Sect. I.

SO prevalent is old Adam (since our primitive apo­stacy) in the hearts of the best, that we finde it very hard to contend for the Faith in any particular, without the breach of Love and Charity: I wish it were not so between Mr. Humphrey and my selfe. Standers-by usually see more then Game­sters; and sorry I am to see and hear, that any passionate expressions on my part, or bitter scoffs falling from Mr. Humphrey his pen, on the other part, should contribute more to pierce the hearts of any of Gods precious ones [Page 2] with griefe, than the managing of this contro­versy on either hand, hath contributed to satisfie their judgments and consciences by solid convi­ction. If in heat of dispute I have any way trans­gressed (I am assured I was far from malice) I shall be ready to throw the first stone at my selfe, and blesse God who hath given me the opportunity to mend first, which once was in Mr. Humphrey his hands, before he put forth his Rejoynder. Some sores are better cured by lenitives then by corrosives.

Passing therefore his reflections upon my selfe, in a great part of his Preamble, as extrinsecall to the matter in debate, I observe page 5. and be­lieve he speaks in good earnest, That unlesse his Latitude of Admission be allowed, tender con­sciences can never have solid peace at the Sacra­ment: Sacraments will still be neglected by Mi­nisters and People, separations fomented, human Forms set up as necessary, &c. Ans. If this hy­pothesis were true, and such inferences did natu­rally and necessarily flow from our principles, well might we be at a stand, and look with a more favourable eye upon Mr. Humphrey his principles and practice. Scruples may possibly be raised in tender consciences, and false conclusions infer­red by mistake, &c but far is it from us to hold forth any such principle, or principles as of their own nature have any aptitude to stumble the weak, or offend Christs little ones: And this I hope by Gods assistance to make out in the following discourse, as the forementioned parti­culars shall come to be scanned in their proper places. Page 6. He thinks me very for: ward to be known among the Elders in the Gate- [Page 3] and, Charges me for passing sentence before conviction. Ans. Had Mr. Humphrey known how oft I was solicited to write, how unwilling I was to have my name appear either in the fron­tispice or otherwhere in the book after it was finished, he would not have passed so rash a cen­sure: had I not been acted more by conscience of my duty, then by desire of vain-glory, it might have been long enough ere so poor an inconside­rable person as my selfe had took him to task. For his second charge, I hope Mr. Humphrey doth not imagine I made the Title Page first, and my Answer afterwards; and for a due Examen, let the Answer it selfe speak, whether I took not some pains (according to my poor modell) in order to his conviction, before I passed a pub­lick sentence: The cause indeed may suffer much by my weakness, but I hope it neither then did, nor now shall, suffer by my wilfull negligence. Page 7th. he spends, in indeavouring to excuse those harsh expressions I noted and represented as sa­vouring more of pride then of humility, contra­ry to his profession in the frontispice; and that first, by begging pardon, if any pious men are offended at those expressions. 2ly. By professing, that to his utmost memory, none of those passages came from him, with the least reflection upon any. Ans. Taking it for granted, Mr. Hum­phrey speaks the truth, I believe it's the best Apo­logie he could make: Yet secondly, Mr. Hum­phrey cannot blame me for charging those ex­pressions with pride and censoriousnesse, since verba are indices mentis; and if proud and censo­rious words do not argue pride, acting (though not alwaies raigning) in the heart, I know not [Page 4] what doth. Let the Reader peruse those expressi­ons of Mr. Humphrey in the third and fourth pages of my Bar to free Admission and if I have past a wrong sentence, let him judge mee for Pride and Censoriousnesse.

Sect. II.

Page 8 Mr. Humphrey charges me with a contradiction, as if I had said in one place, Christ cannot give Judas the Sacrament, and in ano­ther, he cannot deny it him. Ans. pag. 8. I onely bring Arguments to prove Judas did not receive the Sacrament. Page 9. I say, it was not sit Christ should be both judge and witnesse. And page 11. Christ acting as a Minister, could not be both witnesse, Judge, and Executioner. Where, I pray, is the contradiction? Let Mr. Humphrey produce but one place where I say, Chirst cannot give Judas the Sacraments. I bring arguments in­deed to prove Iudas did not receive, but whither Christ denyed him the Sacrament, or ordered it in providence Iudas should go out be forehand, and so misse of the Sacrament; that is left in me­dio, and the latter seems more probable. And whether Iudas received or not, it is not much ma­teriall for Mr. Humphrey his cause, no not in Mr. Timsons judgement, in his bar to free ad­mission removed. pag. 3. & 4. though otherwise a great friend to Mr. Humphrey his Latitude for Sacramentall receiving.

In answering my 2d. Argument against Iu­das his receiving, he saies Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and so for Judas, 1 Iohn 2. 3.

As. When Mr. H. can prove that by whole world, There, are meant the Reprobate as well as the [Page 5] Elect, he saies somthing indeed to invalidate the argument; otherwise he doth but shuflle. And the Sacrament had been a poor Cordial to the Apo­stles, had it seal'd no more to them than it doth to Reprobates. But I shall not trouble my self or my Reader with the further vindication of those five Arguments here, as studying all possible bre­vity and judging it not material in this businesse, whether Judas received or no, what ever weight Mr. Humphrey may lay upon it. But whereas pag. 10. He saies, I answer those five reasons my self. In that he mistakes. I brought indeed five reasons to prove Judas did not receive; but I brought no reason to prove Christ denied him the Sacrament, nor do I believe Christ did deny him the Sacrament Only by laying open his wickednessc, its probable Christ did either shame him away, or fright him away, or occasion his going away in a pet; and Judas being gone, Christ spake very comfortably, and applicatori­ly to the Eleven, which very probably he would not have done without a distinction, had the Traytor been present.

Pag. 10. 11. He saies, Many more Authors are of opinion, Judas did receive it, than those I produ­ced out of Gelaspi to the contrary. Answ. 1. This is said; but not one word of proof brought by Mr. Humphrey. 2. Grant it true, he answers himself, or I may answer him with his own words, I do not value them at the rate of Scrip­ture. Its well, we both agree here: I wish heartily all Disputers were of this mind. Here therefore Mr. Humphrey presseth Mark 14. 23. They all drank of it. I answered, All is put for all pre­sent, and twelve for eleven, from 1 Cor. 15. 5. [Page 6] To this Mr. Humphrey returns, pag. 11. If All be put for All present, then is it put for the whole twelve, for the twelve sate down with him, Ans. 1. The weaknesse of this answer of Mr. Hum­phrey will easily appeare to a mean capacity. The twelve sate down with Christ, ergo the twelve (that is, every of the twelve) received the Lords supper. To make out his assertion, he must prove not only that all the twelve sate down together, but that they also stayed all the whiletogether til the Comon-supper, the Passover, and the Lords Supper were ended. Doth it follow because twelve sit down together at a Feast, therefore they must needs all sit at Table together, or be present in the same room til all the Courses be served? we grant Judas was present at the Common-supper; haply also he received the Passover, which yet some doubt; but doth it hence follow, that he was present at the Lords supper also? Is it not said that upon the receiving of the Sop, immediatly Judas went out? John 13. 30. and that Sop he received at or before the Passover; after which, the Lords Supper was instituted and administred.

To my second, That twelve is here put for eleven, He answers, None that can tell twenty will believe me. Ans. 1. Let Mr. H. remember his own rule, & a good rule, and stand to the judgement of the Scripture, 1 Cor. 15. 5. Christ after his re­surrection appeared to the twelve, but Judas was at this time dead, and Matthias was not yet chosen in his room; Ergo, here twelve is put for eleven. Secondly, this is ordinary, for round­nesse of number: yea in this very case, Mar. 14. 17. twelve are put for ten, since two of the Apostles he sent before to prepare the Passover [Page 7] ver. 16. and, at the evening, himselfcomes with ten of them, who yet verse 17. are said to be twelve.

Mr. Humphrey proceeds. Pag. 11. His argument is this. Because twelve is put for eleven when there were but eleven, therfore twelve must be put for eleven, where there was twelve.

Ans. What is this but a meer begging of the Question? Mr. Humphrey asserts that all the twelve received the Lords Supper. I answer, its not affirm'd in Scripture, that the twelve received. 2. Had it been affirmed yet twelve might be put for eleven by roundnesse of number, as in the former instance; to which his finall answer is, I, but there were twelve there, which is the very question in dispute between us. By the Law of dispute (he being opponent, and I respondent) he ought to solve my distinction; and not barely to say, but to clear it, that twelve in the businesse of the Lords Supper cannot be understood or taken for eleven by roundnesse of number.

I shall ever acknowledge the force of St. Luke, as of every other Scripture: but I deny that Luke saies, either in terms or by consequence that Iudas was present at, or received the Lords Supper, and therefore as yet neither my five Arguments nor 26. Authors are confuted by St. Luke. See Mr. Collins more to this purpose in his vindic. sus­pensionis &c. pag. 62. 63. True, Luke mentions per [...] those words of our Sa­viour: But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the Table, after the Celebration of the Supper; doth it therefore follow they were uttered in that order? I have proved the contrary by comparing the two other Evangelists. I shall instance in another Hysterology, wherein the order [Page 8] is inverted by Saint Luke, yet without any pre­judice to the truth, Matth. 4. 8. The tempta­tion to worship the Devill, is the third and last, which yet Luke makes to be the second and middlemost, Luke 4. 5. In like manner Matthew mentions the prediction of Peters denying Christ, after their going to the mount of Olives, Matth. 26. verse 30 34. so doth Mark, Chap. 14. verse 26-30. which yet Luke mentions be­fore it, Chap. 22. verse 34-39. as also doth Saint John, Chap. 13. verse 38. compared with Chap. 18. verse 1. Here then, in two of the Evangelists, there must needs be an Hysterology, without any prejudice to the truth of the narra­tive; and why not in our businesse also? We deny not but those words, Behold the hand, &c. were spoken at the Table; but it lies upon Mr. Hum­phrey to prove, that it was the Lords Table at that time, when our Saviour uttered those words: We believe it was first a Common Table; secondly, the Paschall Table; thirdly, the Lords Table; and that those words were spoken by our Saviour when it was a Common Table, or a Paschall Table, but not when it was the Lords Table; and withall, that Luke attended not so much upon the order, as the truth of the narra­tive.

But, suppose Judas was present and received, what doth this advantage Mr. Humphrey He thinks much, because neither Christ nor his Apo­stles did examine Judas, &c. Ans. The Apostles (upon supposition of Judas his receiving) were but his fellow communicants; nor do we think it necessary that fellow communicants should exa­mine [Page 9] one another before receiving. And for our blessed Saviour; it followes not, because he thought it not necessary then to examine the Apostles, therefore it is not necessary for Church-Officers to examine the people before receiving: Yea, as Mr. Collins well notes, in his Vindiciae sus­pensionis, &c. page 41. & 53. It is worth the observing, that Christ did not so much as call upon the Jewes in the same house, to receive the Lords Supper; which he would have done probably, if he had intended it for All; or, for a converting Ordinance. Christ thought it not necessary then to admit ei­ther ordinary Christians or Women to the Lords Supper, or to put the Apostles upon selfe-examination before the Lords Supper at this time; is it therefore now not necessary that the peo­ple, and particularly women, should be admitted to the Lords Supper? or, is it not necessary a man should examine himselfe before he eat, &c? Must Church Officers give an account of their people to God, and must they not take an account of their people?

I added further, That as Judas was not sus­pected by the rest of the Apostles, so he had not yet actually betrayed Christ, and it is absurd to punish any for a future sin.

To this Mr. Humphrey opposeth an other passage of mine, page 102. and then infers, Christ may not keep away Judas, because he had not actually betrayed him; but Mr. Drake must needs keep men away, for fear they should be­tray him. Ans. 1. Let the Reader take notice, that Mr. Humphrey wrongs my Text, page 102. by leaving out a very materiall part of it; the [Page 10] words are these, We keep men away, to prevent certain scandall, by the admission of Persons vi­sibly unworthy: Which last words of my Text he utterly omits, that thereby my sense may ap­pear more ugly: But those words being added, there is no contradiction betwixt Christs pra­ctice and ours (upon the supposition that Judas did receive) since Judas was not visibly unworthy to Christ as a Man or Minister, but as God; who knew both Judas and other hypocrites from the beginning, Iohn 6. 64. yet admitted them as Disciples: Yet, it followes not thence, the Church should admit such before it have good satisfa­ction (at least, in the judgment of charity) about their sincere conversion; otherwise the Disciples did ill to be so shy of Saul, till they had good evidence of his sincerity from Barnabas, Acts 9. 26 27. Christ as God, knew by knowledge of vision, who were unclean and defiled the Tem­ple: yet, he drove none out, but such as visibly defiled it, Iohn 2. 15. So he knew Iudas was un­worthy by his divine Omniscience, but acted not by vertue of that knowledge in point of suspen­sion: Nor was Achan censured upon divine dis­covery, till clear evidence of his theft was produ­ced, Iosh. 7. verse 20. to 24. And if Christs rule of suspension, or other censure, be visible unwor­thiness, we hope our way and practice is not contradictory to Christs rule. 2. We keep not any away barely upon fear, lest they should be­tray Christ (for this fear and jealousie we may have of divers whom we admit) but, 1. Because they are visibly unworthy. 2. That we may in the use of Gods means, endeavour their fitting against the next Sacrament, and they who upon [Page 11] this account withdraw, suspend themselves, as refusing the Ordinance of the Lords Supper, rather then they will accept of it upon a most equall and honourable condition. Had Mr. Humphrey been as zealous against selfe-suspen­sion, as against Ministeriall suspension, and shewed the people their sin in standing out a­gainst Sacramentall tryall, he might have brought God more honour, himselfe more peace, and have done the Church more service, than by aspersing Sacramentall Tryall, as if the end of it were rather to exclude men from, then to fit them for, the Sacrament. Whereas therefore Mr. Humphrey is pleased to say, Page 13. that I suspend, to prevent the sin men have not committed, and that the supposal only of future sin is the very ground of my excommunication. I am sorry to see him byassed by so much uncharitablenesse, when as he knowes, that in these censures we proceed by the rule of visible unworthinesse; and doth op­pose with might and main our acting in these kinds by the rule of visibility. We aim indeed at the preventing of sin, in this and other Church-censures; but, I dare appeal to Mr. Humphrey his conscience, whether that be our sole End.

The following passage is sadder, and char­geth us deeply, as if we gave more power to the Presbytery in point of suspension, then to Jesus Christ the great Master of Discipline.

