s;e God &s;eals not ima|ginably to our part of the Covenant which is faith.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Both the a&s;&s;ertion it &s;elf and its rea&s;on are fal&s;e. For</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, Are they not Gods &s;eals, 1. As relating to Gods Covenant. 2. As in&s;ti|tuted by God him&s;elf to ratifie his Co|venant.</P>
<P>Secondly, Is not faith it &s;elf and eve|ry &s;aving grace promi&s;ed in the New Co|venant? unle&s;&s;e M. <HI>H.</HI> will profe&s;&s;edly turn Pelagian, and make faith only the birth of mans free-will.</P>
<P>Thirdly, If the Covenant be Gods, if the &s;eal be Gods, and faith promi&s;ed in it be Gods al&s;o, is it not apparent that Gods &s;eal mu&s;t needs be faiths &s;eal al&s;o? Not a &s;eal from faith authoritatively as from God, but a &s;eal of faith as a branch of the Covenant promi&s;ed, and as a &s;eal to faith actually laying hold on the Covenant. If the Covenant of grace undertake not for our part of the Covenant, we are in a wor&s;e condition now under the Covenant of grace then we were under the Cove|nant of works, &s;ince then <HI>Adam</HI> had perfection of grace to back free-will; but
<PB N="134" REF="73">in fallen man free-will either hath no grace inherent, or but weak grace to act it, and impo&s;&s;ible were it for any either to convert or per&s;evere, unle&s;&s;e God under-took both for the infu&s;ion and &s;upporting of grace.</P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="Object."> If faith and grace be a part of the Co|venant that is &s;ealed by the Sacrament, then the be&s;t way were free admi&s;&s;ion, that the Covenant, and &s;o faith it &s;elf may be &s;ealed to all.</P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Not &s;o: For 1. Though the Covenant offer grace to all conditionally, yet it pro|mi&s;eth not grace ab&s;olutely to any but the elect and per&s;ons effectually called: to the fir&s;t it promi&s;eth initiall grace, to the latter it promi&s;eth progre&s;&s;e and per&s;e|verance in grace. Now the &s;eal can &s;ecure no more then what is in the writing: but &s;aving grace is not ab&s;olutely promi&s;ed to all, in the Covenant, <HI>erg&ograve;</HI> it cannot be &s;eal|ed to all in the Sacrament. The offer of grace indeed is &s;ealed to all pre&s;ent whe|ther they receive it or no; but the pro|mi&s;e of grace can be &s;ealed to none but the Legatees of the new Covenant, and &s;uch are only per&s;ons elected or effectu|ally called, under&s;tand me here as to the &s;pirituall and &s;aving branches of the Co|venant:
<PB N="135" REF="73">and that is done on Gods part e|very Sacrament.</P>
<P>Secondly, As for the Church and the Mini&s;ter, who cannot judge infallibly who are elected and effectually called, they mu&s;t proceed by the rule of vi&s;ibili|ty, &s;ealing the promi&s;es by the Sacrament, to them and them only who upon ju&s;t triall tempered with charity appear to be vi&s;ible Legatees. And as Chri&s;t him&s;elf re|&s;pects not good words and outward pro|fe&s;&s;ion when contradicted by our carriage, <HI>Matth.</HI> 7.21, 22, 23. no more mu&s;t the Church when mens carriage doth vi&s;ibly contradict their profe&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>Thirdly, The Lords Supper being a Sa|crament of nouri&s;hment, &s;eals not proper|ly initiall, but progre&s;&s;ive grace; nor can the Church apply it for conver&s;ion but edification: and how are they capable of edification in grace who are de&s;titute of all grace, or of vi&s;ible edification who are de&s;titute of vi&s;ible grace?</P>
<P>Fourthly, In the Lords Supper, not on|ly &s;anctification but al&s;o the comforts of the Covenant are &s;ealed to the receivers, but how can the comforts of holine&s;&s;e be &s;ealed to unholy per&s;ons, or by the Mini|&s;ter applied to tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly un|holy,
<HI>Ezek.</HI> 13.19, 21.</P>
<P><PB N="136" REF="74">Pag. 46. He &s;peaks clearly and truly, <HI>That an unregenerate man cannot receive the Sacrament as a &s;eal of his faith.</HI> For how can faith be &s;ealed to where it is not? But what follows immediately, <HI>Yet the Church can give it as a &s;eal of the Cove|nant,</HI> is either ambiguous or fal&s;e;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gal. 3.1.</NOTE> am|biguous if he take giving for giving out or holding forth, for thus Chri&s;t may be given to all, whether they receive or no; but this is nothing to his purpo&s;e, and proves onely that all may be pre&s;ent, but not that all may receive. Its fal&s;e if under&s;tood of the delivery of the Ele|ments to all per&s;ons who may be pre&s;ent. 1. In Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his &s;en&s;e, who cannot Scripturally or rationally exclude either Infants, di&s;tracted or excommunicated per&s;ons from pre&s;ence, yet will not ad|mit them actually to receive. 2. Its fal&s;e in our &s;en&s;e, who can admit either igno|rant or &s;candalous per&s;ons to be pre&s;ent, but neither of them to receive.</P>
<P>His illu&s;tration <HI>ibid.</HI> drawn from the Word preached, makes again&s;t him if rightly &s;tated. <HI>True, there may be true preaching , though the hearers apply not the Word by faith.</HI> But can there be true preaching, where the Mini&s;ter applies
<PB N="137" REF="74">the Word wrong, binding where he &s;hould loo&s;e, and loo&s;ing where he &s;hould binde with the Key of Doctrine? No more doth that Mini&s;ter do his duty, who in the Lords Supper loo&s;es where he &s;hould binde, and &s;eals comfort to him who is not a vi&s;ible Saint.</P>
<P>Whereas in the clo&s;e of <HI>pag.</HI> 46. he would make us believe <HI>there is not one tittle of Scripture to prove the Sacraments to he mans &s;eals,</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. He &s;peaks darkly and ambi|guou&s;ly, as if he would make us believe they were not mans &s;eales becau&s;e they are Gods &s;eales; by which Logick he might as well prove the Sabbath were not mans becau&s;e it is Gods, and the Go&s;pel were not mans becau&s;e it is Gods, yea that nothing were mans becau&s;e all things were Gods, as if humane propriety contradicted Divine Supremacy.</P>
<P N="2">2. If he mean the Sacraments are not mans &s;eals by in&s;titution, That is true, but nothing to his purpo&s;e. The broad &s;eal is not mine by in&s;titution, yet I may truly &s;ay the broad &s;eal is mine, when I have a patent or pardon &s;ealed by it.</P>
<P N="3">3. Doth not the finall cau&s;e give as true propriety as the efficient, nay u&s;ually
<PB N="138" REF="75">more? A &s;eal, a &s;uit, an hou&s;e, &amp;c. is more his for whom it is made, then his that makes it. God indeed hath a double propriety in the Sacrament, as made both by him and for him, namely to &s;eal his Covenant, &amp;c. but it being made for man al&s;o, man hath a true propriety in it, as he for whom either a &s;eal or a meal is made, hath in both. Its ridiculous therefore he would &s;eem at lea&s;t to a&s;&s;ert, The Sacraments are not mans &s;eals, and yet grant pag. 47. <HI>They are mans &s;eals in u&s;e.</HI> Doth he not know that a Sacra|ment
<HI>extra u&s;um</HI> hath no being, and &s;o is neither Gods &s;eal nor mans &s;eal? and that in u&s;e it is both Gods &s;eal and mans &s;eal, a &s;eal from God to man, and from man to God?</P>
<P>The Covenant indeed &s;tands &s;ealed by God to ail conditionally, <HI>but will that acquit the Church in delivering the &s;igns to all,</HI> as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> would have it <HI>pag.</HI> 47. Then why may not even Heathen or excom|municated per&s;ons receive, to whom the Covenant is offered and &s;ealed conditi|onally?</P>
<P>Again, <HI>That the tenour of the Go&s;pel is &s;ealed ab&s;olutely by the Sacrament, but not our intere&s;t in it,</HI> as he notes in the &s;ame
<PB N="139" REF="75">page, is true in the fir&s;t branch, but fal&s;e in the &s;econd, &s;ince not onely the tenour of the Covenant is &s;ealed ab&s;olutely to the worthy Receiver, but al&s;o his intere&s;t in it. 2. To tho&s;e who are vi&s;ibly worthy, the Mini&s;ter &s;eals their vi&s;ible intere&s;t; which vi&s;ible intere&s;t, becau&s;e &s;ome in the Church have not, therefore the Mi|ni&s;ter cannot &s;eal it to them by giving them the Elements, but by con&s;ecration and application of the Sacrament to others before their eyes, doth &s;eal even to the &s;tanders by the tenour of the Go|&s;pel in the Lords Supper, as well as in Bapti&s;me. In both Sacraments the offer of grace is &s;ealed to all, yea even to Hea|then &amp;c. but reall intere&s;t is &s;ealed only to reall Saints and worthy Receivers, as vi&s;ible intere&s;t to vi&s;ible Saints.</P>
<P>Grant <HI>the Word &s;peaks not particularly of any mans &s;ingle intere&s;t by name&punc;</HI> yet it doth by &s;ignes, and who&s;oever findes tho&s;e &s;ignes in him&s;elf, hath as true an intere&s;t in the Covenant, as if he were mentioned in it by name. The Scripture faith not particularly of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> that he &s;hall ri&s;e at the day of judgement, yet I hope Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> doubts not of his re&s;urre|ction in particular: nor doth the Scrip|ture
<PB N="140" REF="76">&s;ay Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hall be &s;aved, yet if Mr. <HI>H.</HI> have &s;aving faith, it doth as particu|larly a&s;&s;ure him of &s;alvation, as if he were mentioned by name, &amp;c. Now the &s;eals run parallel with the Covenant, and a&s;&s;ure conditionall &s;alvation to all, vi&s;ible &s;alvation to vi&s;ible Saints, reall &s;alvation to reall Saints, to the fir&s;t by the outward admini&s;tration, to the &s;econd by vi&s;ible application, to the third by reall and &s;pi|rituall application.</P>
<P>Whereas therefore <HI>page</HI> 48. Mr. <HI>H.</HI> plea&s;eth him&s;elf with this Embryon of his own brain, which being formerly conceived by <HI>a piercing and godly man converted his opinion,</HI> as he &s;aies.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">And, if I mi&s;take not, this piercing godly man is far from Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his judgment of free admi&s;&s;i|on.</NOTE> <HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. I hope that godly per&s;on (if &s;o) was converted before Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Embryon was hatched. 2. I &s;ee little of conver&s;ion or piety in admitting all pell mell to the Sacrament. 3. I wi&s;h his con|version by entertainment of this opinion, be not like that of the <HI>Galatians.</HI> Its a common errour in the&s;e loo&s;e times, to mi&s;take perver&s;ion for conver&s;ion: Such conver&s;ion calls for repentance, which I wi&s;h to this godly man.</P>
<P>For further confirmation, <HI>pag.</HI> 48. he propounds the tenour of the Covenant
<PB N="141" REF="76">in a &s;yllogi&s;m, thus, <HI>He that believes &s;hall be &s;aved;</HI> adde,
<HI>I believe,</HI> Ergo, <HI>I &s;hall be &s;a|ved.</HI> Then he denies that the Sacrament &s;eals either the minor or the conclu&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The Sacrament &s;eals what the Covenant of grace promi&s;es, but the Covenant of grace promi&s;es (and not on|ly offers) &s;alvation to particular per&s;ons, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.9.
<HI>That if thou &s;halt confe&s;s,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>thou &s;halt be &s;aved.</HI> This is evident by the promi&s;e of &s;alvation to believers in gene|rall, <HI>Mark.</HI> 16.16. <HI>John</HI>
3.16. What is promi&s;ed to a whole kinde, is promi&s;ed to every particular of that kinde. Let Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> tell me how the Sacrament &s;eals the offer of grace to him in particular, and I will tell him how it may al&s;o &s;eal the promi&s;e of grace or &s;alvation to him or any el&s;e in particular. Where is it &s;aid in Scripture, I offer to thee <HI>John Hum|phrey</HI> Mini&s;ter of
<HI>Froome,</HI> &amp;c. grace and &s;alvation by Je&s;us Chri&s;t; will Mr. <HI>H.</HI> yet deny the offer of grace is made as particularly to him, as if he had been named in Scripture? Or where is it &s;aid, Thou <HI>John Humphrey</HI> &s;halt not commit adultery, &amp;c. yet doth not that command reach him as particularly as if he were named? He that &s;aies, <HI>Omnis homo e&s;t
<PB N="142" REF="77">animal rationale,</HI> doth he not as truly &s;ay that Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is
<HI>Animal rationale,</HI> as if he had mentioned him by name? In like manner, when the Scripture &s;aies, <HI>All that believe &s;hall be &s;aved,</HI> doth it not &s;ay, that Mr. <HI>H.</HI> believing &s;hall be &s;aved? If therefore Mr. <HI>H. de facto</HI> do believe, it promi&s;es &s;alvation as particularly to him as if he were mentioned by name; or that I believing &s;hall be &s;aved, as if my name were in the promi&s;e. Where the condition is performed, there the promi&s;e is ab&s;olute; but when I believe, the condition is performed, <HI>Ergo,</HI> the promi&s;e, That I &s;hall be &s;aved, is ab&s;olute. This premi&s;ed, I re&s;ume, What the Co|venant promi&s;eth, that the Sacrament &s;eals. The Covenant promi&s;es that I &s;hall be &s;aved in particular,
<HI>Ergo,</HI> the Sacra|ment &s;eals that I &s;hall be &s;aved in parti|cular: But this is the conclu&s;ion which Mr. <HI>H.</HI> denied to be &s;ealed by the Sacra|ment.</P>
<P>Next for the minor of his &s;yllogi&s;me namely, That <HI>I believe,</HI> I &s;hall prove again&s;t him, that this is al&s;o &s;ealed in the Sacrament, not to all Receivers, but to all worthy Receivers, thus, as formerly, What the Covenant en&s;ures, that the Sa|crament
<PB N="143" REF="77">&s;eals; the Covenant a&s;&s;ures me that I believe; <HI>Ergo,</HI> the Sacrament &s;eals to me that I believe. The minor, which onely is que&s;tionable, I prove thus: That which gives to me clear evidence that I believe, that a&s;&s;ures me I believe. The Covenant gives me clear evidence that I believe; <HI>Ergo.</HI> The minor is good, becau&s;e the Covenant affords infallible &s;ignes and evidences of faith in what heart &s;o|ever it is; and &s;o of faith in my heart particularly, or in any other heart what|&s;oever. As therefore by the properties of a man, I may know my &s;elf to be a man, &s;o by the properties of faith held forth in the Covenant, I may know my &s;elf to have faith. That Go&s;pel which &s;aies, He who receives Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s, &amp;c. believes, the &s;ame Go&s;pel &s;aies, That I receiving Chri&s;t for righteou&s;ne&s;s do be|lieve, and &s;o by con&s;equence it faith ab&s;olutely, that I believe. But what the Covenant affirms, that the Sacrament &s;eals or ratifies; namely, that I believe in particular. And this is the minor which Mr. <HI>H.</HI> denies to be &s;ealed by the Sacra|ment.</P>
<P>For clearer explication, con&s;ider that the minor or a&s;&s;umption of the Syllogi&s;m
<PB N="144" REF="78">of a&s;&s;urance depends partly upon faith, and partly upon &s;en&s;e or experience; upon faith, that the evidence is right <HI>in actu &s;ignato,</HI> and not a fal&s;e evidence; upon &s;en&s;e or experience, <HI>in actu exercito,</HI> that this right evidence is in me. For as a fal&s;e evidence in me, &s;o a right evidence without me, are both equally null and invalid as to a&s;&s;urance. For example, Would I know my faith is right, and thereby come to a&s;&s;urance that I am in the &s;tate of grace? I mu&s;t look into the Word by a direct act of my under&s;tand|ing for a true and undoubted evidence of faith, and into mine own heart by a reflex act, whether that true evidence of &s;aving faith be indeed in me. As in the Syllogi&s;me of a&s;&s;urance about my parti|cular re&s;urrection at the day of judge|ment, the major, That all men &s;hall ri&s;e, is in tearms in Scripture: the minor, That I <HI>John</HI> or <HI>Roger</HI> am a man, is not expre&s;ly in Scripture, but depends partly upon faith, as to the e&s;&s;entiall notes of a man recorded in Scripture, partly upon &s;en&s;e, I finding by a reflex act, that tho&s;e e&s;&s;en|tiall &s;ignes of humanity are in me; from both which the conclu&s;ion flows nece&s;&s;a|rily, that I in particular &s;hall ri&s;e at the
<PB N="145" REF="78">day of judgement. And indeed, had not a conclu&s;ion drawn partly from faith and partly from &s;en&s;e been firm, Chri&s;ts ap|paritions had not been a &s;olid argument to confirm the re&s;urrection, which yet he proves partly by Scripture out of <HI>Mo|&s;es,</HI> the Prophets and P&s;almes; partly by &s;en&s;e and experience, <HI>Luk.</HI> 24 39, 46. and though it be po&s;&s;ible in &s;ome ca&s;es &s;en&s;e may be deceived, yet a man in his right wits may ea&s;ily know that <HI>hic &amp; nunc</HI> &s;en&s;e is not deceived: And were not this true, no man could po&s;&s;ibly be convinced of his e&s;tate, or that he is a &s;inner, or that his life is frail and &s;hort, or that faith and repentance is his duty, or any other Divine truth that concerns him&s;elf in particular, &s;ince its no where &s;aid in Scripture, Thou <HI>Roger</HI> art a &s;inner, thy life in particular is frail and &s;hort, faith and repentance is thy duty; but all the&s;e in Scripture are expre&s;&s;ed onely in gene|rall tearms. Yet I hope its as true <HI>de fide</HI> that faith and repentance is my duty, as if the Scripture &s;hould &s;ay, Thou
<HI>Roger</HI> mu&s;t believe and repent, &amp;c. The major then in the Syllogi&s;me of a&s;&s;urance is in tearms <HI>de fide.</HI> The minor al&s;o (as to the truth of the evidence) is expre&s;ly <HI>de fide,</HI>
<PB N="146" REF="79">but as to the inbeing of the evidence, it depends upon &s;en&s;e and experience; the conclu&s;ion is <HI>de fide</HI> by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;e|quence, though not in expre&s;s tearms. Now what&s;oever is <HI>de fide,</HI> that is &s;ealed in the Sacrament; &s;o are all three Propo|&s;itions in the Syllogi&s;me (though the minor is partly of faith and partly of &s;en&s;e) therefore all three Propo&s;itions of the Syllogi&s;me of a&s;&s;urance are &s;ealed by the Sacrament; contrary to Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his A&s;&s;ertion. And &s;ince the minor in the Syllogi&s;me of a&s;&s;urance (namely, that I believe) is the conclu&s;ion in the pro&s;-Syllogi&s;me, it follows nece&s;&s;arily, that this Propo&s;ition (I believe) is <HI>de fide</HI> by con&s;equence, though not <HI>de fide</HI> in tearms.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> The Sacrament &s;uppo&s;eth a&s;|&s;urance, and therefore doth not work a&s;&s;urance; It &s;uppo&s;eth I believe and re|pent (which therefore mu&s;t be made out by previous examination) doth not evi|dence that I believe and repent, and therefore doth not &s;eal the <HI>minor</HI> or <HI>a&s;|&s;umption</HI> in the Syllogi&s;me of a&s;&s;urance.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. As the Sacrament works grace, &s;o it works a&s;&s;urance of grace, and as it is a means of grace, &s;o it is a
<PB N="147" REF="79">means of a&s;&s;urance. Now the Sacrament (as received) is not a means of initiall but of progre&s;&s;ive grace, doth not beget grace at fir&s;t by regeneration, but increa&s;e and &s;trengthen grace by nouri&s;hment and confirmation, partly by acting grace, and partly by holding forth, applying, and &s;ealing the promi&s;es of the Covenant to every worthy Receiver. What there|fore the Word doth audibly (in order to confirmation) that the Sacrament doth vi&s;ibly; what the Word applies generally, that the Sacrament applies particularly; what the Word applies by one &s;en&s;e, that the Sacrament applies by all our &s;en&s;es, and therefore mu&s;t needs be a more po|werfull means of a&s;&s;urance then the Word. The Word indeed is the in&s;tru|mentall cau&s;e of initiall grace, and ordi|narily of initiall a&s;&s;urance: but the Sa|crament may be &s;ometimes the means of initiall a&s;&s;urance, and ordinarily is the means and in&s;trument of progre&s;&s;ive a&s;|&s;urance. My meaning is, that who&s;oever comes to the Sacrament rightly prepared, having both truth of grace and the evi|dence of grace, this man or woman &s;hall go away from the Sacrament with more degrees of grace, and clearer evidence of
<PB N="148" REF="80">grace; and he or &s;he that comes to the Lords Supper with the worthine&s;s of per|&s;on, and of preparation, though haply he may want evidence, yet may go away from the Sacrament triumphing in the a&s;&s;urance of Gods love. He that comes to the Sacrament with the Prophets fear, <HI>I am undone,</HI> &amp;c. may go away from it with this a&s;&s;urance, <HI>Thine iniquity is taken away, and thy &s;in purged,</HI> I&s;a. 6.5, 7. As I at the Sacrament a&s;&s;ure God of my obe|dience, &s;o God at the Sacrament a&s;&s;ures me of his love; and if I be reall in my a&s;&s;urance as to uprightne&s;s, God is as reall in his a&s;&s;urance as to my comfort,
<HI>P&s;al.</HI> 18.25. God in an e&s;peciall manner in the Sacrament delights <HI>to &s;hew him&s;elf upright with the upright;</HI> and then if ever <HI>leads</HI> his Spou&s;e <HI>into the wine cellar</HI> or ban|quetting hou&s;e, and <HI>&s;preads his banner of love over her,</HI> Cant.
2.4. <HI>When &s;he is &s;ick of love, then he &s;taies her with flagons, and comforts her with apples; His left hand is under her head, and his right hand doth im|brace her.</HI> Then in an e&s;peciall manner <HI>he ki&s;&s;eth her with the ki&s;&s;es of his mouth,</HI> Cant. 1.1. and though <HI>Judas</HI> did, <HI>Je&s;us</HI> will never give a treacherous ki&s;s.</P>
<P>The major him&s;elf grants is &s;ealed in
<PB N="149" REF="80">the Sacrament, the minor and conclu&s;ion we have proved to be &s;ealed in the Sa|crament. Whereby it appears that the whole Syllogi&s;me of a&s;&s;urance is &s;ealed by the Sacrament to the worthy Recei|ver, but onely the major Propo&s;ition to per&s;ons really unworthy. Withall, here|by it is evident, that the Sacrament is not onely Gods &s;eal, but al&s;o the &s;eal of faith and of the beleever, whatever Mr. <HI>H.</HI> pretends to the contrary. And &s;o I pa&s;s to the fifth Objection, <HI>pag.</HI> 49.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> 5. The Covenant belongs not to all, therefore the Seals neither.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>H.</HI> an&s;wers, The Covenant belongs to all conditionally, <HI>according to the tenour of the Go&s;pel, that who&s;oever believes &s;hall be &s;aved.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> So the Sacrament belongs to all conditionally, but onely to worthy Re|ceivers ab&s;olutely. <HI>Pag.</HI> 50. he &s;aves me a labour, and an&s;wers him&s;elf in the&s;e words,
<HI>If you will re&s;olve to accept Chri&s;t as your Lord and Saviour, to for&s;ake &s;in,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>lo here is the &s;eal of God on his part,</HI> &amp;c. Here indeed he &s;hews, That as the Co|venant, &s;o the Sacrament belongs to all conditionally. But what if mo&s;t do not, will not accept of Chri&s;t, &amp;c. (which is
<PB N="150" REF="81"><HI>de facto</HI> the ca&s;e of gro&s;ly ignorant and profane per&s;ons) will Mr. <HI>H.</HI> invite the&s;e al&s;o to receive the Seals together with the former?</P>
<P>Hear him in his own words, pag. 51. <HI>To &s;peak &s;incerely, if we &s;hould propo&s;e two men, one that is not in Covenant with Chri&s;t, and one that is, this Sacrament doth more ingenuou&s;ly belong unto the fir&s;t, &amp;c.</HI> If this be not a rare and new Light, I know not what is. Now you have the man painted by him&s;elf in his own colours. Come ye drunkards, whorema&s;ters, mur|derers, and all the rabble of hell, here is &s;incere and comfortable Doctrine for you indeed, The Sacrament doth more inge|nuou&s;ly belong to you then to any that are in covenant with Chri&s;t. I but Mr. <HI>H.</HI> means this, <HI>in ca&s;e they now re&s;olve to enter into Covenant with Chri&s;t, ibid.</HI> Ab&s;urd, and a contradiction <HI>in adjecto,</HI> as if he who in truth re&s;olves to enter into Cove|nant with Chri&s;t, were not at that very in&s;tant in covenant with Chri&s;t. He would &s;ay, if he could hit it, The Sacrament belongs more properly to weak then to &s;trong beleevers: but by an ill glo&s;s he corrupts the Text, and in&s;tead of a weak beleever renders one out of Covenant,
<PB N="151" REF="81">and for a &s;trong beleever, one in Cove|nant. We grant, the duty of the Covenant belongs to all, but not the promi&s;e of the Covenant till its duty be performed. In like manner, preparation belongs to all, but not actuall receiving till that duty be performed. All are not bid to eat ab&s;o|lutely, but &s;o to eat, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.28.</P>
<P>In the &s;ame page by di&s;tingui&s;hing the Covenant from its benefit, he &s;eems to make a di&s;tinction without a difference, as if the benefit of the Covenant were not an e&s;&s;entiall part of the Covenant. Haply by Covenant he means the duty or condi|tion of the Covenant which indeed is of <HI>epidemical concernment:</HI> yet becau&s;e in the &s;ame place he &s;peaks of a free tender and offer; that cro&s;&s;es this con&s;truction, and &s;eems to carry it, that by Covenant there, mu&s;t be meant the benefit of the Cove|nant which is tendred conditionally to all; but then what &s;en&s;e can be made of his di&s;tinction, The benefit of the Covenant belongs not to any out of Chri&s;t, but the Covenant it &s;elf belongs to all, that is, the benefit of the Covenant (as his &s;en&s;e car|ries it) belongs to all? Is not here a con|tradiction <HI>in terminis? The benefit of the Covenant belongs not to any out of Chri&s;t,
<PB N="152" REF="82">yet the benefit of the Covenant belongs to all.</HI> If it belongs to
<HI>all,</HI> how doth it not be|long to any out of Chri&s;t? <HI>contr&agrave;,</HI> if it be|longs to none out of Chri&s;t, how doth it belong to <HI>all?</HI> But no wonder he falls into &s;elf-contradiction, who will venture to contradict the truth.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Rep.</HI> He would &s;ay Sacra|ment.</NOTE>But what right doth this give him to the <HI>Covenant?</HI> Pag. 52. M. <HI>H. di&s;tingui|&s;heth of a right of Obligation and a right of Priviledge; and as to the former he there avouches an &V;niver&s;all right to every Or|dinance, they being duties of wor&s;hip which is of univer&s;all command: for proof he quotes,</HI> I&s;a. 66.23.</P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> If all be bound to come without ex|ception, then why doth him&s;elf exclude children and di&s;tracted per&s;ons?</P>
<P>Secondly, All Chri&s;tians have a me|diate, but only prepared Chri&s;tians an im|mediate right to the Sacrament, as all <HI>I&s;|rael</HI> had a mediate, but only purified per|&s;ons an immediate right to the Pa&s;&s;eover, <HI>Numb.</HI> 9.10.</P>
<P>Thirdly, All are obliged to every part of wor&s;hip, but 1. Not at all times, &s;ince affirmative precepts binde not <HI>ad &s;emper.</HI> 2. Not in all ca&s;es, as an unconverted per|&s;on is not bound to prai&s;e God for his
<PB N="153" REF="82">conver&s;ion, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which he hath not.</P>
<P>To apply the di&s;tinction: The time of every Sacrament is not a fit &s;ea&s;on for every per&s;on, whether it be by his own default, or by divine providence. 2. In ca&s;e of pre&s;ent incapacity, receiving, though an act of wor&s;hip, is not &s;infully omitted unle&s;&s;e that omi&s;&s;ion be joyned with con|tempt of the Ordinance. His quotation is rather a prediction then a command; and &s;uppo&s;ing it be both, yet it mu&s;t be under&s;tood with the forementioned limi|tations.</P>
<P>Fourthly, In a &s;trict &s;en&s;e, Actual recei|ving is not an act of wor&s;hip, no more then preaching, con&s;ecrating and di&s;tri|buting the Elements is. And if it be not properly an act of wor&s;hip, then his argu|ment falls of it &s;elf: or if it be in a large &s;en&s;e (as the other acts forementioned) yet by them its apparent that all per&s;ons are not obliged to all acts of wor&s;hip, &s;ince only Mini&s;ters may preach, baptize, con&s;ecrate and give the Elements, which yet in &s;ome re&s;pect are acts of wor&s;hip.</P>
<P>What he adds in the &s;ame Paragraph about a poor &s;ouls doubting of his right to the Sacrament, yet re&s;olved to give up him&s;elf to Chri&s;t, makes little for his pur|po&s;e:
<PB N="154" REF="83">the Que&s;tion is, Whether any not re&s;olving to give up him&s;elf to Chri&s;t, ought to receive; and whether upon his vi&s;ible refu&s;all to give up him&s;elf to Chri&s;t, the Mini&s;ter is bound to give unto him the &s;ymbole of Chri&s;t?</P>
<P><MILESTONE N="6" UNIT="Object."> The Sacrament is not a converting, but a confirming Ordinance.