Ans. I am sorry to see what prejudice and uncharitablenesse will draw men upon, to wrest such false and odious conclusions from, or put such uncouth interpretations upon, our principles. Far be it from us to offer wittingly to detract the least tittle from our blessed Lords authority [Page 12] and soveraignty; we would loath our own prin­ciples, could any such conclusion be justly de­duced from them. My words which he wrests to that purpose, are these, Page 9. f. Christ here acting as a Minister, it was not fit he should be both judge and witnesse; and it might have been an ill presi­dent for Ministers, to take upon them by their own power to deny the Sacrament judicially to whom they please. Christ had a three fold power: 1. Absolute, as God. 2. Mediatory, as God-Man. 3. Pastorall, as a Minister. Now my former assertion (which he carps at) meddles not with Christs power as God, or as Mediator (neither are they any presidents or rules for our imitation) but only with Christs power as a Minister. And if Mr. Humphrey be of the minde, that Christ as a Minister (waving his Divine and Mediatory capacity) might alone be Judge and Witnesse, and suspend judicially whom he pleased, must he not of necessity also yield, that any other parti­cular Minister may do the like? See what a dust is raised to make our waies and principles odi­ous; whereas Mr. Humphrey himselfe (if he will speak religion and reason) cannot but be of our minde: yea, Mr. Timson, his cordiall Abettor, laies it down as a solid principle, Page 67. f. That no single Pastor alone, but such as are so in Association, as to derive authority from the whole, can exercise Church-censures authoritatively. Yet I hope Mr. Humphrey will not thence conclude, that Mr. Timson by this assertion gave more power to the Presbytery then to Jesus Christ, the great Master of Discipline.

To what further I add, page 9, 10. ‘That none are suspended by us, but such as sus­pend [Page 13] themselves, by sleighting or refusing due tryall;’ Mr. Humphrey replies, Suppose a reli­gious man, nay, suppose twenty, upon grounds of conscience or prudence, will not submit to his try­all, yet offer themselves at the Sacrament; dare he refuse to administer it to them? Alas Sir! will you not let men serve God, and save their souls?

Ans. Suppose a godly Minister; nay, suppose twenty, upon grounds of conscience and pru­dence dare not admit such a person or persons; yet beseech them, as they tender the honour of God, reformation of the Church, and their own comfort and edification before they receive, to give an account of their faith and hope that is in them, will they refuse so easy and honourable a duty? & yet tempt, yea, presse him or them against the rules of conscience and prudence, to admit them to the Sacrament? Alas Sirs, do not thus wound the consciences, and grieve the Spirits of those whom God hath set over you.

‘ D. Dr. Secondly, Besides the former, we suspend none but such, who upon tryall, are found unworthy.’

Mr. Humphr. But I pray, have you any thing at first to alledge against them: if you have not, how will you bring them to tryall?

Ans. 1. From Scripture evidence and experi­ence, that many Church-members are unworthy. 2. From the Scriptures warranting an universall tryall, upon lesse ground of suspition then we have, and punishing the neglect thereof; witnesse Achans case, Iosh. 7. 3. From the fruit of this tryall, which being rightly managed, will pre­judice none, but edifie all, by putting them upon [Page 14] the exercise of, or seeking after, knowledge and grace.

Mr. Humphr. If they come willingly, and you finde them unfit, then you go about to punish again them for a future sin.

Ans. 1. If the prevention of future sin be a punishment, the Lord send me store of such pu­nishments. 2. He mistakes: we go not about to punish any for a future sin, but to prepare all for a future mercy. 3. He may as well say, pious Governours of families, and Ministers in the times of the Prelates, punished children and ser­vants, because they kept them from the Sacra­ment till they were fitted by Catechisticall tryall. Gal. 6. 6. the Apostle will tell him, that every Church-member is a Catechumenus. Nor need Mr. Humphrey here flie especially upon the tryall by Elders, since both this paragraph and his whole discourse, manifest him to be against all tryall, either by Ministers or Elders.

‘ D. Dr. None of the Apostles were ignorant or scandalous, no, not Judas himselfe, there­fore his or their receiving is no warrant for any ignorant or scandalous person to receive.’

Mr. Humph. This is not true for indeed we shall finde both ignorance in the Apostles, and scandall in Judas: The Apostles were ignorant of Christs Death and Resurrection, and of the Sacrament; and Judas had made his bargain to betray Christ.

Ans. 1. They knew Christ to be the Bread and Water of Life, and the Saviour of the World, Iohn 6. 68, 69. Secondly, had as much know­ledge as might stand with grace. Thirdly, were willing upon all occasions to be further in­structed and Catechised by Christ. And we trust [Page 15] Mr. Humphrey shall never be able to charge us with keeping any away who are of this temper. As for Iudas, though he had made his bargain of betraying Christ, yet it was not then scanda­lous: Nor did Christ (though he knew it well enough) discover, that Iudas had made any such bargain, but did only foretell that Iudas would betray him. However therefore pag. 15, & 16. he is pleased to charge me as speaking a very untruth; a grain of charity might have informed him, that Iudas (however he purposed, plotted and contracted, all which he knows, or may know, I believe as well as himself) yet betrayed not Christ, as to the Execution, till he kissed him in the Garden. True, in Gods account a purpose, plot and contract of evil is an Execution thereof: but civill and Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed usu­ally by evidence of the fact, not of the purpose, plot or contract. I might adde that Iohn 13. ver. 18, 19, 21. 27. our blessed Saviour (even after the discovery) looks at Iudas his betraying him as a future act. In some sense therefore, it is a truth that Iudas had not betrayed Christ. And if so, then I did not speak a very untruth, in saying Iudas had not yet betrayed Christ, no more then Peter had denied him, understanding it of the ul­timate and compleating act of his Treachery, which Christ endeavourd to prevent by the Commination, as well as Peters denyall by the Premonition. Besides, our Saviours dispensation here was extraordinary, admitting onely men, Ministers, Apostles, and that without self-exami­nation foregoing, which is no rule for our imita­tion in point of Sacramentall admittance; no more is his admittance of Iudas, supposing he [Page 16] did receive; And if this supposition fail, where is Master Humphrey his superstructure upon it?

His upbraiding me again, by comparing Christ with the Presbytery, hath been formerly answe­red: Which therefore, with other passages of lesse moment, for brevities sake I passe. I shall onely adde this, Iudas his treachery (if it were, be­fore the compleating of it, matter for a Judiciall cognizance, and if Christs extraordinary know­ledge and discovery of it were legall evidence, as Mr. Humphrey would [...]ave it) was a just ground of excommunication; yet our Saviour did not excommunicate him for it, no more then he did suspend him; nor did he send to the High Priests or their officers for evidence against Iudas: May not the Church therefore excommunicate or seek for evidence against scandalous or suspected per­sons? Even before this, all judgment was committed to Christ, Iohn 5. 22. yet we read not that Christ judged any, either Civilly or Ecclesiastically, but rather the quite contrary, Iohn 8. 11, & 12. 47. Doth it therefore follow that either the Magi­strate, or the Presbytery do lift up themselves a­bove Christ the great Master of Discipline, be­cause they undertake that, both in Civill and Ec­clesiasticall Judgement, which our blessed Lord would not meddle withall in his State of humi­liation?

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 18. As for the Question, whether he acted as a Minister or Mediator? It is vaine, for he acted as both: He could not institute an Ordinance for his Church, but as he was Head and Mediator, nor could he administer it but as a Minister.

[Page 17] Ans. 1. If this Question be vain, the more to blame Mr. Humphrey, who troubles his Reader with it, especially since we both agree Christ acted here both as a Mediator and as a Mini­ster.

Secondly, I onely distinguished between Christs acting as a Mediator and as a Minister; And added that Christ is imitable, not in his acting as a Mediator but as a Minister: We doubt not but Christ as Mediator, might be both Judge and Witnesse; But in that he is no pattern for our imitation. If, as a Minister, he might be both Judge and Witnesse, then every Minister may be both Judge and Witnesse.

Thirdly, Mr. Humphrey himself here grants Christ could not administer the Sacrament but as a Minister; Yet, at the same time Christ was Media­tor. We say, Christ as Mediator might be both Judge and Witnesse, but not as a Minister: Will he forbid us the same liberty of distinction hee takes himself?

The other instances he excepts against, pag. 18. of Christs administring it only to Ministers, &c. prove strongly that all Christ did at the Supper, is no necessary rule for our imitation: amongst which Judas his Admission (upon Mr. Hum­phrey his supposall) being one, falls under the same notion; unlesse Mr. Humphrey can prove that Christ did not only admit Iudas (a person then, as he saies, scandalous) but also with this very intention, that his practice herein might bee a Rule for all Ministers to the end of the World to admit to the Sacrament scandalous persons. As for his appeal in the close of pag. 18, I have shewed formerly that Mr. Timson, though his [Page 18] Second in this cause, looks not at Judas his recei­ving, or not receiving, as clearly argumentative in this cause, pag. 3, & 4. And should the stresse of this controversie lie upon Iudas his re­ceiving or his not receiving, at what uncertainties should we be about our practice herein, when it is so hard to determine out of Scripture whether Iudas received or not.

His Quotation out of Doctor Hammond, makes not for his purpose: We easily grant with that learned Clerke, That Christian professors may lawfully be admitted, though their hearts be full of villany: and when we have done all we can, such will be admitted. Where we find com­petency of knowledge, professed subjection to all the waies of Christ, not contradicted by a scan­dalous life, we blesse God for the good we see in them, cheerfully give them the right hand of fel­lowship, leaving their hearts and inward condition to Gods Judgement. For that other worthy Gentleman he quotes in the end of this Section; I have some reason to believe (what ever may bee his judgement about Iudas his receiving) he is not of Mr. Humphrey his Latitude for admit­tance to the Sacrament.

Sect. III.

Mr. Humphrey comes to the stating of his Question; In which for explication, pag. 20. He premiseth, That between these two, a covenant-relation visible, and truth of grace which is invi­sible, there is no middle thing injoyned in the Scripture for the rule of our Admission.

Answ. If this Rule be true, then Mr. Hum­phrey doth very ill to coyn divers middle things for the rule of Admission, as that persons to re­ceive, [Page 19] first must have some maturity of under­standing: Secondly, must be in their right wits: Thirdly, must not be jure excommunicate. If it be objected, that these he excepts afterwards by way of Explication. Ans. 1. His Explication must never contradict his Rule. Secondly, By the same reason he can find three middle things, we shall find more, as I hope to make evident when we come to particulars.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 19, 20, & 21. Some are uncapable of the Or­dinances by Nature; namely, such as can discern no meaning thereof: As infants, the distracted, natural fooles, in opposition to the ignorant that are of age: And that first, Because discerning the Lords Body cannot be a duty in the former, &c. Secondly, Because signes cannot work upon the unintelligent, as to any reall effect.

Ans. 1. Here you see one middle thing be­tween Church-membership and truth of grace. Infants, &c. are Church-members, and divers of them have truth of grace; Yet are uncapable of ad­mittance to the Lords Supper in M. Humphrey his judgement for lack of understanding, which therefore must be added to Church-membership as a Qualification for admittance. I here dis­pute ad hominem. Secondly, Why may not unintelligent persons be admitted as well to the Lords Supper as to Baptism, since they understand and discern the Body of Christ as much in that, as the Water of the Spirit in this; and if Bread and Wine cannot work upon the unintelligent, no more can Water, both be­ing Sacramentall signes. If therefore Mr. Hum­phrey will keep to his rule, he must deny Infants Baptism as well as the Lords Supper. If he urge [...], That discerning the Lords Body is required in [Page 20] all receivers of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 29.

Ans. 1 If discerning the Lords Supper be ne­cessary, as to admittance; This strongly justifies our way of trying persons before we admit. If it be not necessary, as to admittance, then how dares he exclude any Church-member from the Sacrament, and punish Infants, &c. by suspending them who are only naturally uncapable, when at the same time he wittingly admits those who are morally uncapable. We grant Elder persons ought to get understanding, which we endeavour to work in them, by offering to instruct them whom we find ignorant against the next Sacrament; and divers we doubt not will blesse God to Eternity, that by a temporary suspension, they were brought out of the Darknesse of Ignorance and sin into the Light of Knowledge and Grace. But doth it follow that because they ought to get understanding, therfore they must be admitted before they have it. Is not their privative Ignorance a greater Bar then Childrens negative Ignorance? We further grant they may be wrought upon by many parts of the Sacrament, and therefore suspend them not from presence, but onely from actuall receiving, it, till Mr. Humphrey can prove the ultimate act of receiving to be a converting Ordinance. But till then, these two great reasons of his, may well prove gravell-stones in his own bowels, but not in our teeth, what ever he may please to fancy of them.

Mr. Humphrey allowes, Pag. 23. that persons excom­municate, ipso jure, should be suspended, namely, persons guilty of notorious and evident crimes, &c. Yet, this he minces again, saying, I do not [Page 21] hold the Minister or Church is alwaies bound to take cognizance hereof, for what hath been shown already so plainly in the pattern of Christ. See more of this kinde, page 26. where he makes the keeping away, or suspending of persons, jure excommunicate, but a prudentiall.

Ans. 1. Is not here another middle thing to be a rule of admission, besides Church-member­ship? Persons jure excommunicate, are Church­members, till actually excommunicated, and therefore either must be admitted, or Mr. Hum­phrey his former rule is false. 2. Note further, and tremble, Mr. Humphrey holds, the Minister and Church are not alwaies bound to take cogni­sance of a Zimri and Cosbi, a person stark sta­ring drunk, incestuous marriages, those who come newly reaking out of open enormities, such as publickly renounce Christ, or say, they won't be­lieve on him; such as being in notorious malice, will not forgive, but professe their obstinacy: but may admit these comming to the Sacra­ment, though convicted by evidence of the fact; so they be not juridically sentenced, and de facto excommunicated. Let the Reader compare page 21. and 22. and see if I wrong him. If this lati­tude of Admission turne not Gods House into a den of Theeves, I know not what will. Well may persons excommunicable (as he calls them) be admitted, if the former rabble of hell may passe. 3. Note further the good use he makes of Judas his admittance, (supposing he was ad­mitted by our Saviour) by making it a presi­dent for the admittance of the vilest convicted miscreants, that ever the earth groaned under, so they be not actually excommunicated. Let me [Page 22] (to evidence the absurdity of this instance of his) inlarge it a little: As Christ did not suspend, so he did not excommunicate Juaas, nor send to the High Priests or Officers for evidence against him, though he were jure excommunicate for the foulest treason that ever the Sun beheld, Ergo, the Church must not excommunicate actually the vilest mon­sters of men, though never so clearly convicted by evidence of the fact; or at least, they do not sin in not excommunicating them, because Christ did not think fit to excommunicate Judas actu­ally, who was jure excommunicate. See whither an ingagement in loose principles will not drive men! But I hope Mr. Humphrey, upon a review, will be of another minde, how ever prejudice and preingagement may cloud his judgment for the present.