<HI>Ergo.</HI></P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> This indeed is one of our grand argu|ments again&s;t free admi&s;&s;ion, and if it be not Cannon-proof our cau&s;e mu&s;t needs be in a great deal of hazard; it concerns us therefore to make it good again&s;t all M. <HI>H.</HI> his battery.</P>
<P>Now for overthrow of this Argument, he pretends <HI>that our Divines look at Bap|ti&s;me as converting, the Lords Supper as edifying,</HI> pag. 53. The former he willingly a&s;&s;ents to,
<HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The Que&s;tion is not what &s;ome Divines hold, but what they &s;hould hold. For our parts, we beleeve no Sacrament, under|&s;tand it as received, is a means of Regene|ration, but only of confirmation and edi|fication: and &s;uppo&s;ing Bapti&s;me be cal|led the Laver of Regeneration,
<HI>Titus</HI> 3.5. which yet the place proves not; its only &s;o by way of &s;ignification and ob&s;igna|tion, not by way of cau&s;ality. In regene|ration
<PB N="155" REF="83">and conver&s;ion the Word is writ in our hearts, but can any man either Scrip|turally or rationally, make the &s;eal the cau&s;e of the writing? Is it not evident that Bapti&s;me doth not cau&s;e but pre&s;uppo&s;e conver&s;ion? <HI>Acts</HI> 2.42. yea and profe&s;&s;ion too <HI>in adult is,</HI> Acts 8.37. and is called by Divines the Seal of Initiation, not as it initiates us into a &s;tate of &s;aving grace, but into the body of the vi&s;ible Church, and as it may &s;eal the truth and benefit of Re|generation to per&s;ons converted, but not work Regeneration where it is wanting. Pa&s;&s;ing therefore his flouri&s;h of denomi|nation <HI>&agrave; parte eminentiori,</HI> let us &s;ee how he proves the Sacrament to be conver|ting.</P>
<P>His main Argument is,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 55.</NOTE> <HI>Becau&s;e the Sa|crament is a vi&s;ible word holding forth Chri&s;t and the Covenant to the &s;ight, as the Go&s;pel doth to the hearing. And</HI> pag. 56. <HI>The Sacrament &s;hews forth Chri&s;ts death,</HI> 1 Cor. 11.20.
<HI>Therefore as it doth &s;o, it is undoubtedly converting.</HI></P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Doth not M. <HI>H.</HI> know, that at the Sa|crament there is a mixture of &s;everall Or|dinances, as prayer, preaching or opening the words of in&s;titution,
<HI>amp;c.</HI> And that tho&s;e may be effectuall means of conver|&s;ion
<PB N="156" REF="84">we deny not; upon which account we judge it fitting, that whoever will may be pre&s;ent at the Lords Supper as well as at Bapti&s;me. But the great Que&s;tion is, Whether actuall receiving be a conver|ting Ordinance? And here we challenge the challenger, to give any one in&s;tance of a per&s;on converted by receiving the Lords Supper; or to make proof that the act of receiving doth convert. The Sacrament indeed is food to nouri&s;h, but where is it called an immortall &s;eed to beget any to Chri&s;t?</P>
<P>For his glo&s;&s;e <HI>page</HI> 56. <HI>There is in the Sacrament a Take for conver&s;ion, and an Eat for nouri&s;hment,</HI> It is <HI>gratis dictum,</HI> and would make again&s;t the conver&s;ion of the Apo&s;tles who were commanded to take as well as to eat, yet I hope they were not in an unconverted condition. 2. Ta|king and eating do both imply and call for acts of faith, but the act of faith mu&s;t needs pre&s;uppo&s;e the habit of faith, and &s;o conver&s;ion; He that &s;ayes, Take, eat, &s;up|po&s;es a man hath an hand to receive and a mouth to feed on, which no uncoverted per&s;on hath.</P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="Object."> Why may not the command of taking Chri&s;t in the Sacrament be an in&s;trument
<PB N="157" REF="84">of Conver&s;ion, as well as the &s;ame com|mand is in the word preached,
<HI>Acts</HI> 16.31?</P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Becau&s;e we have neither promi&s;e nor pre&s;ident of ble&s;&s;ing the command of <HI>ta|king</HI> in the Sacrament, as we have of ble&s;|&s;ing the word preached, in order to con|ver&s;ion. The Word is both &s;eed and food, not &s;o the Sacrament, which indeed may be food or phy&s;ick, but not a &s;eed of re|generation, nor is any where &s;o called in Scripture: And to attribute that to an Or|dinance which God hath not put in it, or to expect that from an Ordinance which God hath not promi&s;ed to it, is will wor|&s;hip, an humane invention, and a breach of the &s;econd Commandment.</P>
<P>I dare appeal to M. <HI>Humphry</HI> his con&s;ci|ence upon this account. Suppo&s;e an un|converted per&s;on comes to the Sacrament in his pride and pre&s;umption, &s;touts it &s;till again&s;t Chri&s;t laid before him as crucified in and before the con&s;ecration of the Ele|ments by the Mini&s;ters explication and ex|hortation, what evidence doth the Scri|pture give that this man &s;hall be conver|ted by that one word <HI>Take,</HI> uttered by the Mini&s;ter at the delivery of the Elements? I doubt not of Gods power, but we mu&s;t
<PB N="158" REF="85">look to his revealed will. The Papi&s;ts &s;ay, <HI>Hoc e&s;t corpus meum</HI> converts the Ele|ments; M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;ayes <HI>Accipite</HI> converts the re|ceiver: we de&s;ire a clear proof of both be|fore we can give credit to either. But &s;up|po&s;e the word
<HI>Take</HI> as a &s;hort and virtual Sermon might convert, yet what thinks he of that per&s;on who &s;tands out again&s;t that word al&s;o, can he be converted by a|ctuall receiving? Then that rule of the A|po&s;tle, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.29. cannot be univer&s;ally true, <HI>He that cats unworthily eats judgement to him&s;elf,</HI> &amp;c. for he that is converted by actuall receiving doth not eat judgement but mercy. 2. Suppo&s;e a man &s;hould be converted by that &s;hort exhortation, <HI>take,</HI> &s;ince that may be done by pre&s;ence at the Sacrament without actuall receiving, how will it follow that all mu&s;t receive becau&s;e &s;ome may be converted by the exhorta|tion to receive; any more then that all mu&s;t be a&s;&s;ured of their &s;alvation, becau&s;e &s;ome are comforted by the exhortation to a&s;&s;urance, which is not immediatly the du|ty, nor at all the priviledge of unconver|ted per&s;ons <HI>in &s;tatu quo.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 66. For further proof, <HI>He &s;uppo&s;es a morall unregenerate man doth his be&s;t to prepare him&s;elf:</HI> thence he infers, <HI>Do
<PB N="159" REF="85">we think now, to &s;uch a man the Ordinance is nece&s;&s;arily fruitle&s;&s;e,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>then God help us. Shall not his examination, prayers,</HI> &amp;c.
<HI>con|duce more to convert him then the bare preaching of a Sermon, e&s;pecially con&s;idering the Word doth but precede and is a part of the Sacrament,</HI> Accedit verbum ad Ele|mentum,
<HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. No naturall man ever doth his be&s;t to prepare him&s;elf. 2. Notwith&s;tan|ding all his preparatory acts he hath &s;till the unworthine&s;&s;e of per&s;on, he coming (as is &s;uppo&s;ed) unconverted to the Sacra|ment. 3. Therefore he comes to the fea&s;t without the wedding garment, and whe|ther conver&s;ion or confu&s;ion be the por|tion of &s;uch a gue&s;t let the text judge, &s;up|po&s;ing (as M. <HI>H.</HI> would have it) the mar|riage fea&s;t be the Lords Supper. We be|lieve no Ordinance is the fea&s;t, but rather the di&s;h wherein the fea&s;t is &s;erved. 4. I wonder M. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hould attribute more to a few dead acts of a naturall man, then to the Word preached which is the great Ordinance &s;et apart for the conver&s;ion of &s;ouls, <HI>Acts</HI> 26.16, 18. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.14, 17. as if he de&s;igned to advance nature and free|will above grace. 5. Becau&s;e he adds, <HI>I but the word accompanies the Sacrament,</HI> what
<PB N="150" REF="86">followes thence but that any one may be pre&s;ent to hear and &s;ee, but only worthy communicants are to receive? and unle&s;&s;e he can make out that actuall receiving of the Elements is a converting Ordinance,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Actuall receiving is neither a word, nor an act of God, but meerly an act of the crea|ture, and an out|ward act too, and therefore hath not a co~verting power in it.</NOTE> all he pleads from the antecedaneous acts will not conclude his free admi&s;&s;ion, &s;ince the fruit of the vi&s;ible and audible word, or of Chri&s;ts death declared may be at|tained by pre&s;ence at the Sacrament though a per&s;on do not actually receive. I would not here be mi&s;taken as if I plea|ded for a Sacrament without receivers, which is a contradiction
<HI>in adjecto,</HI> but I &s;ee no warrant in the word why the whole Congregation &s;hould not &s;tay at the ad|mini&s;tration of the Lords Supper (and that with much profit) as well as at the admi|ni&s;tration of Bapti&s;m, though all do not partake: nor can I look at their ancient <HI>Ite, mi&s;&s;a e&s;t,</HI> as a divine precept, but as an hu|mane tradition.</P>
<P>For his in&s;tance <HI>pag.</HI> 57. <HI>Of a poor hum|bled &s;oul hoping to meet Chri&s;t at the Sacra|ment,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer: 1. If his humiliation and hope be right, he is a worthy receiver and already converted, and &s;o not a fit in|&s;tance or <HI>medium</HI> to prove M. <HI>H.</HI> his con|clu&s;ion.
<PB N="161" REF="86">If his hope and humiliation be not right, then he is in the condition of the former, and by his hypocri&s;ie drawes fur|ther guilt upon him&s;elf.</P>
<P N="2">2. This poor &s;oul if rightly humbled, hungers after Chri&s;t, rouls upon him and adheres to him, which are proper acts of &s;aving and ju&s;tifying faith, though he can|not ri&s;e up to faith of evidence; nor can any man avoid de&s;pair unle&s;&s;e he lean up|on Chri&s;t or &s;omewhat el&s;e. All which clearly prove this per&s;on to be converted, and that therfore the Sacrament is to him only a means of edification and comfort.</P>
<P>His third in&s;tance <HI>pag.</HI> 58. of the Di&s;ci|ples of <HI>Emaus,</HI> is to as little purpo&s;e as the two former; unle&s;&s;e he can prove 1. That then they were in the &s;tate of nature. 2. That that breaking of bread was the Sa|crament, <HI>Luk.</HI> 24.30. 3. That they were converted by that breaking of bread: Di|ctates &s;o ab&s;urd, that the very naming of them may be a &s;ufficient confutation.</P>
<P>Although a man may be converted <HI>at,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rep. Pag. <HI>58.</HI></NOTE> it is not <HI>by</HI> the Sacrament, it is occa&s;ional|ly, but not intentionally a converting Or|dinance.</P>
<P>Here (before I proceed any further) I mu&s;t tell M. <HI>H.</HI> he frames an Objection
<PB N="162" REF="87">for us very unhand&s;omely. A converting Ordinance occa&s;ionally, not intentional|ly, little better then a contradiction, the very notion of an Ordinance implying di|vine ordination or appointment of any thing by his revealed will as a means of conver&s;ion, edification, comfort and be|nefit to the creature; and how this can be properly called a not intentionally con|verting Ordinance, is to me a paradox. Let him prove actuall receiving to be a converting Ordinance, and we &s;hall not doubt but it is &s;o intentionally.</P>
<P>To the Reply M. <HI>H.</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>That it being granted, the matter is upon the point yeelded, partly becau&s;e none are expre&s;ly for|bidden to come, and partly becau&s;e all occa|&s;ions mu&s;t be taken for our &s;alvation.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. The cau&s;e is not yeelded un|le&s;&s;e it be proved, that actuall receiving is a converting Ordinance, &s;ince the end of conver&s;ion may be attained by pre&s;ence at the Sacrament without receiving, but the danger of eating and drinking unwor|thily cannot be incurred without recei|ving, 1. <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.27, 29. which yet hath no influence in order to conver&s;ion. By pre|&s;ence much benefit may be gained with|out danger of unworthy receiving, by re|ceiving
<PB N="163" REF="87">much guilt may be contracted without hopes of benefit to the unconver|ted.</P>
<P>Secondly, If receiving be a converting Ordinance, how dares M. <HI>H.</HI> exclude either Children, di&s;tracted or excommunicated per&s;ons from it, e&s;pecially &s;ince the&s;e have mo&s;t need of it, and tho&s;e are be&s;t taught by &s;en&s;e who have not &s;o free an exerci&s;e of rea&s;on? Yea why &s;hould Heathen be de|nied the Lords Supper more then the word preached, if it be a converting Or|dinance? Are not they al&s;o bound to u&s;e all means and take all occa&s;ions of con|ver&s;ion, to u&s;e M. <HI>H.</HI> his own words?</P>
<P>But if all hath been &s;aid will not take with us, M. <HI>H.</HI> at la&s;t hath found out a way, <HI>wholly to root out this &s;ubtilty which he thinks the &s;pirit of errour hath in&s;inuated into the hearts of many godly men, by three things he hath more to &s;ay,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> By the way ob&s;erve this mans pre&s;umption and cen&s;oriou&s;ne&s;&s;e; 1. In charging &s;o many godly per&s;ons to be a|cted with a &s;pirit of errour in this parti|cular. 2. In his confident undertaking wholly to root it out by what he hath to &s;ay, which though mountains in his own conceit, yet when they come to be &s;can|ned,
<PB N="164" REF="88">we hope by Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance to make appear they &s;carce de&s;erve the name of molehills; and with a &s;ling and &s;tone of Gods making, fear not to incounter with this great and vaunting <HI>Goliah,</HI> who by big words bids defiance to the whole hoa&s;t of Gods
<HI>I&s;rael.</HI></P>
<P>His fir&s;t grand Argument <HI>pag.</HI> 59. is this, <HI>That the Sacraments and all Ordinan|ces are primarily and properly means of grace; and but in a remote &s;en&s;e means of conver&s;ion or confirmation: for this grace we receive in the u&s;e of them, converts &s;ome and &s;trengthens others: and this grace received in the Sacrament, works in the unregenerate for their conver&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Is not here prime &s;tuff worthy of a <HI>Doctor in Cathedr&acirc;?</HI> but to an&s;wer di|&s;tinctly. I mu&s;t fir&s;t premi&s;e that here he &s;peaks not of relative but ab&s;olute, not of externall but internall or inherent grace, for otherwi&s;e the Ordinances are means of ju&s;tification and adoption as well as of holine&s;&s;e, of which la&s;t yet he mu&s;t be under&s;tood. This premi&s;ed, I an|&s;wer, 1. That if the Ordinances be prima|rily means of grace, they mu&s;t needs be primarily means of conver&s;ion and confir|mation, &s;ince primary conver&s;ion is no|thing
<PB N="165" REF="88">el&s;e but grace at fir&s;t infu&s;ed, and primary confirmation is degrees of the &s;ame grace &s;uperadded.</P>
<P>For further cleering whereof, and that all the world may &s;ee how M. <HI>H.</HI> in&s;tead of informing would blinde and baffle the in|cautelous or injudicious Reader, we mu&s;t under&s;tand there is a two-fold conver&s;ion; one primary, when God converts and changes the heart by creating grace there|in, and &s;o making it a new and &s;oft heart, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 36.26. turning the Wolf into a Lamb, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> The other &s;econdary, when by vertue of grace inherent, a&s;&s;i&s;ted by grace externall, we turn our &s;elves from &s;in to God, <HI>Ezek.</HI> 18.31,
32. Now &s;ince there is no inherent grace, but its formally, and not only efficiently converting or confir|ming, its impo&s;&s;ible initiall grace &s;hould be wrought but conver&s;ion (which is a change of principles) mu&s;t needs be wrought immediatly al&s;o: and its as im|po&s;&s;ible degrees of grace &s;hould be &s;uper|added, but thereby formally confirmation mu&s;t be wrought. Is not the change from death to life greater then from a principle of life to an act of life? Now the fir&s;t infu|&s;ion of grace is a change from death to life, and is &s;olely Gods act wherein the
<PB N="166" REF="89">creature is meerly pa&s;&s;ive, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4.6. as the dark Chaos was to the light, <HI>Gen.</HI> 1.2, 3. And this is Gods converting of us, or habituall conver&s;ion. Our converting of our &s;elves (which is M. <HI>Humphry</HI> his &s;ole conver&s;ion) is nothing but a reflecting of the beam upon the Sonne of righteou&s;|ne&s;&s;e, and in a manner nothing to the for|mer work of divine conver&s;ion; this we call actuall conver&s;ion; as habituall &s;anctifica|tion is called <GAP DESC="foreign">, actuall &s;anctifica|tion <GAP DESC="foreign">. His a&s;&s;ertion then is fal&s;e, That the Ordinances are remotely means of conver&s;ion, for if the Ordinances be primarily means of converting grace, they mu&s;t needs be primarily means of conver|&s;ion, &s;ince grace infu&s;ed is primary con|ver&s;ion, but grace acting is &s;econdary con|ver&s;ion. The &s;ame I might &s;ay of confir|mation al&s;o in proportion.</P>
<P>Secondly, It cannot be proved, that a|ctuall receiving is either primarily or &s;e|condarily a means of converting grace; and therefore will certainly prejudice, but cannot benefit an unconverted per&s;on.</P>
<P>Thirdly, How ab&s;urd is the la&s;t clau&s;e? <HI>This grace received in the Sacrament, works in the unregenerate for their conver&s;ion.</HI> For 1. How is he unregenerate who hath re|ceived
<PB N="167" REF="89">grace which formally regene|rates him? 2. How can a man be regene|rate, and yet at the &s;ame in&s;tant uncon|verted? yet if Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his Doctrine be true, this will follow, &s;ince a man is regenerated by the habits of grace in|fu&s;ed, which not only in order of nature, but al&s;o in order of time, may precede the acts of grace (it being not nece&s;&s;ary, that grace pre&s;ent &s;hould act immediate|ly or at all times.) Now &s;ince Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> his conver&s;ion is nothing but the acting of grace, and the habit of grace infu&s;ed may in time precede the act, and there is no conver&s;ion before the act of grace, doth it not hence nece&s;&s;arily follow; that a man may be regenerated, and yet at the &s;ame in&s;tant of time unconverted, that is at the &s;ame time in a &s;tate of nature, as unconverted, and yet in a &s;tate of grace as regenerated? But how ab&s;urd and di&s;|&s;onant is this to true Divinity?</P>
<P>His &s;econd grand Argument is drawn from a di&s;tinction of conver&s;ion, which he makes double, 1. <HI>Outward from Heathen|i&s;m to the profe&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;tianity; He will not &s;ay the Sacrament is &s;uch a convert|ing Ordinance.</HI> 2. <HI>An effectuall conver&s;ion from profe&s;&s;ion to the truth of grace; and
<PB N="168" REF="90">thus the Sacrament as a vi&s;ible Word doth convert in&s;trumentally as well as the Word preached, the Spirit being the principall cau&s;e of conver&s;ion in both Ordinances, &amp;c.</HI> And in the clo&s;e of pag. 60. <HI>he appeals to experience for the converting power of the Sacrament.</HI> This is the &s;ub&s;tance of that Paragraph.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Its &s;ooner &s;aid then proved, that the Sacrament hath converted any, 2. Though it &s;hould be granted, that &s;ome parts of it did convert, what is M. <HI>H.</HI> his cau&s;e the better, unle&s;s he prove that actuall receiving doth convert? 3. That the Sacrament &s;hould convert onely to truth of grace, and yet not con|vert to outward profe&s;&s;ion, is as ab&s;urd, as that the Word preached &s;hould con|vert only to outward profe&s;&s;ion, and not to truth of grace. Let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> &s;hew me one Scripture, 1. Why Heathen may not be pre&s;ent at the Sacrament as well as at the Word preached. 2. Why the vi&s;ible Word may not convert to the form, as well as to the power of godline&s;s, why it &s;hould do the greater and not the le&s;&s;er. We expect not dictates but proof and Ar|gument to convince us of this new Light.</P>
<P>In the third place <HI>he de&s;cants, though
<PB N="169" REF="90">to little purpo&s;e, about the Sacraments con|verting not intentionally, but occa&s;ional|ly,</HI> &amp;c. To which we briefly an&s;wer, That whatever other parts of the Sacrament may do, yet actuall receiving converts neither occa&s;ionally nor intentionally, and therefore unconverted per&s;ons ought not to receive, becau&s;e this Sacramen|tall action cannot benefit but prejudice them.</P>
<P><HI>Rep.</HI> Unregenerate men are dead in &s;in, and bread mu&s;t not be given to dead men, &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>This Mr.</HI> H. <HI>makes to he a fancy.</HI> 2. <HI>Op|po&s;es, that if any bread could recover life, that bread might be given to a dead man, and &s;uch is the bread in the Sacrament, &amp;c.</HI> 3. <HI>That if we may give</HI> Aqua vitae <HI>to dying men, then we may give</HI> Calix vitae <HI>to dead Chri&s;tians, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Its no wonder if &s;trong fan|cies metamorphize what they plea&s;e into a fancy.</P>
<P N="2">2. Sacramentall receiving in the Lords Supper notes a vitall act, which a dead man cannot put forth; and be the bread never &s;o quickning (upon Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his &s;uppo&s;ition) if a dead man cannot receive it, it will not quicken him; as the be&s;t
<PB N="170" REF="91">Phy&s;ick will not cure, if a living man will not, or cannot receive it. Taking and eating in the Sacrament note (not a pa&s;|&s;ive, but) an active receiving, and there|fore do not beget, but pre&s;uppo&s;e life; which life, grant it may be wrought by other Sacramentall actions, proves only, that pre&s;ence, not participation is requi|&s;ite.</P>
<P N="3">3. His <HI>Simile</HI> is very lame; nor doth it follow, that becau&s;e we may give
<HI>A|qua vitae</HI> to a dying man, therefore we may give <HI>Calix vitae</HI> to a dead man, &s;ince a dying man hath life to be pre&s;erved, not &s;o a dead man.</P>
<P>In the clo&s;e of his Reply, in his third Edition he adds three pages by way of explication,
<HI>pag.</HI> 69. which I mu&s;t take a little pains to &s;can and &s;ift.</P>