Mr. Hum. Pag. 23. And here I must complain of my Oppo­ser. Were not these words (Unlesse excommunicate, ipso jure, or, de facto) page 24. in all three Edi­tions; and why then doth he so overly and contemp­tibly bring an odium on me, by being willing not to see or understand them, &c. Ans. Herein I am sure I have cause to complain of my Opposer Let the Reader peruse his Vindication, page 24. and finde (if he can) one word of excommunicate, jure or facto there. Indeed in that page he chal­lengeth both Independents and Presbyterians, but in the Edition of his Vindication, printed 1642. I finde not one word about excommunication, much lesse that distinction of excommunicate, jure and facto; nor do I remember it is in any part of his Vindication; so far was I from shut­ting mine eies against it, that had I found it there, I should probably have improved it then, [Page 23] as I do now, in order to his conviction.

Mr. H. Page 23. As to the Church or Minister, I held, & do hold, that all Church-members, that are nei­ther unintelligent, nor excommunicate, ought freely to be admitted to this Ordinance: some ca­ses in Spirituall and Temporall prudence being considered.

Ans. 1. Doth it not hence cleerly follow, that the suspension of persons, jure excommuni­cate, is but a case of prudence: and if so, then we should plead for the suspension of others (who are visibly unworthy) only as a case of prudence too. Nay, 2ly. will it not follow hence, that the excommunication of persons, jure excommuni­cate, is but a case of prudence too, the admit­ting of women to the Sacrament, &c. is but a case of prudence too. I believe Mr. Humphrey will finde at last, that such cases of prudence, are good cases of conscience, it being the most prudentiall (as well as conscientious) way, to submit to all the commands of Christ, whether they be in expresse termes, or by good consequence laid upon us in the Scripture. In the same page he comes to my Exceptions: the first, that Infants and the di­stracted (as deaf persons) are to come to the Word, therefore they are not uncapable of the Ordinances.

Mr. Humphrey. For the deaf, he speaks mi­raculously well; for Infants, they were better keep at home, but only for the sake of them that tend them: His Text, Deut. 29. &c. is good to prove their Covenanting by their Parents in Baptisme, where there is only a passive reception, and the benefits relative; but as to the Ordinance of Hea­ring, it must be actuall, and they are uncapable of [Page 24] any reall work by it. Ans. 1. Saving the jest, which Mr. Humphrey can break miraculously well, my discourse, page 13. and 14. speaks no­thing of any miraculous working, farther then every work of conversion is miraculous, & indeed a far greater miracle then all miraculous cures upon the body, John 14. 12. The working upon Infants and deaf persons at the Word (I do not say by the Word) upon blind and paralytick per­sons at the Lords Supper, may be extraordinary; but no more miraculous, then is the working upon persons at age, and who have their senses perfect. No Ordinance is a naturall, but only a mo­rall instrument of conversion, which God useth arbitrarily, and can, when he pleaseth, work without them. I do not say this is all God re­quires, but this is the least he re­quires. That, God requires of his crea­ture, is either active or passive presence; that I should either present my selfe, or be presented before the Lord, according to my capacity. The Ordinances have an aptitude to re­present, offer, or seal, and (when specially elevated by divine benediction) to apply Christ, & grace either initiall or progressive (all of them, the latter; some of them, the former also) to any Church-member, whether he have an active, or only a passive capacity. Thus Infants sanctified from their mothers womb, may, at the Ordi­nance of Baptisme, at least have further degrees of grace infused; and that God, who infuses grace into some of them before any Ordinance used, can infuse more grace upon the use of any Ordinance, though the Infant be no more sen­sible of progressive, then of initiall grace, or of the Ordinance, by, or at which, it is wrought. Gods operation upon Infants & others, naturally [Page 25] uncapable, are secret; the creatures worke is to get in the way and road of grace, that the very shadow of mercy passing by, may overshadow some of them. Acts 5. 15. If I be in the way of mercy, who knowes but it may spread a skirt over me, and make it a time of love, Ezek. 16. 8. A beggar bringing his babe to a rich mans gate, may obtain, not only strong meat for himselfe, but milk for his babe, though it be not sensible of the benefit, or how it comes by it.

The places I quoted are not so slight, to prove Infants must be present at the Word, Read, or Preached &c. as he would make them. True, Deut. 29. 11, 12. they were before God to enter into Covenant: But Deut. 31. verse 11, 12. they were to be presented before God in ordinary, at the great anniversary feasts; that they might hear, &c. and while Infants are but present, God can teach them, though man cannot, Jesh 8. 35. eve­ry word was read before the little ones, as well as others, 2 Chron. 20. 13. In a day of humiliation, their little ones were presented before the Lord as well as others: And, Ioel 2. 16. the very same thing is commanded; and to take away all cavill about their age, they are expresly noted to be such little ones, as suck the breasts. What though they understand nothing? cannot that God, who bids us present them before him, lay his hands upon their hearts, and blesse them at his Ordi­nance. As God teacheth many elder persons con­vincingly, whom he doth not teach savingly; so he can teach infants savingly, whom he doth not teach convincingly, namely, by infusing saving knowledge and grace, Esay 54. 13. May not they be comprehended by Christ at the Ordinan­ces, [Page 26] who cannot at all comprehend him, Ioh. 1. 5. Phil. 3. 12. Before I passe, I shall only note that, about Infant-Baptisme. Mr. Humphrey speaks ambiguously, yet seemes to hint, as if the bene­fits of Baptisme to infants were only relative and not absolute; which if I were certain of, I had more to say to him, but till then, I forbear. I shall only add this, that however Infants may be uncapable of any reall work [by] hearing, yet, they are not uncapable of a reall work [at] hea­ring. Had Christ bid an Infant stretch out his withered hand, his Almighty power at the same time might both have cured him, and also acted him to stretch forth the same hand, being cured, although the Babe understood not one word Christ spake. And cannot Christ cure an Infants withered soul, as well as his withered body, though the Babe understand nothing of the word of command in either.

He tells the Reader, Page 24. my second Exception is, ‘That Infants and the Distracted, are as capa­ble of the Sacrament, as the Ignorant are, though of age.’

Ans. Herein Mr. Humphrey wrests both my words and meaning. Are these two Propositions equipollent, Infants are capable as well as Elder persons that are grosly ignorant; and, Infants are as capable as Elder Persons that are grosly igno­rant? Or more clearly, The Creature is good as well as God; and, The Creature is as good as God: The former Proposition is a truth, the lat­ter, an horrid lie and blasphemy: The former notes the truth of Predication in both: the latter, afferts a parity of the Predicate in both.

I grant, afterwards he laies downe my own [Page 27] tearmes; but by Mr. Humphrey his leave, the Reader might easily have been abused to be­lieve the second exception above mentioned to be either my own termes, or at least my sense: My words are these, ‘I ask Mr. Humphrey, why are Infants capable of Baptisme, and not of the Lords Supper? If he say, because they cannot ex­amine themselves nor discern the Lords Body, &c.’ then I answer, no more can grosly igno­rant persons, &c. To this, Mr. Humphrey, Sir, you must excuse me, I shall not answer you alto­gether so; but, because Infants are really unca­pable, in Baptisme, there is required only a pas­sive, but in the Lords Supper, an actuall recep­tion. 2ly. Because it is not their duty to examine themselves, and discern the Lords Body.

Ans. To omit the absurd opposition of actu­all to passive (which haply was an errour only of the Presse) are not Infants naturally uncapable of Baptisme as well as of the Lords Supper? Do they, or can they apprehend any more, either of the Signe, or thing fignified, in Baptisme, then the Lords Supper? Or, in Baptisme, is there only a passive reception required? True, in Infants, God requires only a passive reception, because they have no active capacity at present: But in Elder persons Baptized, God expects an active, and not only a passive reception; namely, the acting of faith, to receive the blood of sprinkling, and an active indeavour (especially at the time of Baptisme) to mortifie sin, and rise up to newnesse of life, besides the profession of their faith in their own persons; none of which, either God or man, expects of Infants, whom yet the efficacy of Baptisme may reach, as well as Elder [Page 28] persons, though it be not limited to this or that time; nor doth the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost, alwaies accompany the Baptisme of Water, either in Infants or in Elder persons. In Elder persons then Baptized, there is not only a passive, but an active reception, as at the Lords Supper there is not only an active, but a passive reception. For his second Reason, Because it is not the duty of Infants to examine themselves, and discern the Lords Body. Ans. No more is it the duty of In­fants to examine themselves, at, or before Bap­tisme, or to discern the blood of Christ, and the water of the Spirit represented thereby. &c. which Elder persons baptized are bound to, and sin if they do not; yet, I hope this naturall uncapa­bleness of Infants, in order to examination & dis­cretion is no bar to their baptizing; therefore up­on the same account (I argue now ad hominem) they are no just bar to Infants receiving the Lords Supper. If therefore I should say, God requires selfe-examination, and discerning the Lords Bo­die of Elder persons, but not of Infants, would it not follow, that Infants might better be ad­mitted to the Lords Supper, then Elder persons that are grosly ignorant, since there is not that danger of unworthy receiving, in Infants, as in Elder persons, and that because the absence of examination and discretion in them, makes them, co nomine, unworthy; not so in Infants, because God requires not those acts of them as condi­tions, to make them evangelically worthy. Might I not here retort Mr. Humphrey his own argu­ment upon himselfe, The Apostle saies, Let a man examine himselfe, and so eat. He doth not say, Let him not eat, unlesse he can and do examine [Page 29] himselfe: should I add, that the Jewish Children ate the Passover, yet were naturally uncapable of it, as ours are of the Lords Supper. And further, that Children are Disciples as well as Elder per­sons, and that the Disciples assembled together to break bread, Acts 20 7. (by which argument principally, we prove, women may, and ought, to receive) I might thereby not only discover the weakness of his two forementioned Reasons, but haply also might make him a Proselyte to Infant-receiving. And its a Question, whether a Minister might not with more comfort admini­ster either Sacrament to an Infant, than to a gros­ly ignorant or scandalous person, who either pro­fessedly or really rejects the Covenant sealed and exhibited by those signes. Mr. Humphrey might very well therefore have spared those words, page 25. If the man had not been too slighting of me, he would never have run himselfe into the contempt of so many repetitions of this Infant pas­sage: I will reckon them as I go, here is one.

Ans. I hope the Lord hath learned me to slight no man, much lesse a Minister: But its an hard matter, that I cannot presse an argument, which to me seemes solid (I have now demon­strated there is more weight in it, then Mr. Humphrey was aware of) but I must presently be judged as slighting the person of my Opponent. I wish Mr. Humphrey would lay his hand upon his heart, and sadly consider, whether his bitter scoffs do not smell rather of slighting, then my frequent pressing of this, or any other argument. If the argument be valid, it cannot be too often pressed, and I am confident, I presse it no where, but where Mr. Humphrey puts me [Page 30] upon it. Let me be good at Weight, and I shall not envy his being good at Number. I hope his reckonings will bring me in a good shot in the issue. His reckonings with me shall learn me I trust to make the more frequent and strict recko­nings with my self.

Mr. Humphrey having granted that persons jure excommunicate, may be suspended, addes these words. If you shall demand of me a subflan­tiall proof for yielding thus much, I must answer you, the Church is of age, ask it. What she in prudence hath allowed, I am ready to think there may be good reason for, though I know it not.

Ans. If Mr. Humphrey be reall in this his pro­fession, hee cannot be an Enemy to Suspension, which (besides the warrant of Scripture) hath the Church for its Patron, whether by Church he understand the Greek and Latine Church be­fore their Apostacy: Or generall and particular Councills, especially the Council of Ancyra. An. 308. or thereabouts, and the generall Coun­cel of Nice gathered by Constantine the great, by whose Canons, Suspension from the Sacrament is ratified. Or if by Church he understand our own Church of England; Let him consult the Book of Common-Prayer, and particularly the Confirmation, where Ministers are ordered to Catechise in publick; and Governours of Fa­milies are to send their Children and Servants to be Catechised. And the generall rule in the Close is, that none shall be admitted to the Holy Commu­nion untill such time as he can say the Catechism. Here you have an evidence of Suspension for grosse ignorance. And for scandalous persons, [Page 31] turn to the Communion in the Book of Com­mon-Prayer: 1. They are dehorted from recei­ving, in these words. Therefore if any of you be a Blasphemer, &c. or be in malice, envy, or in a­ny other grievous crime; Bewaile your sins, and come not to this Holy Table, lest after the recei­ving of that Sacrament, the Devill enter into you as he entred into Judas, and fill you ful of all in­iquity, and bring you to destruction of Body and Soul. And in the Rubrick before the Communi­on, persons, before receiving, were to give the Mi­nister notice of their purpose therein; and if any of them were a notorious evill liver, or wronged his Neighbour by word or deed, or were in ma­lice and hatred, hee was first to disswade them from the Sacrament, and if that would not prevail, he was to deny them the Sacrament, not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table untill he know them to be reconciled, &c. I might here adde the twenty sixth Canon, which expressly saith, No Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the Holy Communion, any of his Cure or Flock, which be openly known to live in sin ne­torious, without repentance; Nor any who have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbours, untill they shall be reconciled. If by Church he mean, the Church of England as it now stands, and hath stood since the downfall of the Prelates; Hath not Suspension been revi­ved and ratified by the Assembly of Divines sit­ing at Westminster, an Assembly (I may say, I hope without flattery) as Learned and plous as ever the Christian World saw; And afterward confirmed by Civill Sanction of both Houses of Parliament in the Form of Church-Govern­ment [...] [Page 22] [...] [Page 23] [...] [Page 34] that bare Church-membership (though never so much contradicted by practice) is sufficient for admittance to the Sacrament. Upon which ac­count I might refer him to my former answers yet I shall adde a little.

Church-membership being a relation must needs have some foundation which foundation failing, the relation cannot hold: what is this foundation but consent (either implicite or explicite) to walk with the Church of God in all the waies of God for His glory, and their mutuall edification. This consent failing, the Foundation of Church­relation ceases, and such a person unchurches himself, and that visibly too, where this consent failes visibly, as it doth in persons who wilfully refuse knowledge, and live against conviction in scandalous sins: And can the Church then bee blamed for denying the Sacrament (a speciall Church-priviledge) to those who renounce their Baptism, and unchurch themselves, who really deny the faith, and are worse then Infidels? 1 Tim. 5. 8. who are among us, but are not of us. 1 John 2. 19. And if such be in the visible Church, and ever will be, so long as it is Militant; can you blame Church-Officers for endeavouring to find out such by their fruits, Math. 7. 16. to uncase false Brethren, and deny them the Sign, who renounce the thing signified?

As for the seeming Contradiction, he would fasten on me, pag. 27, & 28. He that reads it ob­servantly, may easily perceive the Cavill; since our undertaking to fit the people, is but condi­tionall, provided they will be ruled by us; and therefore if ignorant persons will be ruled by us, we shall endeavour to fit them by instruction; [Page 35] if scandalous persons would be ruled by us, wee shall teach them to live unblameably, whereby they may be visibly worthy: And to make all sorts really worthy (if they will be ruled by us) wee shall endeavour their conversion and actuall preparation though when we have done all we can, we dare not say, we endeavour our utmost de jure; we leave that to Mr. Humphrey.

The question about an unregenerate mans duty, to abstain from the Sacrament, which Mr. Humphrey touches upon, page 28, I shal pass here, as referring it to its proper place: And being right­ly understood, I hope it will not appear so hetero­dox.

Sect. IV.

Mr. Humphrey, If we must hold the Sacrament to be a means of grace only to the Regenerate, and that none may come without these Sacramen­tall graces, &c. we cannot approach this holy Table, but the terrours of the Lord must fall up­on us, as trembling to be guilty of the blood of Christ, and eat our own damnation. The best of Gods people (who are most apt to question their spi­rituall estates) will be discouraged; and others, upon sleight tryall, will conclude their estate to be good, presume upon the Sacrament, and there­by bring upon themselves security, and the blood of their own souls, &c. This I take to be the substance of page 29. and 30. The case is very serious, and pathetically propounded.

Ans. 1. We all agree (from expresse testimony of Scripture) that they who receive unworthily, eat and drink judgment to themselves, and are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 2ly. Mr. Humphrey is not ignorant of a two­fold unworthinesse (as well as worthinesse) ac­knowledged [Page 36] generally by our Divines; viz. the unworthinesse of Person, and of Preparation, and that either of these unworthinesses make a man obnoxious to the forementioned guilt and danger. 3ly. Its confest that hypocrites may be very confident, and true Nathaniels may doubt very much they have neither the worthi­nesse of person nor preparation; or through in­firmity, sloth, and negligence, may faile very much in point of preparation, yet have the wor­thinesse of Person.

4ly. We must distinguish between the rigour of the rule, as laid down doctrinally, and the equity of the rule as reduced to practice. To ex­plain this by the Law of the Passeover: the rigid rule was, no unclean person should eat thereof; yet, it might fall out, that many unclean persons did eat thereof, and that without blame or dan­ger, provided they were not supinely negligent either in avoiding or searching out their unclea­nesse. Otherwise no man durst have eaten the Passover, since its possible he might have been de­filed though unwittingly.

5ly. Abstinence from the Sacrament is two­fold 1. Out of profanesse and slighting of Christ, and his grace. 2ly. Out of clear conviction or grounded jealousie about our spirituall estate. In like manner, Receiving of the Sacrament is two­fold. 1. Out of Custom or other sinister respects. 2ly. Out of Conscience rightly informed (about truth of grace inherent) or deceived and mistaken, or doubting and scrupulous; namely, when it cannot clearly either assent or dissent: Or when it inclines in assent to the better part; yet with fear and jealousie of the contrary.

[Page 37] These things premised we say. 1. That for Per­sons totally destitute of the worthinesse of person, (such are all in their natural condition) it were happy if the terrours of the Lord were more upon them that by fear of murthering Christ, they might be kept from murthering Christ, at the Sacrament.

2ly. If upon tryall, an erring conscience tell them they have truth of grace, they are exposed to a snare whether they receive or not: since if they come not, they sin against their consciences; and if they come, they receive unworthily, and thereby contract guilt and incur danger; as it is in other cases, when an erring conscience puts a man upon sin as duty, or pulls a man from duty as sin.

3dly. If any doubt of truth of grace (be the ground of his mistake right or wrong) and there­upon fear to receive 1. this abstinence of his, is far from a slighting of Christ. 2ly. cannot bee prejudiciall, but advantagious to his soul, provi­ded hee sit not down in a doubting and despon­dent condition.

4ly. A true Nathaniel wanting evidence, and so fearing to aproach is by the Sacrament put up­on it to be more diligent in making his calling and Election sure: And by self-examination, backt with prayer and advice of experienced Ministers and Christians, may through the blessing of God attain such a measure of evidence, as that he may with comfort approach the Lords Table, and go away with a double Portion of the spirit of evi­dence; and for such in speciall, the Sacrament was instituted as a Cordiall to refresh their faint­ing hearts, and as a seale to ratifie the Covenant of grace, and to put it out of question to their consciences. So that if we be rightly understood, [Page 38] here is no sadning of those whom God would not have made sad nor any strengthing the hands of the wicked on the other side: And for those whose portion is sorrow, they had better be in the house of mourning then in the house of feasting. As for the Objection Mr. Humphrey moves from Rom 14. last: He that doubteth is Damned, if he eat &c.

Ans. 1. In things indifferent, to act doubtingly is a sin, but Sacramentall eating is not a thing indifferent to him that hath truth of grace.

2ly. What if he doubt, hee shall sin by abstain­ing as well as by eating: May not such a case possibly fall out, when the faith of evidence is ballanced by an opposite doubting?

3ly. The word put for doubting, [...]. signifies in the Originall a discerning, or putting a diffe­rence, as 1 Cor. 11. 29. Jude ver. 22. which notes a positive act, and not a bare hesitancy or neutrality between assent and dissent.

Let us now peruse Mr. H. his Commenta­ry upon 1 Cor. 11. from pag. 32. to 38, for some ease (as he termes it) of the forementioned per­plexities. Pag. 32. he hath these words, I would not have men think Saint Paul advances this Or­dinance ( which he speaks but lowly of, 1 Cor. 10. 4.) above others, as prayer, the one being only Instituted the other Natural worship.

Ans. 1. I think Mr. Humphrey is mistaken in saying Saint Paul speaks but lowly of the Sa­crament, 1 Cor. 10. 4. I conceive its no low ex­pression to call the Manna spirituall meat, the miraculous Water, spirituall Drink; and the Rock (out of which it flowed) Christ. And though both Manna and Water were common, [Page 39] (they all ate and drank thereof) this is no un­dervaluing of either, since the choisest mercies are most common, at least as to the tender of them: (witnesse God himself) especially in the Church.

2ly. Whether the Apostle intended here to ad­vance the Sacrament above other Ordinances (which to me seems probable,) or not: I believe it excells other Ordinances; And that because it is made up of them all, to wit, the Signe, the thing signified, the word & prayer; besides the commen­dation it hath by our blessed Saviours institution at such a time, and for such high ends. And if all these Ordinances combined, are better then any one of them single; surely the Sacrament must have the preheminency.

3ly. Upon the same account, instituted wor­ship excells naturall worship, because it includes it, and superadds institution. Particularly faith in the Mediator is instituted worship; yet I hope it is not inferiour to naturall worship, which it in­cludes, and superaddes Institution. There is no Or­dinance but hath its peculiar use and excellency, for which wee have cause to blesse God and be thankfull; nor need we trouble our selves with comparisons of this kind, which are for the most part curious, and too often odious. Yet, were actu­all receiving a converting Ordinance, I think wee might wel honour it as the Crowning Ordinance, since it excells in point of Confirmation, and re­presents Christ effectually to so many senses: but I forbear.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 32, & 33. Here is a Church-sinne; that sin is making that common [Page 40] which was sacred, the using of this Sacrament but as their Love-feasts, &c.

Ans. 1. Yea suppo­sing, they were joyn­ned toge­ther, as were the common Supper, the Passo­ver and the Lords Supper. Its gratis dictum, that they made the Lords Supper a common supper as their Love­feasts: Nor doth he produce any argument or Classicall Author to avouch it. The Apostle in­deed blames their schismes, intemperancy, disor­der, and slighting their poor Brethren, &c. 1 Cor. 11. ver. 18. 21. but where is one word of ma­king the Lords Supper a common supper?

Pag. 33. & 34. He seems to question whether the Lords Supper be first a seal. 2ly. Whether it be a signe of future things, and particularly saies, that Remcanbrance is of some thing only that is past.

Ans. 1. Why should Circumcision be a seal, and not every other Sacrament, and so by conse­quence the Lords Supper?

2ly. Hath it not the Office of a Seal in ratifying the Covenant of grace as well as other Sacra­ments?

3ly. How doth the unworthy Receiver eat and drinkjudgement, unlesse this Sacrament by sen­sible signes applied (as in sealing there is First a signe; Secondly, Application thereof; Thirdly, Ra­tification thereby) ratifie judgement to him with­out repentance?

4ly. Mr. Humphrey forgets himself in saying Remembrance is only of things past; otherwise how can I remember the Sabbath to sanctifie it, or remember my latter end? &c.

5ly. Why should not this Sacrament be a signe of future things as well as other Sacraments? Circumcision and the Passover were signes of fu­ture [Page 41] things. Baptism is a signe of future things; Namely, of Regeneration, Mortification and Vi­vification, which (in most baptised persons that attain them) are future: and why should not the Lords Supper be a signe of future, as well as of past things (especially upon Mr. Humphrey his prin­ciples, who makes it a converting Ordinance)? Is not the comming of Christ future, and how can this Sacrament declare Christs death till hee come, and not remember the receivers of Christs comming that is future, as well as of Christs death that is past? 1 Cor. 11. 26. Pag. 34. In opening, what is this eating and drinking unwor­thily; he distinguishes between a worthy Receiver and receiving worthily. This last he places main­ly in comming with Reverence.

Ans. 1. I deny not but Reverence is a part of worthy receiving, and that he who receives ir­reverently, receives unworthily with a wit­nesse.

2ly. Yet as it is competible to a naturall man, he makes it lie very much, in fearing his own Damnation, which (grant it be a duty in statu quo) being but slavish fear, is no part of Evangeli­call worthinesse; and therefore cannot be a main part of receiving worthily. Its such a worthinesse, as he that hath commited the sin against the ho­ly Ghost may receive with.

3ly. If further by reverence he mean, some in­ward awe, and outward demure behaviour, its a very easie matter to receive worthily, yea though a man neither have truth of grace, nor make con­science either of examining or preparing himself. Certainly when the Apostle said, Let a man exa­mine himself, and so let him eat, &c. he appre­hended [Page 42] that who ever of age received without self-examination received unworthily; but Mr. Humphrey tells us, the main of receiving worthi­ly, lies in reverence; and this reverence a naturall man may have, and receive with; yet never so much as examine himself. From such worthy re­ceiving, good Lord deliver me. Not but that I think this reverence is necessary, but it falls infi­nitely short of receiving worthily, and he that receives no more worthily, will eat and drink damnation to himself.

4ly. If receiving worthily lie mainly in this re­verence, then it doth not lie mainly in the acting of Faith, Love, Hungring and thirsting after Christ, Evangelicall repentance, &c. Which how absurd and contrary, not only to the consent of Orthodox Divines, but chiefly of the Scripture it self, which placeth Evangelicall worthinesse in closing with Christ, and unworthinesse in the re­jecting of him, and withdrawing from him, Matth. 5. 3, 4,5. & 22. ver. 5. 8. Acts 13. ver. 45, 46. Such cold, loose, and jejune interpretati­ons, may well make cold and loose Christians, but will contribute poorly in order to receiving worthily.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 35. What is the meaning of that phrase, not discerning the Lords Body? Is it the not putting a difference between this Sacred, and a common Table: When men have no more respect to this Bread and Wine then to their ordinary meates.

Ans. 1. By way of concession; this is a grosse breach of the rule indeed, and which grosly ig­norant persons are very subject to. This grosse sin we should endeavour to prevent by Sacramentall tryall, and instruction of the Ignorant, how e­ver [Page 43] our care herein find little favour in Mr Hum­phrey his eies.

2ly. The very laying open of the sin, in the Text, imports a contrary duty of discerning the Lord Body, if we would receive worthily: and this lies not barely in historicall faith, discerning the Elements to be holy in use, though common in nature; and that the Lords Body is distinct from them though united Sacramentally with them; but principally in the discretion of saving faith and love (words of knowledge in Scripture being put for acts of the will and affections) whereby the Heavenly Eagles, discerning the bo­dy, fly to it, and feed upon it; the discretion of tast being held forth in the Sacrament as well as the discretion of sight; and otherwise what is our discerning of the Lords Body more then a Devill may do? Intellectuall discretion without cordial discretion, is so far from being a main part of re­ceiving worthily, that without this latter, it doth but aggravate our sin, and increase our doom. Let my soule never rest, nor please it selfe in such discerning.

Mr. Humphrey. The Apostle enquires not into the state of the person, whether regenerate or not, but lookes to their manner of receiving, &c.

Ans. 1. But doth he not put them upon en­quiry into their own estates? What else is meant by that precept; Let a man examine himself, &c. Let the Apostle interpret himself. 2 Cor. 13. 5. Gal. 6. 4. And when is there a fitter time to exa­mine my estate, actions, growth; then be­fore and after a Sabbath or Sacrament? Sabbath daies being with them Sacrament daies?

2ly. If they must look to the manner of recei­ving, [Page 44] must they not then see to it, they receive graciously; and what was either their receiving, or remembring Christs death (as to their parti­cular good and comfort) if they did not both in a right manner? 3ly. Can we be so uncharitable as to imagine, they came not to the Lords Sup­per as a memoriall of Christ? Could they either name or receive the Lords Supper, and at the same time utterly forget the Lord, whose Supper it was, and look at it only as a common Supper?

Mr. Humph. If the meaning of either of the phrases were, to come without faith or regenerati­on (as some too harshly presse it) then the Corin­thians that were punish'd for this sin, must have been not only chastened, but condemned with the world, which they were not, verse 32.

Ans. 1. Its probable, divers of them did come without faith and regeneration (many of every Congregation being in their naturall condition, and under impenitency, which the Apostle hints of the Corinthians in particular, 2 Cor. 12. last, and 13. 5. compared) yet it followes not, they were condemned with the world, since they might repent in their sicknesse, which the Apo­stle prescribes, verse 31. as the remedy. 2ly. Even the godly amongst them might haply come pro­fanely, though they made it not a common Sup­per; and undoubtedly to these. God gave repen­tance before their death. His argument then is ve­ry weak, to conclude their damnation from their unworthy receiving. They indeed who repented not, were damned; but there is no connexion be­tween any mans sin and his damnation, unlesse that sin be accompanyed with finall impeniten­cy. 3ly. If it be harsh to say, that they who [Page 45] come without faith and regeneration, receive un­worthily when it's delivered only in thesi, how harsh is it to charge a Church in hypothesi, with such high profannesse, that they received the Lords Supper but as a common Supper, and ne­ver so much as remembred Christ in it, who is both the Author, Matter, and End of the Sacra­ment, and whose Name in an speciall manner is called upon it?