<P>And 1. <HI>He makes confirmation of the Covenant a primary end, confirmation of our faith a &s;ecuodary end of the Lords Supper.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I wi&s;h Mr. <HI>H.</HI> did not &s;hew him&s;elf as little skill'd in Morality as in Logick. Let him tell me &s;eriou&s;ly (for no doubt, being Mai&s;ter of Arts, he hath &s;pent &s;ome time at the Univer&s;ity in Eth|icks as well as in Logick) Is not the
<PB N="171" REF="91">principall or la&s;t End the primary End? and &s;ubordinate Ends are not they &s;e|condary Ends? If &s;o, then the next que&s;tion will be, Whether the confirma|tion of the Covenant be not &s;ubordinate to the confirmation of our faith? In plain tearms, Whether Gods end in confirming the Covenant by the Sacrament as a Seal, be not to confirm the faith of the wor|thy Receiver? If &s;o, then the confirma|tion of the Covenant hath the notion of a means in order to the confirmation of faith as an End. Now let Mr. <HI>H.</HI> him|&s;elf judge whether confirmation of faith be not a primary End, and confirmation of the Covenant a &s;econdary End, quite contrary to his former A&s;&s;ertion?</P>
<P>In his following words he would very fain (by compliance and &s;ome conce&s;&s;i|ons) court us into his own opinion, that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance though but eventually;
<HI>Which,</HI> &s;aies he, pag.71. <HI>Will &s;erve to blunt the &s;trength of the Objection.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> He mu&s;t pardon us if we can|not grant him that, till he can bring us better ground from Scripture and rea&s;on then yet we can &s;ee. 2. Grant the pre|vious actions of prayer, explication, and
<PB N="172" REF="92">exhortation, may be converting (upon which we yeeld an univer&s;all pre&s;ence at the whole Ordinance) yet unle&s;s Mr. <HI>H.</HI> can prove, that actuall receiving doth convert, our Argument (drawn from the <HI>non</HI>-converting power of the Sacra|ment) is not blunted.</P>
<P N="2">2, Whereas in the &s;ame Page he adds, <HI>When I &s;ay its a means of converting &s;ome, I take it in its full admini&s;tration, requi|ring duties before, in, and after receiving.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An.</HI> Then belike conversion depends more upon our preparation, celebration, and after carriages, then upon the Sacra|ment as an In&s;trument. Here is a plain faulter; for a converting Ordinance (when God plea&s;es) will convert, come the &s;ubject never &s;o unprepared, yea with never &s;o malicious an heart: And though preparation be nece&s;&s;ary for all,
<HI>nece&s;&s;i|tate praecepti,</HI> yet it is not nece&s;&s;ary for conver&s;ion to any,
<HI>nece&s;&s;itate medii,</HI> wit|ne&s;s divers who when they came malici|ou&s;ly to catch the Mini&s;ter, have them|&s;elves been caught and converted.</P>
<P>Its more ab&s;urd which he adds, <HI>That the Sacrament is a means of conver&s;ion, by the help of after duty.</HI> For be&s;ides that, hence its apparent, this Receiver was not
<PB N="173" REF="92">converted at the Sacrament, and &s;o did but eat and drink judgement to him&s;elf. Will it not by this rule follow, that even unworthy receiving it &s;elf, is a means of conver&s;ion, &s;ince by after duty a man may be brought to a &s;ight of his great &s;in, and thereby may be humbled and converted? May not any &s;in by this Do|ctrine be a means of conver&s;ion, or (in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his phra&s;e) a converting Ordi|nance, &s;ince by after carriage a man may be brought to a &s;ight and &s;en&s;e of his &s;in, and &s;o converted? We &s;ay, unworthy receiving, and &s;o other &s;ins may be occa|&s;ions, but net means of conver&s;ion. God can make an antidote of poy&s;on, but he is mad who upon that account will ven|ture to drink poy&s;on.</P>
<P>In the &s;ame Page he adds, <HI>Then I hold that we who are baptized into the Church, and are bred up to a generall faith (&s;uch as it is) not without its fruits; and &s;o have a right unto the Ordinance, coming as pre|paredly as we can, and bewayling our un|preparedne&s;s, may finde grace in the &s;ight of God, even to the be&s;towing of a &s;peciall ju&s;tifying faith for our inward effectuall conver&s;ion in the u&s;e of it. The main har|ve&s;t in this field of</HI> Boaz
<HI>belongs to his own
<PB N="174" REF="93">reapers, yet I would afford &s;ome gleanings for poor</HI> Ruth <HI>the</HI> Moabite&s;s, <HI>and &s;uffer many a doubtfull, penitently inclined, yet unregenerate &s;oul, to come up even to the &s;heaves, hoping my fellow labourers will not grudge at it, though I have let fall &s;ome handfulls too on purpo&s;e for them.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Its a novell expre&s;&s;ion to &s;ay we are baptized into the Church; we reade of baptizing into Chri&s;t, but not in Scripture of baptizing into the Church; is it not as ab&s;urd, <HI>Baptizari in Eccle&s;iam,</HI> as <HI>Credere in Eccle&s;iam?</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. How many are not &s;o much as bred up to a generall faith, but are as ignorant as the very <HI>Indians,</HI> that never heard of Chri&s;t?</P>
<P N="3">3. What fruits have many bred up to a generall faith, unle&s;s it be open pro|fane&s;s, &s;coffing at Religion and Duties both publick and private: Shall not the&s;e (again&s;t his generall A&s;&s;ertion) be exclu|ded by Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> his own pre&s;ent verdict?</P>
<P N="4">4. What naturall man ever did his ut|mo&s;t to come preparedly? and therefore by Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> his own principle held forth to this Paragraph, 1. Ought not to receive. And 2. Cannot be converted by recei|ving.
<PB N="175" REF="93">3. His allu&s;ion to the ca&s;e of <HI>Ruth,</HI> is 1. Ab&s;urd. 2. Impertinent. Ab&s;urd, in that he &s;aies, <HI>The main harve&s;t in this field of</HI> Boaz
<HI>belongs to his own reapers.</HI> This in the Letter is fal&s;e, &s;ince the har|ve&s;t belonged not to the reapers, but to <HI>Boaz</HI> him&s;elf; it belonged no more to the reapers, then to the oxen or a&s;&s;es that carried it away to <HI>Boaz</HI> his barn, nay haply not &s;o much. 2. Its imperti|nent, as mi&s;applied, he comparing unre|generate per&s;ons to <HI>Ruth</HI> the
<HI>Moabite&s;s,</HI> and yet forgetting him&s;elf, he tells us, the&s;e unregenerate per&s;ons are penitently inclined. His meaning &s;eems to be, They are Heathen as unregenerate, and yet Chri&s;tians as Profe&s;&s;ors and penitently in|clined.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Such <HI>Ruths</HI> we &s;hall not grudge if he let &s;ome handfuls fall unto them. We undertake not to judge of mens hearts whether they be regenerate or not, but proceed by the rule of vi&s;ibility, and &s;hall willingly admit per&s;ons peni|tently inclined; but are withall &s;atisfied, that per&s;ons gro&s;ly ignorant or &s;canda|lous are not <HI>in &s;tatu quo</HI> penitently incli|ned, and therefore by Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his own principles, are not to be admitted as re|ceivers
<PB N="176" REF="94">of the Lords Supper, though they may be pre&s;ent, and that with great ad|vantage, at the whole Ordinance.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> 7. <HI>Judas</HI> received not the Lords Supper, &amp;c.</P>
<P>To evade the force of this Objection, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> in two leaves takes &s;ome pains, though to &s;mall purpo&s;e, to prove that <HI>Judas</HI> received. His ground is, <HI>Becau&s;e</HI> Judas <HI>was pre&s;ent at the Lords Supper, and Chri&s;t bid all pre&s;ent to receive.</HI> Com|pare <HI>Luk.</HI> 22.21. <HI>Matth.</HI> 27.27. &amp; <HI>Mark</HI> 14.23. where its &s;aid,
<HI>They all drank</HI> of the Sacramentall Cup.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Its the judgement of divers learned, that <HI>Judas</HI> did not receive. 2. Grant him pre&s;ent at the Sacrament, it follows not thence, that he did receive. 3. Chri&s;t bidding all to receive mu&s;t be limited onely to <HI>tho&s;e all</HI> for whom he &s;hed his blood for remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, as is evident in the words that accompany the tender of the Cup. Compare <HI>Mat.</HI> 26.28. and <HI>Luke</HI> 22.20. But Chri&s;ts blood was nor &s;hed for
<HI>Judas</HI> for the remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, <HI>ergo,</HI> the Sacrament was not tende|red to him&punc; 4. It &s;eems probable that Chri&s;t excluded <HI>Judas</HI> in particular in tho&s;e words <HI>Luke</HI> 22.21. <HI>But behold, the
<PB N="177" REF="94">hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the table.</HI> As if he &s;hould have &s;aid, What ha&s;t thou (who art a Traytor) to do to receive among my faithfull Di&s;ci|ples?
5. Suppo&s;ing be did receive, 1. Chri&s;t acted (in admitting him) as a particular Mini&s;ter, who alone cannot exclude any. 2. Before and at receiving he told him home his &s;in and danger, which I believe Mr. <HI>H.</HI> doth not to every <HI>Judas</HI> that re|ceives at his Sacrament.
<HI>Judas</HI> his in&s;tance then will not favour Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his free Ad|mi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> 8. Unworthy Receivers are guilty of Chri&s;t blood, and eat their own damnation; therefore we mu&s;t not allow free admi&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>To this Mr. <HI>H.</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>That it cannot concern the admitters and joyners,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> It concerns the admitters, if any partake who are vi&s;ibly unworthy, and the joyners if they know them to be unworthy, and do not complain; the rule being, that a man mu&s;t receive <GAP DESC="foreign">, but not ab&s;olutely, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.28.</P>
<P>Whereas <HI>p.</HI> 68. he adds, <HI>Every one is to examine him&s;elf, if he do not,</HI> he receives his own damnation, <HI>not ours, who do our duty,</HI> &amp;c. <GAP DESC="foreign">, 1
<HI>Corinth.</HI> 11.29. (not <GAP DESC="foreign">.)</P>
<P><PB N="178" REF="95"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Every main is to examine him&s;elf, and <HI>&s;o</HI> to eat; but where is it &s;aid ab&s;olutely, Let every man eat? We mu&s;t minde him of
<GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>ver.</HI> 28. as well as he mindes us of <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<HI>ver.</HI> 29.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Apo&s;tles words are not to be under&s;tood re&s;trictively and exclu&s;ively, as if &s;elf examination excluded Church examination, or as if &s;elf prejudice ex|cluded prejudice to my neighbour; as is evident by comparing <HI>Rom.</HI> 14.12. where giving an account to God, excludes not giving an account to man, for then chil|dren and &s;ervants might refu&s;e to give any account to their parents or ma&s;ters.</P>
<P N="3">3. Though it be haply an improper expre&s;&s;ion to &s;ay, I eat judgement to an|other, yet undoubtedly another mans unworthy receiving may be charged upon me, when I have power to prevent it and do not. I think (as perfect as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> is) both him&s;elf and the be&s;t of Gods people had need pray every day, Lord forgive me my other mens &s;ins; e&s;pecially State and Church Officers.</P>
<P N="4">4. Its as ab&s;urd in rea&s;on and Divi|nity, by an affirmative to exclude a ne|gative, as it is by a negative to exclude an affirmative: to &s;ay, I mu&s;t examine
<PB N="179" REF="95">my &s;elf, therefore another mu&s;t not exa|mine me; or to &s;ay, Another mu&s;t exa|mine me, therefore I mu&s;t not examine my &s;elf: or to &s;ay, I eat judgement to my &s;elf, therefore not to another, as to &s;ay, I eat judgement to another, there|fore not to my &s;elf. Mo&s;t &s;ins and duties are reciprocall; and as guilt, &s;o duty is u&s;ually relative as well as per&s;onall.</P>
<P><HI>Rep.</HI> But you will &s;ay, <HI>If a man drink poy&s;on, &s;hall not I be guilty of his blood, un|le&s;s I hinder him</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>To this Mr. <HI>H.</HI> an&s;wers, 1. <HI>Not, unle&s;s I have a</HI> quum po&s;&s;um. 2. <HI>He wonders any &s;hould compare the Sacrament to a cup of poy&s;on, &s;eeing it is in its own nature a cup of ble&s;&s;ing.</HI> 3. <HI>That it is more then we can know or ought to judge, that it proves death to any.</HI> 4. <HI>That as the Word may be preached to all (though often it prove the &s;avour of death) &s;o the Sacrament may be admini&s;tred unto all, leaving the i&s;&s;ue to God, &amp;c.</HI> This for the admitters part, <HI>pag.</HI> 68.70.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. His <HI>quum po&s;&s;it</HI> mu&s;t be un|der&s;tood either of a naturall or a morall ability. I believe that whoever hath a naturall, hath at the &s;ame time a morall ability to hinder his brother from mur|dering him&s;elf by poy&s;on. In plain Eng|li&s;h,
<PB N="180" REF="96">whoever can, ought to hinder his brother from drinking of poy&s;on.