Page 36. Mr. Humphrey opens that expression, of being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, and grants, that unworthy receivers contract this guilt, by offering an indignity to the thing signified: but he approves not that harsher lan­guage of murthering Christ. Ans. 1. Whether he that is guilty of blood be not a murtherer. 2ly. Whether degrees of murther vary the kinde. 3ly. Whether in murther all be not principals. 4ly. Why should sleighting of Christ in Apostates be murther, Heb. 6. and 10. and not in unwor­thy receivers? If sleighting my Brother be mur­ther, shall slighting my Saviour be no murther? The least murther is murther as well as the grea­test. This language therefore, by Mr. Humphrey his leave, is not harsh, unlesse it be harsh to call a Spade a Spade.

His next head of explication, Page 37. is, about selfe-examination, wherein Mr. Humphrey and we agree very much. To his second caution I shal only add thus much, That whosoever upon tryall, is truly sensible of, and grieved for, the want of grace; humbled under, and resolved against, sin: this man hath truth of grace at present, and is the worthyest communicant in Gods account. In his third caution, he grants, that in order to better [Page 46] preparation against the next Sacrament, a wicked man may abstain at present; but if he resolve to go on in sin, then he is bound to come and to ap­ply damnation to himselfe, unlesse he repent.

Ans. 1. By way of concession, every obstinate sinner is bound to apply damnation to himselfe, in statu quo. 2ly. This he may do in an especiall manner, when present at the Sacrament, though he receive not. 3ly. By receiving so maliciously, he contracts more guilt, then by abstaining, it be­ing a Judas sin to betray and murther Christ any where, but most of all at his own Table, to eat of his bread with a resolution of lifting up our heel against him. John 13. 18. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, how much more when he brings it with a wicked heart. Prov. 21. 27.

4ly. Supposing it were his duty to come and apply Damnation by receiving, what if he will not apply Damnation, and comes with an inten­tion not to apply Damnation but Salvation, as Deut. 29. 19. is it his duty to come, though hee will apply Salvation and not Damnation by the Sacramen. Is it his duty to come though he come presumptuously? Much I confesse might be said for his comming absolutely, Let his intentions be what they will, were actuall receiving a con­verting Ordinance. But of this, in its proper place.

Pag. 38. He saies, that unlesse a man use the Lords Supper as a common thing, there is no pecu­liar eating damnation there, more then at any other Ordinance.

Ans. 1. This cannot be, since the Sacrament is a complex Ordinance: He that eats his Damna­tion [Page 47] at four Ordinances, eats it more then he that eats it but at one Ordinance. At the Sacrament Christ crucified is held forth by reading, hearing, prayerr, and the Sacramentall Elements and Actions; in all which Christ is murthered by the unworthy receiver. Hee who murthers Christ four times, sure is more guilty then hee who murthers him but once.

2ly. He that by eating Damnation, seals Dam­nation, eats Damnation more then he that eates it without sealing: As a godly man at the Sacra­ment eats Christ more then at the word, so doth a wicked man eate Damnation.

Object. If this be true, then a wicked man by presence at the Sacrament, may murther Christ as well as by receiving.

Ans. 1. True, but not so much.

2ly. The three Ordinances of reading preach­ing and prayer are converting; not so, actuall re­ceiving: upon which account we dare not deny any the three former, nor dare admit every one to the latter.

Pag. 39. He distinguisheth between eating and sealing Damnation: That is the effect of irreve­rent unworthinesse: this is a confirming of the truth of the Covenant, to every man according to his condition, which is a duty, &c. and of high concernment, as they look to be converted and sa­ved.

Ans. He is too narrow in limiting the eating of Damnation onely to irreverent unworthinesse, as if there were no other Sacramentall unworthi­nesse but that.

2ly. We must distinguish between Gods sealing and mans sealing; God by the Sacrament seales [Page 48] Damnation (as to state) unto wicked men whe­ther they receive or not. Man at the Sacrament seales Damnation to himselfe, wittingly or un­wittingly. Wittingly, in Mr. Humphrey his sense, when he receives the seale with an intent to apply the threat of Damnation to himself, in order to his deeper humiliation; unwittingly, when being person [...]lly or relatively unworthy he laies hold of, and applies the seales either rashly or presumptu­ously, which ever seal salvation or damnation ac­cording to the state & carriage of the receiver and if not the former, then necessarily the latter: as a man by inconsiderately sealing to a Bond, may easily ratifie his own undoing, though hap­ly at the same time he dream of no such mat­ter; That we may call an intentionall, this areall and actuall sealing. The distinction being thus cleared and stated, I believe that every unwor­thy receiver doth seal his own damnation really, whether he mind what he doth, or no.

2ly. That if such a person in statu quo, will venture to receive, he ought to seal and apply to himself onely his own portion which is Damna­tion otherwise he were bound to seal a falsity.

But thirdly, that any man is bound to receive for this very end, that he may seal his own Dam­nation; I desire a scriptum est from Mr. Hum­phrey. Certainly, were this a duty, the Sacra­ment were more necessary for persons either de jure, or facto excommunicate then for any other: The proudest sinners have most need of sealing their own Damnation, that thereby they might be driven to humiliation and repentance.

The comfort of poor souls, (who being sensible of their unworthinesse, fear their Damnation,) is [Page 49] sealed and cannot be reversed, lies in this. 1. That the sealing in the Sacrament is not according to their Apprehension, but according unto Truth. Let men think themselves never so unworthy, if they be Evangelically worthy, not their Dam­nation but their Salvation is sealed. 2ly. Suppo­sing their Damnation be sealed, its sealed but con­ditionally, as to the Event, however it may bee sealed absolutely, as to their present State. If there­fore they keep not the condition of Damnation, the sealing thereof shall no more prejudice them then the sealing of Salvation shall advantage Hypocrites, who keep not the condition of Sal­vation. His distinction of Actuall and Potentiall sealing is not so accurate, since every receiver doth actually seal both parts of the Covenant, name­ly, both Salvation and Damnation only the one he seales absolutely, the other conditionally, according to his particular state and continuance therein. Only the worthy Receiver hath this sin­gular advantage, That his Salvation is sealed ab­solutely, both as to State and Event; not so the Damnation of the unworthy Receiver, I mean as to the latter.

Mr. Humphrey. If the Sacrament be a Seal, it doth exhibite and convey somthing to the Re­ceiver; and that, to the Unregenerate, must bee dangerous. Here then let us know and arm our selves, that Sacraments being only moral Instru­ments, cannot convey any thing that is Real unto the Soul by way of Obsignation; but onely that which is Relative, making no change, but as to our Estates, and Relations to God, &c.

Ans. 1. If the Sacrament being only a Morall Instrument, cannot convey any thing that is reall, [Page 50] then the Word being also but a Morall Instru­ment, cannot convey any thing that is Reall. The Word Preached, may work Knowledge phy­sically, but it cannot work grace physically. Hee that looks at any Ordinance under Christ, as more then a Morall Instrument of Grace, doth at once debase God, and Idolize the Ordinance.

2ly. If Sacraments can convey nothing Reall and absolute but onely Relative, then Sacraments cannot convert and regenerate; these being Real & absolute priviledges, as Justification and Adopti­on are Relative priviledges; (not to stand upon his opposition of Reall to Relative, as if a Rela­tive state were not a Real state.)

3ly. Suppose they could convey no Real thing to the Soul by way of Obsignation yet they may by way of Signification. The Sacrament is a Signe as well as a Seal, and preaches Christ crucified to the eie, as the Word doth to the ear.

4ly. As a Seal conveies an Estate to him that keeps the Conditions of a Covenant for Estate; so the Sacrament conveies degrees of Grace to him that keeps the condition of the Covenant. True, the Seal is nothing without the Writing, for it must have some what to seal to; and that is the Covenant: but, as annexed to the Covenant, it makes a compleat Instrument, and doth not only signifie, but also convey Christ with all his benefits to the worthy Receiver: That is, gives a Title to Christ, as by exhibiting, it gives possession in part. and if so, then not onely Relative, but also reall and absolute Priviledges: namely, more degrees of Sanctificati­on as well as further evidence of Justification and Adoption. The Iron therefore hee complaines of, pag. 41. will still stick in his Soul, since neither word nor Sacrament convey either wrath or [Page 51] mercy Physically, but only Morally: Both repre­sent by way of Signification, which if the spirit please to set on effectually, may contribute much in their severall kinds; but the Sacraments excell in way of Obsignation and Ratification.

Sect. V.

Having vindicated the Apostles Text against Mr. Humphrey his glosse: Pag. 44. Let us see, what hee hath to say to my Confutation of his proofs.

‘ D. Dr. If Mr. Humphrey plead that onely Legall uncleanesse, excludes from the Passo­ver, I ask him, why? He will answer, because it defiled the holy things, &c. but so did Morall uncleanesse, &c.’

Mr. Humphrey. Here Mr. Drake is misera­bly mistaken. Mr. Humphrey intends not to an­swer him so sillily: but because it was Gods posi­tive Command, that Levitically-inclean persons should be separated from the Camp; but there was no such Law for Morall uncleanesse at all, but the contrary, that all the Congregation were to eat thereof.

Ans. 1. There is no positive Command that all unclean persons should be put out of the Camp; the more famous uncleanesses indeed were so to be separated, Numb. 5. 2. but not every un­cleanesse.

2ly. God himself assignes this reason, why they should be separated, namely, least they should defile others. Levit. 5. 3. therefore Dr. Drakes reason was not so silly, it being Gods owne reason.

3ly. Morall uncleanesse defiled as well as Le­gall uncleanesse, as Mr. Humphrey confesseth from my proofes, Levit. 18. and Ezek. 23.

[Page 52] 4ly. Church-Officers were set on purpose to keep all unclean persons from the holy things, 2 Chron. 23. 19. Those that were unclean in any thing. If no unclean person were to enter, and persons were unclean by Morall, as well as by Legall pollutions; then my proofs were not bu­sily vain as Mr. Humphrey would make the world believe. Whether therefore the charge of petulancy and reviling, be justly laid upon me, I leave to the judgment of the impartiall Reader; not that I shall, or dare, excuse every word writ­ten in heat of dispute, as well knowing my own weaknesse, and that the tongue and pen are slip­pery pieces.

D. Dr. That all unclean persons were to be suspended the Passover, is evident by 2 Chron. 23. 19.

Mr. Humphrey. Page 45. For shame do not say so. 1. Doth that place speak of the Passover: Or, 2ly. of Suspension: Or, 3ly. of Morall unclean­nesse?

Ans. 1. The terme Passover, is not mentio­ned in my Text, quoted by Mr. Humphrey, page 19. 2 ly. Had I said, that all unclean per­sons, were not only to be suspended in generall, but in particular to be suspended the Passover, had it been any more then the truth? I would not here be mistaken, as if I thought that either Mo­rall or Leviticall uncleannesse did exclude from all Ordinances, but only from some Ordinances; and that both under the Legall and Evangelicall dispensation. Amongst which, I apprehend that the Passover then, and the Lords Supper now, are in a speciall manner distinguishing and sepa­rating Ordinances. This I have in part made out [Page 53] here, and shall, by Gods assistance, clear it more hereafter, in its proper place. 3 ly. I brought not that place, 2 Chron. 23. 19. to prove it in termes, but by consequence. The Resurrection is not in termes in these words, I am the God of Abra­ham, Isaac, and Jacob; yet, those words prove the Resurrection strongly. From the fore-quo­ted place its evident, that unclean persons were to be kept from those holy things, which were instituted for meat's of Edification, not of Con­version. I assume: But the Passover was such an holy thing; therefore they were to be kept from the Passover. 4 ly. As the terme Suspension, is not named here, so the terme Excommunication is not mentioned, either in the Old or New-Testament: Doth it follow therefore, that sus­pension cannot be proved by this Text, nor ex­communication by Scripture? Mr. Humphrey can conclude, we suspend those persons whom we do not admit, and can he not as well con­clude, that Jchofada suspended those persons whom he did not admit? 5 ly. Let me retort a passage of his Answer in this page, changing only the terme of Leviticall for Morall: Is it pro­bable, that the Levites at such a time, did, or could, in such a concourse, try, and examine them concerning Leviticall cleannesse and un­cleannesse? Let Mr. Humphrey tell me, how they could try all for Leviticall uncleannesse; and I will tell him, how they could try all for Morall uncleannesse. I avouch not, page 202. that an excommunicated person might come into the Temple; but into the Church, where presence doth not defile. And as for the Publican, his Of­fice did not make him unclean, nor did John the [Page 54] Baptist bid them renounce the Office, but be just and righteous in their places, Luke 3. verse 12, 13. Indeed generally, Fublicans were very oppressive and hatefull, but their Office was war­rantable and therefore upon that account solely, they could not be kept out of the Temple, I mean the Court for the people. But it followes not, that because Publicans, as so, might not be ex­cluded the Temple, therefore when morally un­clean, by horrid oppressions, &c. they might not be kept out.

For my second Exception, about Children ea­ting the Passover, it seems probable enough, that Children who were capable of eating flesh, and could conveniently be brought up to Jerusalem, did eat of it; from that generall Precept, Exod. 12. 48. nor doth Mr. Humphrey deny it, though he seem more inclinable to the contrary opini­on. This granted, makes much against Mr. Hum­phrey, his excepting Children from the Lords Sup­per. Since therefore he will needs be scoring, let him toke notice of it, as a probable evidence a­gainst himselfe.

He doth well in passing over my instance of Hezekiah's Passover, 2 Chron. 30. verse 18, 19, 20. which proves, that Morall uncleannesse made them more uncapable of it, then Leviticall pol­lution, God accepting those who set their hearts aright, though they were not cleansed after the purification of the Sanctuary.

D. Dr. Excommunication was a bar to the Passover, and this was for scandalous sins, not Levitical pollutions.

Mr. Humphrey. Page 46. Who will not be willing to grant this in the main? But what followes then? [Page 55] only, as I hold, that men must be first excommu­nicate, before they be kept from the Sacrament.

Ans. 1. Take notice, that Mr. Humphrey grants excommunication is a bar to the Passover. Now I would intreat him to give me but one ex­press Text of Scripture, that in termes asserts this conclusion: If he can prove it only by consequence, let him not deny the same just and equitable fa­vour to us, of proving suspension from the Sacra­ment also by consequence. 2 ly. Take away the homonymie and equivocation of the terme Ex­communication, under which Mr. Humphrey beguiles his Reader; and it will easily appear, that I have not plaied with my own shadow, what ever he, through prejudice, may imagine. Mr. Humphrey takes excommunication for a juridi­call exclusion of a Person from all publick Ordi­nances at least. I know no such excommunicati­on in Scripture, unlesse it be evident, a person hath committed the sin against the Holy Ghost: and this also is demonstrable only by our conse­quence, because we are sure no Ordinance can do such a one good, no more then the Devill him­selfe. I take excommunication in the Latitude, as it notes a turning out of Communion, whether in order to any Church priviledge, or in order to dis-Membering, which is properly a casting out of the Church, in the rigour of the phrase. Ac­cordingly, I prove there were severall degrees of excommunication in practice, both in the Jewish and Christian Church, page 21, 22. built upon Scripture grounds: as, when we are forbid to eat with a scandalous Brother, 1 Cor. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. and 2 Thess. 3. 14. commanded to avoid them, not to keep company with them; [Page 56] the very end whereof (that they may be ashamed) seemes in a speciall manner to respect separation from such at the Sacrament, since by suspension they are put to publick shame, a far more effe­ctuall remedy to reduce them, then private sepa­ration alone; which yet must concur and back this publick shame, for the better obtaining of the forementioned end and purpose. Hence I concluded, that suspension is excommunication, and the first degree thereof. And as degrees of heat do not alter the nature and kinde of heat, but that the least degree of heat is as truly heat as the highest degree thereof; so the least degree of excommunication is excommunication (that is, a turning out of communion, though but in part) as well as the highest degree. And therefore Mr. Humphrey granting, that excommunicated per­sons may, and ought, to be kept from the Sacra­ment, doth therein grant, that suspended persons may be kept from the Sacrament since suspension is excommunication, though in a low degree.

For my exception about the word (Type) he deales very ingenuously, and acknowledges, That if strictly taken, it is not amisse. Only thence he infers against me, that exclusion of the Legal­ly unclean from the Congregation, is not proof for me to plead, that the Morally-unclean ought to be kept from the Sacrament; but a Type indeed, that such, in whom the Leprosy, &c. of sinn raignes, shall be excluded Heaven.

Ans. 1. I do not bring it as proofe yea, I be­lieve, that if sequestring any out of the Camp, did typifie an Evangelicall Censure, it should rather typifie turning out of Church membership (es­pecially if their uncleanesse were incurable) than [Page 57] Suspension: but for my part, I believe its a type of neither.

2ly. I go upon the generall rule, that all unclean persons were to bee kept from those holy things which cannot convert, but prejudice them in sta­tu quo. The Scripture is clear, that Morall un­cleanesse is worse then Leviticall pollution, and that therefore it doth desile as much, yea, more then any Legall pollution, Levit. 18. Ezek. 23. To which I might adde, Ezek. 44. ver. 9-14. (a Text the more considerable, because a prophe­sie of Gospel-times) Where persons uncircumci­sed in heart as well as in flesh, were forbid En­trance into Gods Sanctuary: And the Priests for­merly guilty of Idolatry, were cut short of choice Priviledges in the Church an evidence that neither Church-members nor Church-officers were, eo no­mine, to enjoy equall priviledges, but a difference was to be made in point of priviledge according to their visible worthinesse or unworthinesse. So Mat. 5. 23, 24. Christ forbids a malicious per­son in statu quo, to draw near in order to Sacri­fice; and will he allow a malicious person to draw near in order to the receiving of the Sacrament? But of this more hereafter. Yea the Sacrifices did typically expiate Morall as well as Leviticall un­cleanesse, Levit. 5. & 6. though neither the one nor the other were to enjoy the benefit of Sacri­fice, till evidence given to the Priest either of their Morall Legall, or Spirituall cleansing, either by the mercy of God curing their unclean disea­ses or by their application of more private Le­viticall meanes of cleansing, or by the publick testification of their repentance, and faith, for their Morall uncleanesses. Levit. 5. ver. 5, 6. & [Page 58] 6. ver. 4. 5. & 15. ver. 13. 14. & 13. ver. 4. to 11. Yea further, for the searching into, and dis­covery of Morall uncleanesse (though but upon jealousie and suspition, and that where there was no witnesse at all) the Lord was pleased to work a miracle. Numb. 5. ver. 13. to 31. Acts 5. ver. 5. to 11. thereby warranting and incoura­ging, both Church-Officers and private Chri­stians upon any grounded jealousie of Morall Pollution, not to stay till Evidence come to them, but to improve all lawfull meanes of dis­covery, as they tender their own peace and safe­ty, or the peace and safety of the whole. Com­pare Jos. 7. Adde to this the example of Jehoja­dah, 2 Chron. 23. 19. Its evident, Church-Offi­cers were of purpose set in the Gates of the Lords House, to keep away those who were unclean in any thing: and if persons unclean in any thing, were to be kept off, then persons unclean by gross, or raigning sins (which is morall uncleanesse) were to be kept away; since in that place there is no more mention of Levitical then of Morall un­cleanesse; but the Scripture commends Jehoja­da's care for keeping back those who were unclean in any thing: I argue therefore from a Morall precept, not from a Leviticall type; nor doth the Suspension of persons Levitically unclean any more exclude the Suspension of persons Morally unclean, then the Suspension of persons Morally unclean doth exclude the Suspension of persons Levitically unclean, seeing neither of them are named in the forementioned Text, but both in­cluded in the generall.

D. Dr: It is evident that Niddui was a Bar in particular to the Passover.

[Page 59]Mr. Humphrey. I pray mark it. Niddui was an excommunication for thirty daies. Now if it were a Bar to the Passover, a man could never be ex­communicated but at Easter. The truth is, Niddui was no more in reference to the Passover then any Society; and it is twelve to one throughout the year, whether it ever hapned to concern the Passo­ver, &c.

Ans. 1. I pray mark it, Mr. Humphrey grants Niddui was an Excomunication.

2ly. Pag. 46. he grants that Excommunication was a Bar to the Passover. Why then doth hee find fault with me for saying no more, then what himself saies and grants, namely, that Nid­dui in particular was a Bar to the Passover?

Object. I but Niddui was an Excommunication only for thirty daies; and if it were a Bar to the Passover, a man could never be Excommunicated but at Easter.

Ans. 1. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant, that the time of this Excommunication, might bee doubled or trebled, yea, extended to the end of a mans life, if he continued impenitent; See Good­wins Jewish Antiquities, pag. 200.

2ly. Its very absurd he saies, that then a man could not be Excommunicated but at Easter. True, his Excommunication could not keep him from the Passover, if he were absolved from it before the Passover came; no more can Suspension be a Bar to the Sacrament, if a man be absolved from it, before the Sacrament come: but the sentence of Niddui might be issued out against a person at a­ny time of the year.

3ly. Its likewise a grosse mistake (supposing this Excommunication lasted but thirty daies) [Page 60] to hold that it is twelve to one throughout the year, whether ever it happened to concern the Passover. Hath Mr. Humphrey forgot there were two Passovers every year, and that the se­cond Passover was in the Second Month, for those who could not receive in the First Month? Numb. 9. ver. 10, 11. & 2 Chron. 30. ver. 2, 3, 15. therefore upon his own supposition it was but six to one in the year, that this Excommuni­cation might concern the Passover. But what wil Mr. Humphrey say, if Niddui extended to an whole year, yea, to a mans whole life; did it not then clearly Barre such a person from the Passe­over?

4ly. Niddui was a Separation from eating and drinking with any, and how then could such a one receive the Passover which was never to bee eaten alone? Its apparent then that Suspension is no Novell invention: That their Niddui & our Suspension were very like one to the other, since under both, men were kept from the Sacra­ment, but not from other Ordinances, but might be present at Divine Service, either to hear, or to teach, &c: Only our Suspension is far milder: since the males of persons under the sentence of Niddui, might not be circumcised, &c. Besides, with us many persons suspend themselves, and choose not to receive at all, rather then they will give an account of their faith to those must give an account to God for their souls. Had Mr. Hum­phrey improved his Art and skill in perswading the people to return to their duty, instead of dis­couraging Church-Officers from painfulnesse, watchfulnesse, and faithfulnesse in their duty, hee had contributed far more (than now he doth) [Page 61] to the glory of God, the Reformation and edifi­cation of the Church, and the peace of his owne Conscience. But I forbear. How ever therefore Mr. Humphrey soares high in confidence, as if we had nothing to say against the daylight of his Free-Admission (as he is pleased to term it) Pag. 47. yet it hath formerly appeared, and wil further ap­pear by this ensuing parallel, that we have more to say for Suspension, and against his Free-Ad­mission, then he was aware of.

The Parallel lies thus.

The question is, What if a man were unclean at the second Passover? Ans. He was either to [Page 62] forbear, till the Passover recurring the next year; or else, to endeavour to make amends for his Legall pollution, by striving more after, and giving stronger evidence of his morall purity, 2 Chron. 30. verse 18. to 20. Whereby it ap­pears, that Morall pollution was a greater Bar to the Passover, then Leviticall pollution.

Mr. Humphrey. Page 48. My second proofe was from 2 Cor. 10. 17. These Corinthians were scanda­lous many of them; and yet, saies the Apostle, We being many, are all partakers of one bread. A­gainst this, Mr. Drake hath his three exceptions, page 25, 26, 27.

1. He extenuates their crime, and counts it no bar to their receiving.

Ans. 1. I may more safely extenuate their crime, then he may aggravate it. 2 ly. Himselfe doth not charge them with Idolatry, but saies only, that they were ready to go to Idols. 3 ly. Yet that they were ready to commit Idolatry, is not evident by Scripture; only they gave great occa­sion of scandal and suspition in that kinde, by eating things sacrificed to Idolls, and that in the Idols Temple; which the strong judged a part of their Christian liberty, and thereby offended the weak: Whereupon 1 Cor. 10. latter end, the Apostle disputes against this carnall liberty of theirs, and by commanding them to flee from Idolatry. verse 14. he wills them to avoid the signes, appearances, and occasions thereof. This carriage of theirs, I grant, was bad, but not e­nough (especially before sufficient admonition given) to bar them from the Lords Supper. Let the Reader now judge, whether in this extenu­ation (if Mr. Humphrey please to call it so) I [Page 63] have sinned, either against the light of Truth, or the law of Love.

Mr. Humphrey. Secondly, He confutes this himselfe, and proves, they were guilty of grosse sins, by 2 Cor. 12. 21. and so will not allow them to be admitted. Ans. 1. Having denyed they were guilty of Idolatry (which Mr. Humphrey him­selfe dares not charge them withall) did I after­wards confute my selfe, by granting they were guilty of other grosse sins? Let us set the two Propositions together. 1. Prop. The Corinthi­ans were not guilty of Idolatry. 2. Prop. The Corinthians were guilty of other grosse sins. Is here any contradiction? or, doth the latter Proposition confute the former? 2 ly. All that I say, page 25. and 26. is in substance this, Yet, taking it for granted, many of them were guilty of greater sins, as appears by 1 Cor. 15. and 2 Cor. 12. 21. how proves he from the place, that all these were notwithstanding admitted, &c? Let us here again set both Propositions together. 1. Prop. Persons abusing their Christian liberty, are not presently to be suspended the Sacrament, especially before sufficient admonition given, 2. Prop. Persons guilty of grosse sins, are to be sus­pended the Sacrament. Are these two Propositi­ons contradictory? or, doth the latter confute the former?

Mr. Humphrey. Thirdly, He supposes this too, and questions only Paul's allowance of it. Thus you see how playfull the man is; and that at one breath he can blow his bubble out, and in, and out again. Ans. Sure Mr. Humphrey was merrily disposed when he wrote these things, and hoped, the Reader would never put himselfe to the trou­ble [Page 64] of comparing what I wrote with his Answer, but take all he saies upon trust. Its well, since he was resolved to bee so merry here, and in other parts of his Rejoynder, that he hath pitcht upon so inconsiderable a person as my self for the object of his mirth. The Lord hath been pleased of late years to give me the cup of contempt and sligh­ting, by the hands of pretious friends and ac­quaintance, whom I honour in the Lord; I may well therefore take this cup out of the hands of a stranger. Let him alone, the Lord hath comman­ded him, who shall say unto him, wherefore hast thou done so? 2 Sam. 16. 10.

But to come to the matter: my scope in the fore­mentioned words (which hee wrests so pleasant­ly) was to give Mr. Humphrey all the fair play he could desire in order to his more effectual con­viction. Therefore I grant him, 1. That the Co­rinthians went too far towards Idolatry. 2ly. That besides this they were guilty of other grie­vous sins. I deny, 1 That his Quotation proves those grosse sinners were admitted to the Sacra­ment. 2ly Supposing they were admitted de facto, I deny that his Quotation proves the A­postle allowed, much lesse commanded such a Free-Admission. I hope Mr. Humphrey will give me leave to tell him these are serious matters, and will not be put off with a Jest.

Mr. Humphrey. For the first it is manifest, that these Corinths were Fornicators, &c. For the Se­cond, the Text is full to the point. St. Paul saies, they were all partakers of this Bread. Mr. Dr. saies, but how will he prove, notwithstanding they were admitted? and that they had only a right to it in actu primo. Whom shall we believe Mr. Paul or St. Drake.

[Page 65] Ans. 1. That many of the Corinths were very scandalons, is agreed on both sides.

But 2ly. I say, That, these scandalous persons were admited to the Lords Supper, is not proved convincingly, by that Quotation: And my rea­son is, because both in Scripture and particular­ly in the Epistles to the Corinths, universall pro­positions are not understood de singulis unius ge­neris, or the word All doth not alwaies include every particular person, or thing which in form of speech seems to be comprehended under it. For instance, 2 Sam. 11. 1. David sent Joab and All Israel, &c. will any thence conclude that not one man was left in the Land of Canaan, but that every male passed over Jordan to destroy the Am­monites? Matth. 23. 3, All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and doe: must All there be understood without any restriction? then Christs Disciples must observe the Traditi­ons and corruptions taught by the Pharisees, con­trary to our Saviours expresse commands other­where. But to come nearer, 1 Cor. 8. 1. We know that wee all have Knowledge: Yet 1 Cor. 15. 34. Some of you have not the Knowledge of God, I speak this to your shame: and ver. 36. hee calls them Fools, for their grosse ignorance about that Fundamentall point of the Resurrection. Yea, in that very particular about the Latitude of their Christian Liberty. 1 Cor. 8: He that saies, vers. 1. We all have Knowledge, yet saies v. 7. How be it there is not in every man this Knowledge; a clear evidence that All in the first verse must not bee understod universally? I shall trouble my Reader but with one place more. 2 Cor. 3. 18. But wee [Page 66] All with open face, beholding as in a Glasse the glory of the Lord &c. Will Mr Humphrey hence conclude, that every Member of the Church of Corinth had saving Knowledge and grace? Cer­tainly every one, who, with open face beholding the glory of the Lord, is changed from glory to glory by the Spirit, is a godly man and this the Apostle affirmes of all the Corinths, as well as of himself: yet no man will urge that place to prove that every Member of the Church of Corinth was truely godly. And why then should Mr. Hum­phrey conclude, that all the Corinths did actually receive the Sacrament, because the Apostle here useth a like phrase, saying, 1 Cor. 10. 17. Wee All are partakers of that one Bread. It is not my worke now to digresse, by giving my Reader an account why the Scripture using generall ex­pressions, doth not include all particulars under that general Its sufficient that it is usuall in Scrip­ture under a generall to comprehend but some particulars for which, hundreds of instances might be produced: Yea, seldom in Scripture doth any generall include all particulars under it; and this kind of expression is usuall in com­mon discourse, All the World knowes such a thing, and who knowsaot this nor that? However therefore Mr. Humphrey is so merrily disposed, that hee will break a jest upon Saint Paul rather then he will not be merry with Dr. Drake; Yet I hope it is now evident to the Reader, that Mr. Humphrey might well have been more serious in so serious a matter, and that though St. Pauls Doctrine be true, yet it is misinterpreted and mis­applyed by M. Humphrey.