<HI>Cains</HI> Religion may be indeed, <HI>Am I my brothers keeper?</HI> but Chri&s;ts Religion is,
<HI>He that &s;aves not life, de&s;troyes it.</HI> I mu&s;t pre&s;erve my neighbours life by all lawfull means; but undoubtedly its a lawfull means by violence to hinder my neighbour from &s;elf murder.</P>
<P N="2">2. His wonder de&s;erves to be wonder|ed at. If one mans corporall food be another mans poy&s;on (though in it &s;elf whol&s;ome, as Chee&s;e, &amp;c.) why may not one mans &s;pirituall food be another mans poy&s;on? Nay, the &s;ame food is at one time good nouri&s;hment, at another time poy&s;on to the &s;ame man, namely fle&s;h, &amp;c. in a &s;trong feaver. The &s;ame Word is a favour of life and a &s;avour of death, and why not the &s;ame Sacrament, and what is a deadly &s;avour but poy&s;on? Chri&s;t is a precious corner &s;tone to &s;ome, a &s;tone of &s;tumbling to others; and if Chri&s;t per|&s;onall be &s;o, why not Chri&s;t Sacramen|tall?</P>
<P N="3">3. If I may know and judge when the Word is poy&s;on to any, why not as well, yea better, when the Sacrament is poy|&s;on? I may know the Word is &s;o by its
<PB N="181" REF="96">effects or con&s;equents: I may know the Sacrament is &s;o, both by its cau&s;es and effects; as if a gro&s;ly ignorant or profane per&s;on come to receive, and if after re|ceiving I &s;ee a man as bad or wor&s;e then formerly.</P>
<P N="4">4. As the Word may be preached be|fore all, &s;o the Sacrament may be admi|ni&s;tred before all, but as the Word is not applied by all, nor divers parts of it ap|plicable to all, &s;o neither ought the Sa|crament to be applied to all by actuall receiving. If any man will give his neigh|bour poy&s;on, and leave the i&s;&s;ue to God, the Magi&s;trate may more ju&s;tly give him an halter, and leave the i&s;&s;ue to God.</P>
<P>Next Mr. <HI>H.</HI> proceeds <HI>to the Receivers part,</HI> and tels us, pag. 70. <HI>That a double duty is required of him,</HI> 1. <HI>A principall, Do this.</HI> 2. <HI>An acce&s;&s;ory, Let a man exa|mine him&s;elf. We are bound to come. and to come worthily. If a man fails in the one, and is not &s;ufficiently prepared, I dare not &s;ay that he mu&s;t keep (I am &s;ure it will not excu&s;e him) from the other, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Let the Reader note how ab&s;urdly Mr. <HI>H.</HI> makes <HI>receiving</HI> to be the principall duty, and actuall worthi|ne&s;s but acce&s;&s;ory. What carnall Divinity
<PB N="182" REF="97">is this, to make the matter and carka&s;s of a duty the principall, and the &s;pirit of a duty acce&s;&s;ory; the form of godline&s;s the principall and the power of godli|ne&s;s the acce&s;&s;ory? Is not this principall Divinity, and very plea&s;ing to &s;ome of Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his principall Receivers?</P>
<P N="2">2. His doubtfull, expre&s;&s;ion about co|ming, though unprepared, evidences his he&s;itancy about that particular, and not without ju&s;t cau&s;e. True, he that is bound to come, is bound to come wor|thily; but not, <HI>contra,</HI> he that is bound to come worthily, is bound to come ab|solutely, no more then he that was bound to come circumci&s;ed and pure to the Pa&s;&s;eover, was bound to come ab&s;o|lute&s;y. Every <HI>Jew</HI> was bound to be cir|cumci&s;ed, pure, and &s;o to come to the Pa&s;&s;eover; but had he neglected Circum|ci&s;ion and Purification, he was not to eat the Pa&s;&s;eover at that time. In like man|ner, every Chri&s;tian is bound to be, 1. Habitually worthy. 2. Actually wor|thy. 3. And <HI>&s;o</HI> to receive, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.28. yet is not bound to receive, but rather to ab&s;tain if he want either of the for|mer. The Apo&s;tle doth not &s;ay, Let a man eat ab&s;olutely; but <HI>&s;o let him eat.</HI></P>
<P N="3"><PB N="183" REF="97">3. Sinfull unpreparedne&s;s will not ex|cu&s;e a man from guilt, but unprepared|ne&s;s either &s;infull or lawfull, will excu&s;e him from receiving. A negative unpre|paredne&s;s will excu&s;e children and tho&s;e who have urgent and ju&s;t occa&s;ions that hinder them from receiving; not &s;o pri|vative unpreparedne&s;s. He that travelled of purpo&s;e to avoid the Pa&s;&s;eover, &s;in|ned; not &s;o he who had ju&s;t and nece&s;|&s;ary occa&s;ions to travell, <HI>Numb.</HI> 9.10, 13. But be unpreparedne&s;s negative or priva|tive, that man at pre&s;ent ought not to receive, though he &s;in in bringing a &s;in|full nece&s;&s;ity of ab&s;tinence upon him&s;elf. None are threatned &s;imply for not recei|ving, but all are threatned in ca&s;e they receive unworthily.</P>
<P>For further explication and confirma|tion, Mr. <HI>H.</HI> propounds three Quaeries.</P>
<P N="1">Qu. <HI>Whether the very eating and drinking of an unworthy Receiver be dam|nation?</HI> He means, <HI>Whether it de&s;erve damnation? He an&s;wers, by di&s;tingui&s;hing between the act of receiving, which is good, and the unworthine&s;s, which makes the &s;in onely; and concludes, That his ab&s;tinence from, is a greater &s;in then his unworthy receiving of the Sacrament,</HI> &amp;c. pag. 71.</P>
<P><PB N="184" REF="98"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Receiving is alwaies a &s;in in him that is unworthy, 1. Becau&s;e he cannot but receive unworthily, but that act which cannot be ab&s;tracted from &s;in|full pravity in dominion, is nece&s;&s;arily &s;in. 2. Becau&s;e he is threatned, but God threatens for nothing but &s;in. Eating is not in it &s;elf a &s;in, yet for a common per|&s;on to eat the &s;in-offering, was a &s;in: So receiving &s;imply is no &s;in, but an unwor|thy per&s;on cannot receive without &s;in. There is no &s;infull act in the world, but notionally you may ab&s;tract &s;infulne&s;s from it, but really you cannot when it comes to be acted; no more can you from an unworthy per&s;ons receiving, which is &s;infull, 1. In the manner. 2. As prohi|bited to &s;uch a per&s;on <HI>in &s;tatu quo.</HI> He is bound indeed to get worthine&s;s, and then to receive: but he is not bound to receive till he be Evangelically worthy. As a naturall man ought fir&s;t to get grace and then a&s;&s;urance, but not to &s;tudy a&s;&s;u|rance without grace.</P>
<P N="2">2. Ab&s;tinence from the Sacrament ari|&s;es out of contempt, or from a grounded evidence and con&s;ciou&s;ne&s;s of Evange|licall unworthine&s;s. The former is more &s;infull then bare receiving; the latter is
<PB N="185" REF="98">warrantable, yea commendable, 1. If it humble the man, though but legally. 2. If it put him upon care and diligence to prepare for the next Sacrament.</P>
<P N="2">2. Qu. pag. 72. <HI>His &s;econd Quaere is, Whether receiving the Sacrament unwor|thily is otherwi&s;e damnable then praying and hearing unworthily?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> It is, and that 1. Becau&s;e pray|ing and hearing are univer&s;all duties, I mean for all &s;orts, be they children, di|&s;tracted, or excommunicated, or other|wi&s;e unworthy, &s;o is not receiving in Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his own judgement. 2. Becau&s;e praying and hearing are means of conver|&s;ion, &s;o is not actuall receiving. His &s;u|per&s;tructure upon the coutrary &s;uppo&s;i|tion I omit, &s;ince that will tumble down of it &s;elf, the foundation failing.</P>
<P N="3">3 <HI>Qu.</HI> His third Quaere, pag.74. is, <HI>Whether an unregenerate man conceiving him&s;elf not worthy, mu&s;t never come to the Sacrament for fear of eating his damnati|on?</HI> The &s;umme of his An&s;wer is, <HI>That upon the &s;ame ground he mu&s;t al&s;o ab&s;tain from hearing, &s;ince he cannot but hear &s;in|fully, and &s;o provoke God,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Not &s;o, unle&s;s it can be pro|ved the Sacrament is a converting Ordi|nance.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="186" REF="99">2. Grant &s;ome parts or acts at the Sa|crament may convert, this proves onely that all may and ought to be pre&s;ent, to &s;ee and hear Chri&s;t crucified; but it makes nothing for actuall receiving, which ever makes an unworthy per&s;on eat damnati|on, and therefore doth not convert him. He that hears unworthily may be conver|ted, not &s;o he that receives unworthily, at that time.</P>
<P N="3">3. In the clo&s;e of this Quaere, <HI>He can put no medium between receiving unwor|thily, and an open refu&s;ing to receive.</HI> I &s;hall therefore help him at a dead lift, and intreat &s;o much charity of him, as to believe that all ab&s;tainers are not open refu&s;ers and tramplers upon the blood of Chri&s;t, no more then he who forbore the Pa&s;&s;eover being in a journey, or unclean was. Yea &s;ome godly per&s;ons, but out of fear of unworthine&s;s, dare not &s;ometimes come; will he &s;ay the&s;e trample upon Chri&s;ts blood? Why may not legall con|viction fright a naturall man, as well as a godly man from receiving? Sen&s;e of unworthine&s;s may prevail upon a
<HI>Demas</HI> as well as upon a <HI>Nathanael,</HI> and make him affraid of the &s;ignes as well as of the thing &s;ignified, yet neither of them at
<PB N="187" REF="99">that time like &s;wine trample upon the blood of the Covenant, but think it in|&s;initely too good for them.</P>
<P>In his new Edition, <HI>pag.</HI> 85. he in&s;erts three pages more for amplification of the eighth Objection. He takes upon him to an&s;wer a que&s;tion of his own propound|ing. His Que&s;tion is mi&s;ty, and his An|&s;wer is in part fal&s;e. The &s;umme of his An&s;wer is,
<HI>The alteration is made onely in us, the &s;eal is the &s;ame, and what is &s;ealed is the &s;ame.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Is not here an apparent fal&s;ity, as to the latter branch of the An&s;wer, unle&s;s he will make &s;alvation and damna|tion to be one and the &s;ame thing? If &s;alvation be &s;ealed to the worthy, dam|nation to the unworthy Receivers, then &s;urely though the &s;eal be the &s;ame, yet what is &s;ealed is not the &s;ame thing. As (to u&s;e his own &s;imilitude) though the Sun be the &s;ame, yet the &s;un&s;hine and the &s;hadow, or light and darkne&s;s are not the &s;ame, but privative contraries. But no wonder if loo&s;e principles produce &s;uch loo&s;e conclu&s;ions.</P>
<P>Rep. <HI>But &s;uppo&s;e a poor &s;oul doubts of his faith, does this bring any relief to him uncertain of the Condition?</HI></P>
<P><PB N="188" REF="100">An&s;w. <HI>Methinks it doth; the condition of the Covenant may be con&s;idered as in</HI> e&s;&s;e, <HI>already wrought in us, or in</HI> fieri, <HI>as to be done or performed of us. The Receiver &s;eals not nece&s;&s;arily to the condition in</HI> e&s;&s;e,
<HI>but in</HI> fieri <HI>obliging him&s;elf for the future to believe and obey,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. True, the Sacrament may bring relief to a doubting &s;oul, who hath indeed truth of grace, but doubts of it. But what relief can it bring to one that doubts groundedly, and hath no grace at all? 1. It cannot convert him (under&s;tand me &s;till of actuall receiving) as hath been formerly &s;hewed. 2. It cannot confirm him, unle&s;s it be in &s;in, by &s;ealing judge|ment to him. For can he be confirmed in grace who hath no grace at all?</P>
<P N="2">2. Where he &s;aies, The Receiver &s;eals not nece&s;&s;arily to the condition <HI>in e&s;&s;e,</HI> but <HI>in fieri,</HI> I an&s;wer, He &s;eals as nece&s;|&s;arily (in point of duty) to the condition <HI>in e&s;&s;e</HI> or <HI>de prae&s;enti,</HI> as <HI>in fieri</HI> or <HI>de futuro,</HI> and that man who ingages not to believe at pre&s;ent, plaies the hypocrite in inga|ging to believe hereafter. It is not with elicit as with imperate acts; in the for|mer, he that truly wills them, doth in part perform them, whence Divines
<PB N="189" REF="100">make a true de&s;ire of faith one degree of faith, and he that in truth de&s;ires and re&s;olves to beleeve hereafter, may as well act that re&s;olution now, &s;ince faith it &s;elf as well as the re&s;olution of faith is an act of the will. And this M. <HI>H.</HI> would &s;peak in tho&s;e words, <HI>Page</HI> 86. <HI>If he re&s;olve now for the time to come without procra&s;tination to walk according to the Covenant.</HI> Is not faith the fir&s;t &s;tep of this walk ? He that re&s;olves in truth to beleeve, cannot but de|&s;ire to beleeve, and the true de&s;ire of faith, is both Scripturally and by the con|&s;ent of Divines one degree of faith.</P>
<P>Thirdly, 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 the Elements is, I receive Chri&s;t &s;ignified and offered to me in parti|cular by them; and therefore he that re|ceives the Elements and doth not act faith at the &s;ame in&s;tant, he playes the hypocrite wofully, mocks God and Chri&s;t, and as the mockers of Chri&s;t were guilty of his death, &s;o is every unworthy receiver.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 86. He proceeds. <HI>The faith therefore that is ab&s;olutely requi&s;ite to a beleever is not a&s;&s;urance, but con&s;i&s;ts, I take it, of the&s;e two things only,</HI> 1.