[Page 67]Mr. Humphrey. For the third, that he allowed of this practice, that is manifest too, In that hee did not forbid it, which if it had been sin, he must haue done &c.

Ans. 1. Must a Minister, when treating of the Sacrament, or of any other Ordinance, needs particularly forbid every sin committed, or com­mittable against that Ordinance: then he may make Pouls work of it indeed.

2ly. Doth Mr. Humphrey thinke there were no other sinns commited against the Sacrament, but those mentioned in 1 Cor. 10. and 11. by the Apostle?

3ly. May hee not have forbid the admitting of scandalous persons other-where, as 1 Cor. 5. 11. &c?

Nay, 4ly. Doth he not forbid it, in this very Chapter. 1 Cor. 10. 21? You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and of the Cup of Devills, &c. What can the meaning of these words bee, but that they who did partake of the Devills Table, might not partake of the Lords Table It was na­turally possible enough (and probably divers of them who ate the Devills Sacrifices in the Idols Temple, [...]id also receive the Lords Supper) but it was morally impossible, because sinfull and pro­hibited: and by comming to the Lords Table from the Devills Table they provoked the Lord, ver. 22. Page 49. But more of this, haply hereafter. Mr. Humphrey indeed endeavours to avoid the evi­dence of this place, saying, The Apostle speaks not of divers persons (in the whole Church) going to one Table, but of the same persons going to di­vers Tables: and he plainly reasons from their p [...]rtaking of the one, against the other.

[Page 68] Ans. 1. Its evident the Apostle speaks of divers persons (supposing, as Mr. Humphrey would have it, they who are the Idoll-Sacrifices, did al­so partake of the Lords Table, which is probable enough; though Mr. Humphrey his ground to evidence it bee not convincing) in the whole Church going to one Table, some strong Christi­ans who took liberty to eat things offered to I­dolls, some weak Christians who were offended with this their liberty, both Church-members, and both probably partaking of the Lords Table, 1 Cor. 10. ver. 28, 29 32. compare 1 Cor. 8. ver. 7. 10. unlesse Mr. Humphrey be of the mind that only the strong did receive the Lords Supper, and not the weak Brethren.

2ly. Wee grant and agree with Mr. Humphrey, that the Apostle doth plainly reason from their partaking of one of these Tables, against their par­taking of the other, which makes much for us, and against himself. From their partaking of the Devills Table, hee argues against their partaking of the Lords Table as well as from their parta­king of the Lords Table, he argues against their partaking of the Devills Table. What follows then (by Mr. Humphrey his own grant) but that, as those who partake of the Lords Table, ought not to partake of the Devills Table; so those who partake of the Devills Table, ought not to partake of the Lords Table; A clear evidence for S. spension of Church-members that were Mo­rally unclean: the Apostle doth not say, they ought to be Excommunicated (in Mr. Humphrey his sense, by sequestration from all Ordinances) but they ought not to receive the Lords Supper; and what is this but that they are to be Suspended? But [Page 69] whereas he addes, Those who were engaged from going to Idols, partook of the L [...]rds Supper: but, it was not the regenerate only, but all their intelli­gent members, were hereby engaged from Idols. Ergo, All their intelligent members partook of the Sacrament, and were to partake of it, if the Apostles argument were sufficient.

Ans. He may as well argue, Those who were in­gaged against open renouncing of Christ, buggery, witchcraft, blasphemy, murther, the sin against the Holy Ghost, &c. partook of the Lords Sup­per; but it was not the regenerate only, but all their intelligent Members, were, by the Apostles Doctrine, ingaged against the former crimes (e­ven those who were most guilty of them, and that upon open conviction, having no shew of repentance, and so being ipso jure, excommuni­cate) Ergò, all their intelligent members, yea, even those who were jure excommunicate, did partake of the Sacrament, and were to partake of it, if the Apostles argument were sufficient. You see how the man rises in his latitude for admis­sion to the Sacrament: page 21. and 22. he yields, that persons ipso jure excommunicate, may be kept from the Sacrament, though they be not actually excommunicated: Mr. Humph. saies not so in expresse terms, but it followes necessarily by conse­quence frō his way of arguing. Here he tells us, that even persons ipso jure excommunicate ought to receive, and therefore must not be kept back, or else the Apostles argument is not sufficient. Yea further, if Mr. Humphrey's argument be good, should not children, distracted, and excommuni­cated persons, be admitted also to the Lords Table, since all these are engaged against sin, as well as the regenerate? But this I will not presse.

His next proof is drawn from 1 Cor. 10. verse [Page 70] 3, 4, 5. Here he brings in Calvin, as agreeing with him in his explication, that all the Israelites were Baptized, did eat of the Manna, and drink of the Rock, and had free Admission to those Sacra­ments. All which we easily grant, as being clear in the Text. Against this, he saies, I bring two ex­ceptions. 1. I say he speaks gratis, in saying they were admitted to our Sacraments.

Mr. Humphrey. I pray see the words: does Saint Paul speak gratis: They did all eat the same spi­rituall meat? &c. Nay, he saies not only the same spirituall meat, but the same spirituall Symbols, &c.

Ans. 1. The words [...], the same, referre clearly (as the scope of the context evidenceth) not to the unity of their and our Sacraments, in order to the Symbols or Elements of each, which are as manifestly distinct, as wheaten-Bread and Manna, Wine and Water: But, to their unity in receiving, or their mixed communion in those Elements pel-mel, without distinction of good and bad, distracted or sober, infant or elder per­son, circumcised or uncircumcised, Israelite or Heathen, in the mixed multitude, Exod. 12. 38. Numb. 11. 4.

Ans. 2 ly. Their Baptisme indeed had the same Symbol of Water with ours, but were their Sa­cramentall meat and drink the same Symbols with ours? then their Manna was our Manchet­bread, and their Water was our Wine. Well may Mr. Humphrey perswade men, that all Church-members, before Excommunication, may, and ought, to be admitted to the Lords Supper, if upon his dictate, they can presently believe, that the Manna was bread made of Wheat, and the [Page 71] Rock-Water was Wine. Christ can turn Water into Wine, but then it must cease to be water; but Mr. Humphrey can make the Element of Water to be both Wine and Water at the same instant. Nor will that shift help him, because we sometimes have Sack, sometimes Claret: since Sack and Claret are evidently under one kinde, namely, under the kinde of Wine; but so is not Water. And to strip him of this cavill, let Mr. Humphrey give Water in stead of Wine at the Sacrament, will any say, he gives the same Ele­ment, or Symboll, with Wine. I deny not, but Calvin saies, they enjoyed the same symbols. But doth not Mr. Humphrey know, there is Identitas generica & specifica, generically a man and a tree are the same; yet, it's absurd to say, A man is a tree, or, a tree is a man▪ So, gene­rically Wine and Water are the same Symbolls, both being under the genus of corpus inanima­tum; but he who therefore should say, that Wine and Water are the same Symbols, would speak incongruously, and may as well ay, that Bread and Water are the same Symbols, since they are the same generically, as being both of them in­animate bodies. Mr. Humphrey therefore might well have spared this [...], as understanding my meaning well enough; and that I grant Their Sacraments and Ours are the same as to the thing signified.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 50. Whereas he urges here, The Uncircumcised and Infants (which is now thrice) were admitted: his argument will but ever come to this, That because our Scriptures sometimes seem to prove more, therefore they can­not prove the lesse.

[Page 72] Ans. 1. Mr. Humphrey saw he was pinched here, and might with farre more honour have confessed his errour, than, by making a vainflou­rish, have bafled his Reader; especially conside­ring, whether this place be for him or no, it is not much materiall to his cause, the Sacraments being extraordinary, both in their institution, and their use; miraculous in their institution, common in their use: And as to their Sacramen­tall Elements, their very Beasts did partake at least of some of them, or else they must have choaked for want of Water, Exod. 17. verse 32. 6. Numb. 20. 8. which puts a wide difference be­tween them and Sacraments in Ordinary. 2 ly. Here further his vanity appears, in upbrai­ding me now the third time, with that passage of Infant-Admission, which makes so much for me, and against himselfe. 3 ly. We denie not the strength of that argument (either in Scripture or else-where) drawne a majore and minus, but wil­lingly grant, where the Scripture proves the grea­ter, it proves the lesse; where it proves more, it proves fewer, in a right sense: and thence we de­duce that, Where it proves excommunication, There it necessarily proves suspension. 4 ly. We say, that Mr. Humphrey his Bulwark from this place, is a Battery against himselfe, and makes him [...]. That, he would prove out of this place, is, That all intelligent Church-Mem­bers, not actually excommunicated, ought to receive the Lords Supper, because all intelligent Church-members did receive those Sacraments, 1 Cor. 10. We answer, If his argument be good from this place, then, pariratione, all unintelli­gent Church-members, yea, persons excommu­nicated, [Page 73] yea, very Heathen, (not to instance in bruit Beasts) ought to receive the Sacrament. Therefore, say we, this argument cannot serve his turn, there being an apparent hiatus in it. Mr. Humphrey therefore pag. 50. perverts and cor­rupts the scope of the Apostle, who never intended to encourage the Corinths to receive pel-mel, be­cause the Israelites did so: For then, by the same reason, hee should also have given incouragement ro admit pel-mel, all persons of age (living in the same Parish or Neighbourhood) to Baptism without any Examination or Confession of their Faith, they being so Baptised unto Moses, 1 Cor. 10. 2. whereas the apparent scope of the Apostle was, to warn the Corinthians, and in them all Christians, not to presume upon Out­ward Priviledges, but to study reall Piety, else they should perish for all their Priviledges; Yea, their perishing would be sadder, because of their Priviledges; as is evident by comparing 1 Cor. 10. ver. 6. to 12.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 51. For the difference he makes between our Elements and theirs, which he saies is manifest, namely, theirs was to nourish their Bodies as well as their Souls, &c. It is grosse, and fit for none to say but the Papists, that hold, there is left only the qualities of the Bread (that cannot nourish) in Transubstantion.

Ans. My words are Pag. 29, & 30. Herein is a manifest difference; Their Sacramentall Ele­ments had a double use and end, namely, to nou­rish their Bodies as wel as their Souls; nor had they ordinarily in the Wildernesse other food to live upon, and therefore must either receive these Sa­craments or die: I hope there is not such an abso­lute [Page 74] necessity of our Sacramentall Bread and Wine &c. I appeal now to the Reader, whether this be grosse and Popish; nay, whether this bee not a very truth, which Mr. Humphrey cannot contradict, and therefore discovers too great a spirit of Cavilling and wresting my sense and meaning. Can any rationall man apprehend that I insinuated. 1. That our Sacramentall Elements have lost their substance, and retain onely the Accidents of Bread & Wine Or, 2ly. That I took away all bodily nourishment from the Sacramen­tall Elements? My scope is clear that their Sacra­ments were their ordinary food, and when the people needed them no more for food, they fail­ed, Jos. 5. 12. so not ours; and that if they had eaten and drunk no more of their S [...]craments then we do of ours, they must have starved and choaked, unlesse Mr. H. could have taught them an Art, to live an whole month or six weeks upon one bit of Manna, and one draught of Water.

Mr. Humphrey. Whereas he saies, they must have choaked and starved also. I say, if it be ne­cessarily sin, to eat of Christ Sacramentally, unl [...]ss men be regenerate, there is no doubt but they should have rather dyed than be guilty of Christs Blood, &c. If it be not a sin, but accidentally, here is good reason indeed for their eating and drink­ing all of them: But what reason is there, Saint Paul should parallel our eating and drinking with theirs, unlesse it be true likewise that we are to eat?

Ans. 1. For the first Branch, he answers himself; saving that his distinction whereby he opposes a sin necessarily to a sin accidentally, is lame as be­ing [Page 75] a distinction without a difference, in the pre­sent subject; Since the same sin may be a sin acci­dentally, and yet necessarily a sin also. For ex­ample, a wicked man in hearing, praying, &c. fins accidentally; yet he sins necessarily, and can­not but sin so long as hee continues in that estate. It is so in receiving the Sacrament, and the great reason we bring for his non admission to the Sa­crament is, because in statu quo, (understand it of actuall receiving) it cannot benefit, but will certainly hurt and prejudice him. Wicked men sin necessarily in their Ordinary repast, yet must eat to prevent starving.

2ly. Yet further as some other instituted precepts) this is dispensable with, in case of necessity: as was Davids eating the Shew-bread that was Sa­cramentall, and for the Priests only.

3ly. Parellels (as Similitudes) do not run on 4. feet, nor doth the present Parellel lie in counte­nancing a mixed communion like theirs, but in warning us, to take heed of abusing our Privi­ledges like them; we have Priviledges like them, Sacraments like them, are apt to abuse our Pri­viledges like them, and upon this abuse are in danger of Gods wrath as well as they. But for ad­mitting all pel-mel to the Sacrament as they did to their Sacraments of Baptism, Manna and Water, I am confident it never so much as entred into the Apostles heart.

4ly. He breaks the neck of his own Parallel, and therefore cannot blame us in making bold with it. If his Parallel run even, then, as all sorts without any difference did eat of the Manna, & drink of the Rock, so all sorts without any difference ought to receive the Lords Supper, and then ad­mit [Page 76] Infants, distracted and excommunicated per­sons; yea, Heathen also: Which, how absurd! Had Mr. Humphrey said thus, What reason is there, Saint Paul should parallel our eating and drinking with theirs, unlesse it be true likewise that we are All to to eat, to wit Infants, excommu­nicated persons, &c. as they were all to eat of the Manna; the nakednesse of his inference would have been shamefully uncovered. He therefore ve­ry prudently omits the word All, which would would have cryed out against him, Fie for shame.