<HI>An hi&s;toricall a&s;&s;ent to
<PB N="190" REF="101">the Go&s;pel,</HI> &amp;c. 2. <HI>A re&s;olution to &s;ubmit to the Government of Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Let a man then but believe his Creed, and re&s;olve to go on in no known &s;in, that is the main,</HI> &amp;c. pag. 87.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. I ea&s;ily grant a&s;&s;urance is not ab&s;olutely requi&s;ite as a means, but only in point of duty (namely that every one is bound to labour after it,) and in order un|to our <HI>ben&egrave; e&s;&s;e</HI> or comfort. 2. Again&s;t e|very Sacrament a Chri&s;tian is bound in an e&s;peciall manner by &s;oul-&s;earching exami|nation, to make out his evidence; and if he have truth of grace and take pains to &s;earch, he will by Gods grace finde &s;o much truth in him&s;elf, as may bring him to &s;ome a&s;&s;ent about his good e&s;tate, though u&s;ually this a&s;&s;ent be much a&s;&s;aulted and weakned with doubting, for removing whereof the Sacrament is an e&s;peciall help. But 3. Whereas M. <HI>H.</HI> profe&s;&s;eth to know no other kindes or ingredients of &s;aving or ju&s;tifying faith, but only an hi|&s;toricall a&s;&s;ent and a good purpo&s;e or re|&s;olution. 1. I mu&s;t tell him he is very defe|ctive on the one hand as omitting the &s;pe|ciall act of ju&s;tifying faith, namely adhe|rence or leaning upon Chri&s;t for justify|cation and &s;alvation, which is an act of the
<PB N="191" REF="101">will, not of the under&s;tanding; nor will his hi&s;toricall faith for kinde go beyond the faith of hypocrites, yea of devils, <HI>Iam.</HI> 2.19. and will aggravate a mans damnation if the faith of adherence follow not upon it. 2. I mu&s;t al&s;o tell him he is as exce&s;&s;ive on the other in mi&s;taking a good re&s;olu|tion for a con&s;titutive part of faith, which is either an antecedent or a con&s;equent and effect of faith, antecedent if it be a Le|gall, con&s;equent if an evangelicall re&s;olu|tion. I wi&s;h M. <HI>H.</HI> would &s;tudy fundamen|talls better, before he come to be &s;o criti|call about &s;uper&s;tructures.</P>
<P>By his following di&s;cour&s;e <HI>pag.</HI> 89. its apparent he &s;peaks very confu&s;edly about the &s;pirituall e&s;tate of a Chri&s;tian. For 1. He &s;uppo&s;eth a man hath not &s;aving grace, and yet that at the &s;ame time he is willing to accept of Chri&s;t, to leave &s;in and yeeld to Chri&s;ts termes, all which are mo&s;t precious &s;aving graces. Afterwards he compares the&s;e graces to a little gold mix|ed with much dro&s;&s;e in a lump of Ore, yet at la&s;t concludes God can make grace of the&s;e lea&s;t beginnings, as if at pre&s;ent they were not grace till God does as it were tran&s;ub&s;tantiate them and turn our water into wine. By all which its apparent the
<PB N="192" REF="102">man doth not <HI>&s;ibi constare,</HI> and no wonder then if he bring his Reader into a laby|rinth.</P>
<P><MILESTONE N="9" UNIT="Object."> The Ordinance is polluted if all be ad|mitted.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 76.</NOTE> The &s;umme of his An&s;wer is, <HI>That the Ordinance is defiled only to the unworthy receiver, not to the admitters or joyners.</HI></P>
<P><MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Though we place no great confidence in this Argument, nor believe the pre&s;ence or actuall receiving of a wicked per&s;on doth &s;imply defile either the Sacrament or the communicants (as had an unclean man eaten of the Pa&s;&s;eover, &s;uppo&s;ing he neither touched any clean per&s;on, nor any part of the Pa&s;&s;eover but that he ate, that Ordinance had been Levitically polluted only to him&s;elf) yet connivance both in the admitters and joyners contracts mo|rall pollution, as he that &s;uffers another to &s;in (where he may and ought to hinder him, or at lea&s;t do his endeavour in order thereunto) is partaker of his &s;in,
<HI>Lev.</HI> 19.17. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.22.</P>
<P><HI>His application of</HI> Mark. 7.15. <HI>and of</HI> Pe|ters <HI>vi&s;ion to the Sacrament,</HI> is ridiculous, <HI>pag.</HI> 77. For do we hold that any either per&s;on or meat is Levitically unclean? <HI>Contra,</HI> dares he deny that any per&s;on, yea any meat may be morally unclean, name|ly
<PB N="193" REF="102">as defiled with &s;in or occa&s;ions of &s;in, <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.15. That which enters into the mouth defiles not a man Levitically, but morally it may defile him, and that either by his intemperance or irreligious recei|ving of it, as eating the forbidden fruit de|filed our fir&s;t parents; and he who when he may hinders not the&s;e &s;ins, is him&s;elf defiled by &s;infull tolleration.</P>
<P>We believe, as well as him&s;elf, <HI>pag.</HI> 79. <HI>That the unworthine&s;&s;e of another &s;hould not make the true beleever &s;eparate from the Sacrament.</HI> Yet if I know another gro&s;ly ignorant or prophane, and do not either endeavour to reform or di&s;cover him, his unworthy receiving &s;hall be &s;et upon my &s;core alone without any prejudice to the other communicants.</P>
<P><HI>If it be a priviledge of the Go&s;pel to have free Ordinances, and to account no man un|clean in the u&s;e of them,</HI> ib.</P>
<P>How dares M. <HI>H. &s;et a &s;pirituall rayl</HI> (as he calls it) <HI>about the communion Table, and thereby refine and &s;piritualize old &s;uper&s;ti|tion</HI> (to u&s;e his own termes,) by keeping from the Sacrament Children and di&s;tra|cted per&s;ons, who have a better right to it then many prophane ones that his charity can admit, and yet in one breath accu&s;e
<PB N="194" REF="103">and condemn us for doing the like to that he allowes in him&s;elf? Shall per&s;ons nega|tively unworthy be &s;u&s;pended, and per&s;ons privatively, yea po&s;itively unworthy be admitted? Let him take heed there be not &s;omething of the Phari&s;ee and hypocrite in his own heart (to apply his own coun|&s;ell to him&s;elf,) 1. In cen&s;uring his bre|thren, 2. In doing the &s;ame thing for which he cen&s;ures them.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 79. But are we not faulty and par|take of other mens &s;ins, if we do not our be&s;t to have the leven purged out? and therefore we may not &s;ay, <HI>Am I my bro|thers keeper?</HI> Look they to it.</P>
<P>To this M. <HI>H.</HI> an&s;wers, 1. By way of conce&s;&s;ion, <HI>and that we mu&s;t tell the Church too, &s;uppo&s;ing it is in a capacity to hear us.</HI> 2. By way of refutation in the &s;ame page: <HI>But I hope it will not follow that in the mean time we mu&s;t not receive the Sacrament,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>It is a plain fallacy</HI> (&agrave; dicto &s;impliciter ad dictum &s;ecundum quid) <HI>to think our coming to the Sacrament with a wicked man is &s;in it &s;elf, or makes it the &s;in, or us more guilty of the &s;in, becau&s;e we ought to have admo|ni&s;hed them&punc; and laboured their excommuni|cation. Shall omi&s;&s;ion of one duty excu&s;e from another? Becau&s;e the leaven is not purged
<PB N="195" REF="103">out, mu&s;t there be no lump. This was, I may humbly &s;ay, a too overly &s;urpri&s;e of godly M.</HI> Burroughs.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Would one think that M. <HI>H.</HI> at the &s;ame in&s;tant would be guilty of that fallacy wherewith he charges us, and with the cut-pur&s;e cry <HI>&s;top thief,</HI> that him&s;elf might the better e&s;cape in the croud? Do either our principles or profe&s;&s;ion cry down the Sacrament ab&s;olutely becau&s;e we are again&s;t mixed Sacraments? Or are we again&s;t all mixed Sacraments, becau&s;e we are again&s;t the mixed receiving of per|&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy with per&s;ons vi&s;i|bly worthy? Or do we teach that its &s;imply a &s;in in one vi&s;ibly worthy to receive with one or divers per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy?</P>
<P>Wherein then do we and M. <HI>H.</HI> differ?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. In that he thinks its the duty of all Church-members to receive, be they in what &s;tate they will, never &s;o ignorant, wicked and abominable, yea and that vi|&s;ibly too, excepting only Children, di&s;tra|cted and excommunicated per&s;ons. 2. In that he thinks it the Churches duty to ad|mit all the forementioned per&s;ons, waving only the exception.</P>
<P><HI>Contra,</HI> We hold that no per&s;on really unworthy ought to receive. 2. That no
<PB N="196" REF="104">per&s;on vi&s;ibly unworthy ought to be ad|mitted, where there is a juridicall power in the Church to &s;u&s;pend them; which pow|er is <HI>de facto</HI> in the Presbyterian Churches, but lies not in any one Mini&s;ter, or in the Congregation it &s;elf, but in the Presbytery of each Congregation, and that either &s;o|litary or combined. The Elder&s;hip then &s;ins not in admitting per&s;ons really un|worthy, provided they have evidence of their vi&s;ible worthine&s;&s;e: Particular per|&s;ons &s;in not in communicating with per|&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy, but only in conni|ving at their vi&s;ible unworthine&s;&s;e, by neglecting either to admoni&s;h and re|prove you, and (if that will not do in order to their reformation) by neglecting to complain to the Elder&s;hip of them, that by the Churches dealing with them they may either be reformed or &s;u&s;pended, and (in ca&s;e that will not do, and need &s;o require) excommunicated. Let the Reader then take notice how guilty M. <HI>H.</HI> is of his own fallacy, in making the Reader beleeve we are again&s;t all Sacraments, or again&s;t all mixed Sacraments, becau&s;e we judge that per&s;ons really unworthy ought not <HI>in &s;ta|tu quo</HI> to receive, and per&s;ons vi&s;ibly un|worthy &s;hould not by the Church be ad|mitted to receive.</P>
<P><PB N="197" REF="104">Secondly, Though omi&s;&s;ion of one du|ty do not properly excu&s;e, yet it may make one uncapable of another, as a per&s;on im|pure neglecting to purifie him&s;elf, was at pre&s;ent uncapable of the Pa&s;&s;eover, and by proportion a per&s;on either unable or neglecting to prepare him&s;elf, is uncapable at pre&s;ent of the Lords Supper. As for M. <HI>Burroughs</HI> &s;urpri&s;e about this particular, I dare not undertake either to charge or vindicate him, till M.
<HI>H.</HI> produce him &s;pea|king for him&s;elf. <HI>Qui &s;tatuit aliquid parte inaudit&agrave; alter&agrave;, aequum lic&egrave;t &s;tatuerit, haud aequus fuerit.</HI></P>
<P><MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Rep."> Are not all ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;ons, &s;wine and doggs, to be rejected and kept from the pearls and holy things of the Sacrament?</P>
<P>M. <HI>H.</HI> in his An&s;wer <HI>que&s;tions the termes of Doggs and &s;wine as too har&s;h in the gene|rall, and thinks unfitne&s;&s;e is not a ju&s;t ground of exclu&s;ion, and that men are not to be dealt withall as Doggs till juridically cen&s;ure. That &s;candalous per&s;ons are fir&s;t to be ad|moni&s;hed duely, and then (if ob&s;tinate) ex|communicated, and that not merely from the Sacrament, but from Chri&s;tian communion in generall: yet withall he &s;eems doubtfull about the degrees of excommunication, and
<PB N="198" REF="105">leaves much to the Churches wifdom,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>p.</HI> 8o, to 82.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Wading the har&s;h expre&s;&s;ions of Doggs and Swine, though warrantable enough by Scripture; its then enough for us that ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;ons are unfit for the Sacrament, and if M. <HI>H.</HI> exclude Children, <HI>amp;c.</HI> becau&s;e unfit, why may not we exclude both ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;ons upon the &s;ame ac|count, &s;ince the one cannot, the other will not examine them&s;elves; or if after a &s;ort they examine, yet cannot approve them|&s;elves, which is both the &s;en&s;e of the word and the end of examination;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"></NOTE> but upon due &s;earch will finde the quite contrary, both being under the power of unbelief, or wanting the worthine&s;&s;e of preparation, though the la&s;t may po&s;&s;ibly have the worthine&s;&s;e of per&s;on.</P>
<P>Secondly, Neither ignorant nor &s;can|dalous per&s;ons are juridically &s;u&s;pended before admonition and evidence given of their ob&s;tinacy.</P>
<P>Thirdly, While he pleads for excom|munication, he cannot be again&s;t &s;u&s;pend|&s;ion which is an inferiour degree thereof.</P>
<P>Fourthly, That excommunication ex|cludes from all Ordinances, is <HI>gratis di|ctum</HI>
<PB N="199" REF="105">as hath been before noted.</P>
<P><MILESTONE N="10" UNIT="Obj."> The la&s;t Objection is from tho&s;e &s;eve|rall Texts that are alledged for a &s;epara|tion from wicked per&s;ons, <HI>pag.</HI> 82.</P>
<P><HI>Here M.</HI> M. <HI>grants we mu&s;t &s;eparate from wicked men in their &s;ins and in regard of common familiarity: but denies that any Scripture commands are &s;eparation from them in the Sacrament, unle&s;&s;e in ca&s;e of excommunication,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Su&s;pen&s;ion being a part of ex|communication, in granting &s;eparation in ca&s;e of excommunication, he yields the cau&s;e.</P>
<P>Secondly, That Scripture which forbids us to eat with wicked per&s;ons, forbids us to receive with them, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.11. unle&s;&s;e the Sacrament can be received without eating: nor is it enough to &s;ay that place &s;peaks only of civil and private eating, &s;ince eating of the Sacrament is a &s;igne of familiarity as well as eating at our own Tables; and where I can without &s;in avoid it, I may no more eat Sacramentally then civilly with a &s;candalous per&s;on. This Church Governours may prevent by di&s;|cipline, and private Chri&s;tians by informa|tion, by which if they cannot keep away &s;candalous &s;inners, the&s;e la&s;t may comfort
<PB N="200" REF="106">them&s;elves in that they have di&s;charged their duty, but ought hot to run away from Chri&s;t and his Ordinance becau&s;e of the pre&s;ence or partaking of wicked men which they cannot hinder. His in&s;tance of conjugall &s;ociety will not help him, there being an expre&s;&s;e commandment for that in Scripture, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.13, 14. not &s;o for mixed communion at the Sacrament with per&s;ons vi&s;ibly unworthy, if it lye in my power to prevent it: And though I &s;in not &s;imply in receiving with them to which private Chri&s;tians may &s;ometimes be ne|ce&s;&s;itated; yet I &s;in if I do not my endea|vour to prevent their receiving who or vi&s;ibly unworthy and will not be refor|med by admonition.</P>
<P>And this may &s;erve by way of an&s;wer to his Reply, <HI>pag.</HI> 85. whereby he ampli|fies the Objection: And whereas he adds, <HI>Now it is one thing to eat at home (an indif|ferent action) where I am left to my own ar|bitration; and another to eat at the Sacra|ment, which 1 am bound unto as a piece of Gods &s;ervice.</HI></P>
<P>Lan&s;wer. 1. That as eating at the Sacra|ment is a duty, &s;o naturall eating is a duty, which cannot be neglected without guilt of &s;elf-murther. 2. As when I can I
<PB N="201" REF="106">ought to avoid eating at my own hou&s;e with a &s;candalous per&s;on, &s;o when I can (without &s;in) I ought to avoid eating at the Sacrament with a &s;candalous per&s;on.
3. As I ought not to avoid eating with a &s;candalous per&s;on to endanger my life or health, &s;o I ought not with the hazard of my &s;pirituall life and health to avoid Sa|cramentall eating with a &s;candalous per|&s;on. 4. As when a &s;candalous per&s;on will obtrude him&s;elf to my table, I ought by all lawfull means to exclude him, &s;o when the &s;ame per&s;on will obtrude him|&s;elf upon Gods table, I ought by the u&s;e of all lawfull means to keep him off, by which if I cannot prevail, I may without guilt eat with him both at my owntable and at the Lords table; and the fault &s;hall lye upon upon him who had power to ex|clued him but would not.</P>
<P><HI>That an excommunicated per&s;on is to be excluded in generall from all Chri&s;tian communion,</HI> as M. <HI>H.</HI> would have it, <HI>pag.</HI> 85. is 1. Fal&s;e doctrine, 2. Bloudy and cruel do|ctrine, there being nothing in Scripture to warrant it, and much in the rule of cha|rity again&s;t it: grant an excommunicated per&s;on is di&s;membred and ca&s;t out of the Church, and that he is to be as an Hea|then
<PB N="202" REF="107">and a Publican, you cannot deny him the liberties of one without, or of an Hea|then and a Publican; but a Publican might come to the Temple to pray, <HI>Luk.</HI> 18.10. and an Heathen might come to the Church to hear, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.24. Further, &s;ince excommunication it &s;elf is medici|cinall, why &s;hould it not be backt with publike and private exhortations, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.5. and 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.6. and 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3.6, 14, 15. Can it be imagined that his bani&s;hment from, will do him more good then his pre|&s;ence at publike Ordinances? And this is the more &s;trong again&s;t M. <HI>M.</HI> who <HI>pag.</HI> 16. applies 2
<HI>The&s;.</HI> 3.6, 14. to the ca&s;e of excommunication; and if per&s;ons excom|municated mu&s;t be admoni&s;hed as Bre|thren, why &s;hould they be debarred of pre|&s;ence at the Word preached, one great part whereof is admonition, e&s;pecially of the unruly, 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5.14.
<HI>Acts</HI> 20.31. <HI>Col.</HI> 1.28. And certainly if admonition in ge|nerall be an Ordinance, yet applicable to per&s;ons excommunicated, is it not then as clear as the Sunne, that excommunication doth not barre a per&s;on from all commu|nion or from all Ordinances? the contra|ry to which notwithstanding is one of M. <HI>H.</HI> his new Lights, <HI>p.</HI> 85.</P>
<P><PB N="203" REF="107">But why &s;hould I &s;hun an excommuni|cated per&s;on more in civil then in &s;acred &s;ociety? Compare 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.11. and 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3.13, 14.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Becau&s;e in mo&s;t parts of &s;acred &s;ociety there is not that mutuall familiari|ty which is &s;o great a te&s;timony of per|&s;onall re&s;pect; nay per&s;ons may often meet at Ordinances, and yet not &s;o much as know one the other. 2. There is farre more nece&s;&s;ity of &s;acred then of civill &s;o|ciety, whether in way of duty or of means. Excommunicetion excu&s;eth not from du|ty, though it make a per&s;on uncapable of &s;ome priviledges; nor can anothers excom|munication excommunicate me either from duty or priviledge. Gods children mu&s;t pre&s;ent them&s;elves before God though Satan him&s;elf come in among them,
<HI>Iob</HI> 1.6. and 2.1.</P>
<P>As for tho&s;e places, <HI>Ier.</HI> 15.19. and 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.22. Though they reach not the ca&s;e of the Sacrament immediatly and in termes, yet they come home to it in a di|rect and naturall con&s;equence, &s;ince it concerns Mini&s;ters to &s;eparate the pre|cious from the vile practically as well as doctrinally, in the Sacrament as well as in other Ordinances: And certainly, they
<PB N="204" REF="108">who have power to excommunicate from all Ordinances (as Mr. <HI>H.</HI> teaches) have much more power to excommunicate from &s;ome: and if partiall or graduall Excommunication be an offence, &s;ure its an errour on the right hand; better of|fend in too much lenity then &s;everity. They who have power to deprive of all priviledges, have power to deprive of &s;ome, and he that may ca&s;t a per&s;on out of the Church, may turn him out of the Chancell, as Mr. <HI>Humphrey</HI> el&s;ewhere phra&s;es it.</P>
<P>From arguing he falls to wi&s;hing, <HI>p.</HI> 86. Let us &s;ee whether he be better skill'd in in the Optative then in the Indicative Mood.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>His fir&s;t wi&s;h is for a Government e&s;tabli&s;hed in the Church, the neere&s;t in Chri&s;tian prudence to the Word God.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An.</HI> Sir, Your de&s;ire is granted in &s;ome parts of the Nation; and had it not been in a great mea&s;ure for the negligence of too many Mini&s;ters, and refractorine&s;s of mo&s;t people, the Government you wi&s;h for, might long ere this have been fettled all the Nation over.</P>
<P N="2">2. His &s;econd wi&s;h is, <HI>That the duty of fraternall correption, in&s;pection, and admo|nition,
<PB N="205" REF="108">were better known and practi&s;ed among&s;t us.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I can heartily &s;ay <HI>Amen</HI> to this wi&s;h al&s;o: and hope he will not be trou|bled that this wi&s;h is in part granted al&s;o; and in particular, that him&s;elf is in this di&s;cour&s;e made an object of fraternall correption. He that values admonition, is in a fair way to be mended by admoni|tion.</P>
<P N="3">3. His third wi&s;h is, <HI>That men would look more into their own con&s;ciences, and leave the judging of others &s;pirits, hearts, and reynes, alone to the judgement &s;eat of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> An excellent wi&s;h; and had it been as well practi&s;ed as wi&s;hed by Mr.
<HI>H.</HI> he would not have been &s;o har&s;h a cen&s;u|rer of his brethren, as this Plea for free admi&s;&s;ion proves him.</P>
<P N="4">4. His fourth wi&s;h is, <HI>That though there may be &s;ome judging by the fruits, That wi&s;e and religious men would be more cautious of countenancing the&s;e &s;eparations in the vi&s;ible Church; &s;eeing upon the &s;ame ground that you go to gather a Church out of his mixt Congregation, another will ga|ther a &s;eparation out of your Church, and &s;o in</HI> infinitum, &amp;c.</P>
<P><PB N="206" REF="109"><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I &s;ee a good heart is better then a wi&s;e head. Could we wi&s;h better, and di&s;pute le&s;s, how &s;oon &s;hould we clo&s;e in a good agreement? How happy had it been for <HI>England,</HI> if godly per&s;ons had not countenanced &s;eparation? But whe|ther Mr. <HI>H.</HI> his Doctrine or our practice have occa&s;ioned it, let the world judge. Had not &s;infull mixtures brought us to a Chaos, this &s;pirit of &s;eparation had not probably been hatcht in the hearts of Gods <HI>Nazarites.</HI> A prudent and pious &s;eparation had prevented the&s;e fooli&s;h and &s;infull &s;eparation. The more Mr. <HI>H.</HI> and others turn Church-levellers, and lay all common, the more carefull had we need be of our propriety and inclo|&s;ures. Weeds may be tolerated in a Wil|derne&s;s or Common, but are intolerable in Chri&s;ts inclo&s;ed Garden, <HI>Cant.</HI> 4.12. at lea&s;t weeds in this Garden cannot expect all the priviledges of good herbs. How ju&s;tly may he at la&s;t be lookt at as a weed by our great Husbandman, who contrary to rule and office will cheri&s;h weeds in Paradi&s;e, where he is &s;et by God to till it, and to keep it.</P>
<P>I have done with Mr. <HI>Humphrey,</HI> But mu&s;t indeavour to &s;atisfie one &s;cruple be|fore
<PB N="207" REF="109">I &s;hake hands with my Reader.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> Do you think all are ignorant or &s;candalous, who refu&s;e triall hefore the Elder&s;hip? If not, how can you deny them the Sacrament?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> God forbid. Yet fir&s;t, ob&s;tinate Refu&s;ers give too much occa&s;ion of &s;u&s;|pition in one of the former kinds.</P>
<P N="2">2. Whatever any may pretend again&s;t the Government, what is that to the giving an account of their faith or hope to any &s;hall ask it, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.15. e&s;pecially upon ju&s;t grounds.</P>
<P N="3">3. Do not they &s;u&s;pend them&s;elves, who will keep from the Sacrament rather then &s;ubmit to a duty &s;o ea&s;ie, righteous, edifying, and honourable?</P>
<P N="4">4. Whatever may be done by way of extraordinary di&s;pen&s;ation (where there is very good evidence of &s;ufficient know|ledge and true piety) yet &s;uch con&s;ider not what a gap they open to &s;hake, if not break, the whole frame of Government. Who will not pretend con&s;cience to &s;cape triall when &s;uch ill pre&s;idents &s;hall &s;tand upon record for rules? And whether &s;ome few truly godly per&s;ons or the whole Church &s;hould &s;urfer, I leave it
<PB N="208" REF="110">to their judgement who under&s;tand how much the <HI>whole</HI> is to be preferred before divers parts. Let us not &s;tudy to plea&s;e our &s;elves, but &s;eek tho&s;e things which tend to peace and edifying. Yet if any man &s;eem to be contentious, we have no &s;uch cu&s;tome, neither the Churches of God, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.16.</P>
<P><HI>Deo gloria, Eccle&s;iae pax &amp; Reformatio.</HI></P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