Mr. Humphrey. I have two things here for ten­der Christians. 1. That to eat Christ symbolically, is no such dreadful thing as is made of it, (I mean above other Ordinances): for Saint Paul makes no account to say, they all drank Sacramentally of of him, provided alwaies you come with reve­rence, &c.

Ans. 1. Extenuation of sin, and Alleviation of duty, is at best, a wrong course to relieve tender Consciences. The Gospell holds forth duty in its stricknesse, sin in all its aggravations more then the Law; and that Minister who lightens ei­ther, sins against Moses, or against Christ, & that to his own great perill. Matth. 5. 19. But herein the Gospell makes amends, that it gives strength, in, and through Christ, to perform in sincerity the strictest duties, and aboundant consolation in Christ against the guilt, filth, and power of the greatest sins repented of, &c.

2 ly. The Apostle tells us, that to eat Sacra­mentally, is of very great consequence, if the dan­ger of being guilty of Christs Body and Blood, or of eating and drinking Damnation to our selves, [Page 77] be of consequence. Mr. Hnmphrey tells us, to eat Christ Sacramentally is no such dreadfull thing. Whom shall we believe, St. Paul, or Mr. Humphrey?

3 ly. Eating Sacramentally must needs be more dangerous, if to abuse Christ at four Ordinances be more dangerous, then to abuse him at one or two Ordinances.

4 ly. Mr. Humphrey saies, there is no great danger, so you come with reverence (which yet a wicked man may do in his sense.) St. Paul saies, there is great danger in receiving unworthily; and the Scripture saies in effect, they come un­worthily, who come without the Wedding-Garment; as that evill guest did, else he had not ben so reproved and punished, Matth. 22. verse 11. to 13. yet, he is not censured for want of re­verence. Let tender consciences take heed, lest by making light of sin and duty, they bring them­selves, first, to searednesse, and at last, to despera­tion. There is no danger in aggravating sin and heightning duty, provided thereby you be driven and led to Christ: but very much dan­ger in lightning of either.

Mr. Humphrey. Page 52. 2 ly. That the want of grace is no just hinderance, or excuse, from our profes­sion, &c.

Ans. 1. By way of concession: The want of grace, is no just hindrance to duty; yet too often it is an hindrance. And 1. naturally, to some du­ties that are more spirituall and abstracted, since I cannot do the chiefest part of my duty without it. Thus he who wants a principle of Gods fear, cannot do his duty in fearing God actually. [Page 78] Here the want of grace is an impediment, though no just impediment as to the excusing of him who omits the duty of fearing God.

2ly. The want of grace is an impediment Mo­rally, when at present a person is uncapable of that, for which the Ordinance was instituted, namely, spirituall Edification, which is the case of naturall men coming to the Sacrament. And therefore, whether the want of grace may bee an excuse or no its enough for our purpose, that its a Bar to some duty or Ordinance. And if a naturall man will receive, hee comes at his own perill of murthering Christ, and of eating and drinking Damnation to himself: For which indeed self-judging, rightly taken, is the remedy, but every naturall man falls infinitely short of it, as being a self justifier, not a self-judger, till God by a Spirit of conviction force him to Legall selfe-judging; and by a spirit of grace lead and enable him to Evangellical self-judging.

3ly. The want of grace is no just excuse from profession in Generall; yet may well be a Bar to some particular Act, wherein profession is held out else it were unlawfull to suspend persons ipso jure excommunicate, which yet Mr. Humph allows.

Mr. Humphrey. My fourth proof was from the Parable of the Feast, Matth. 22, Luke 14. Mr. Drake here is in a streight: If he allow it applica­ble to the Supper, it is clear against him. The Servants bring in all, both good and bad. If he wil not allow it, he goes against the stream of Divines, and wrests out of their hands, their main Argu­ment from the exclusion of him that had not the Wedding Garment. The truth is, the Feast doth [Page 79] not signifie particularly the Supper, but it is as true it does it in general, as other Ordinances. The Feast is Jesus Christ, &c.

Ans. 1. Let Mr. Humphrey remember, that he who here charges me conditionally, with going against the stream of Interpreters, goes himself ab­solutely against the stream of Divines in his Inter­pretation of 1 Cor. 11, about the Doctrine of the Sacrament. See his Rejoynder, pag. 32. to 38.

2ly. Dr. Drake his streight, is only in Mr. Hum­phrey his pen or phancy; he easily grants the Feast is served at the Sacrament as well as at o­ther Ordinances, which is evident by his com­paring Christ to the Feast, the Ordinances to the Dishes, in which the Feast is served. But the great Question is, whether the Feast must needs bee ser­ved to every Guest in every dish.

3ly. Taking the Parable as particularly appli­cable to the Sacrament; its said indeed, the Ser­vants brought in good and bad; but did the King or Master of the Feast allow chose bad Guests? did he not in (the Parable of the Guest comming without the Garment) command those very Servants to bind and cast out evill Guests? I wish there were not too many Ser­vants, who bring in Guests of all sorts: but let such remember, its their Lord's will such should be turned away: they who, have not the Wed­ding Garment, and care not for the Feast it self, are unworthy of the Dish.

4ly. That it cannot bee meant particularly or strictly of the Sacrament or any other Ordinance, especially in reference to hic & nunc, is evident, because those who absented themselves upon their necessary worldly occasions, are judged as [Page 80] unworthy: but certainly, he that absents himselfe from a Sermon or Sacrament upon a necessary worldly occasion, is not presently unworthy of the Marriage Feast, but he that withdraws from Christ, who is the Feast.

5ly. Its remarkable, Mr. Humphrey grants, that the stream of Divines improve the instance of the Guest, who wanted a Wedding Garment, against his free admission. All hee hath to say against them herein, Pag. 53. is, That this exclusion, being the Act of the Lord, their Inference from it, is not well applyed.

Ans. 1. Let Mr. Humphrey plead the pra­ctice of the Servants for admittance, while we have he command of the Lord for Exclusion.

2ly. Are not those very Servants who brought him in, commanded to shut him out?

3ly. Is not this done at the very same Sacra­ment, to which he was invited, if Mr. Humphrey wil needs have it to be the Sacrament?

Mr. Humphrey. It is true, if men be scandalous, they are lyable to censure; but who does not see this upon another account, I mean of Discipline, to satissie the Church, amend them, and warn o­thers. But if you do it upon this ground of setting up a aiscriminating Ordinance, I think it not according to the mind of the Lord of the Feast.

Ans. Let Mr. Humphrey practise Suspension upon the account of Discipline, which is a very good and warrantable account: We shall not strain his or any mans Conscience else, to rise up to our account of a discriminating Ordinance. Men may agree in the same practice, upon severall principles. We have severall Judgements as well [Page 81] as several palates: One may eat Sugar because its sweet, an other because its abstersive, a third be­cause its healing and consolidating. Let us agree upon Unity of practice, and I hope we shall not fall out upon diversity of principle. Excellent is the counsell of the Apostle 1 Phil. 4. ver. 15, 16. Let Christians endeavour agreement in practice as far as they can, and wait upon Heaven, for fur­ther light, to reconcile them in Unity of Princi­ples.

Mr. Humphrey mistakes me. Page 54. I hope he takes me not for a Ranter, or One above, or against all Ordinances. Though I distinguish between the Feast and the Dishes, in which it is served; yet I do not separate the Feast from all the Dishes. Doth it follow, a man must eat the Feast without a Dish, because he must not eat it in every Dish? we grant all may eat the Feast in the Dish of the Word. Contra, Himself would have some eat the Feast without any Dish, to wit, persons ex­communicated. His fine story therefore is more applicable to himself then to us, who grudge the egge of the Gospell to none, though we do not think, it is to be eaten in every shell.

Mr. Humphrey. He urges, then should Heathen be admitted. Ans. And so they may, if they come in an orderly way.

Ans. Content, And so may every Church-member if he come in an orderly way: but the ad­mittting of grosly ignorant, and scandalous Church-members is no orderly way.

Mr. Humphrey. Thirdly, Hee addes, How were the unthank full Guests also excluded? And answers himselfe, Because they would not come.

[Page 82] Ans. Its apparent, they were shut out by the de­cree of the King, Luke 14. 24. and that others were compelled in to fill the house, that there might bee no room for the unthankful Guests. Whence its probable, the Parable more di­rectly and immediately concerned the rejection of the Jewes, that the Gentiles might be received in Rom. 11. ver. 19, 20. 25. 28. 30.

2ly. If it be particularly applicable to the Sacra­ment, what follows, but that they who sleight the Sacrament, deserve to be suspended from it. But doth Mr. Humphrey think there is no sleighting of the Sacrament but by keeping from it? Did not he that came without the Wedding Garment sleight the Sacrament, as well as they who pro­fanely kept from it?

3ly. As sleighters of Christ crucified, repenting, may yet partake of him; so sleighters of the Sa­crament, the Picture of Christ crucified, may yet partake of it, upon their repentance. Only remem­ber. That, as sleighting is visible or invisible, so repentance must be visible or invisible: And if vi­sible sleighters repent visibly, we hope, Mr. H. nor any else shall have cause to censure us for keeping them away.

Mr. Humphrey. Fourthly, he tells us, Worldly businesse may detain a man from the Sacrament. Ans. Who doubts it? but there is no strength in this reason.

Ans. Worldly businesse detaines a man either from the time and place of receiving; or takes a man so up, as hee wants time to prepare himself for the Sacrament. Upon either of these accounts abstinence is justifiable, if the businesse be indispensible. In the latter branch, worldly [Page 83] businesse keeps a man from the Sacrament, because it hinders him in order to actuall preparation. And if persons who want actuall preparation, must for present abstain, doth it not follow à for­tiori, That persons who want both actuall and habituall preparation ought much more to ab­stain? But such are all grossly Ignorant persons, and most of scandalous persons. Let the Reader judge then whether there be not much strength in my reason, what ever Mr. Humphrey may phan­cy to the contrary: for hee brings not one argu­ment against my reason, only with a ridiculous story indeavours to catch his Reader.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 55. In the way. For my quoting that text, Luke 12. 42. &c. Mr. Drake need not have given me such ill words, &c.

Ans. I meddle not with his person; Only, I say that his Interpretation (or rather applicati­on) of that Text, to encourage Ministers to ad­mit all Intelligent Church-members pel-mel, is grosse, sencelesse and prophane; and if my reason urged, pag. 32. be not convincing to prove it so, then let me suffer as a rash Censurer. If judging an errour, be it where it will, to be as bad as indeed it is, be a giving of ill words to that person who holds it, then who can uncase an errour without breach of charity? I shall thank Mr Humphrey for laying open my errours in their native dresse. Errour (as well as Vice) deforms, though it doth not unstate a godly man; it doth not, I am sure it should not, gain Lustre by his piety. An errour that is grosse, senselesse, and prophane, may bee taken notice of, and branded though it flye to a godly man for Sanctuary. I think its no breach of [Page 84] Charity severely to censure an erour in a godly person, so it be without bitter reflection upon his person yet a passionate reflection is not so cutting as an Ironicall reflexion.

Mr. Humphrey. My Fifth proof was from Johns Free-Baptism even of those, he calls Vipers: And yet Mr. Drake as he is wont, answers me thus o­verly. He saies but proves not that John Baptised all Commers. He should say, he does not prove it, only brings Scripture for it.

Ans. 1. That All is not in many places to be understood Universally, I have formerly clea­red.

2ly. That it is not here to be taken Universal­ly, is as evident; for then John must have Bapti­sed every man and woman in Judea, and round about Jordan; which how unlikely, let Master Humphrey himself judge.

3ly. That it cannot be meant of all Commers, neither is demonstrable from the Text, unless Mr. Humphrey can make it out, that all Commers did professe their repentance, and confesse their sins, Matth. 3. 6 and particularly the Pharisees whom he calls a Generation of Vipers, and falls very foul upon them comming to his Baptisme, ver. 7. In saying therefore, Mr. Humphrey proves not. I mean, he brings not Scripture; for Scripture misinterpreted and wrested is not Scripture. Mr. Humphrey I see is upon a merry pin, but serious­nesse would more become him. Let the Reader peruse my answer, page 32, & 33. and he will easily perceive, there is no such ground of insul­ting on Mr. H. his part.

For his Rule, Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque [Page 85] Sacramenti. I must tel I him again, It makes much for us, and against himself. Since by this Rule at every Sacrament, men ought to give an account of their faith, as they do at Baptisme. The force of this answer to avoid, Pag. 56. Mr. Hum­phrey shuffles pag. 56, and tell us, there is eadem ratio, but not in omnibus, and that the very comming of Church-members is their pro­fession.

Ans. 1. Is it fair Mr. Humphrey should bring a Rule to bind us, and yet will not be bound by it himself?

2ly. Whether it hold in omnibus or no, it must hold in the matter controverted. Now the busi­nesse in controversie between me and Mr. Hum­phrey is, whether every Receiver before receiving ought to make profession of his faith and repen­tance. This Mr. Humphrey denies, and for an argument makes use of this Rule, Adulits eadem est ratio, &c. We say, Content, but Adulti are bound to professe their faith and repentance before Baptisme, therefore they are bound to professe the same before Receiving, for (according to Mr. Humphrey his Rule) there is the same reason of both Sacraments. And as the offering of ownes self to Baptism, is not sufficient profession in or­der to Baptism; so the offering of ones self to the Lords Supper, is not profession sufficient in order to the receiving of the Lords Sup­per.

M. Humphrey. My proof is Acts 2. 41, 42, 46. which Text he leaves out; you may conceive, it hath silenced him: For while we find thousands admitted thus freely and equally (not omitting his phrase of pel-mel) in their breaking bread (I [Page 86] say even wholly alike) as in doctrine and prayer, we dare not fall down to that Sacramentall Rule upon tryall he would set up.

Ans. 1. What ever Mr. Humphrey may think of me, I hope one convincing Scripture for his feee Admission, should have silenced me every where and not onely here. I desire to bee in their Num­ber, who can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth.

2ly. Not conviction of the strength, but appre­hension of the weaknesse of his proof as to the point intended, together with study of brevity, made me passe it over in silence. But since he will needs have me lay open his nakednesse, as well here as else where, I shall not think much of my paines for his further conviction, and the Rea­ders satisfaction.

3ly. Their Admission, therefore, pel-mel makes nothing for Mr. Humphrey his Admission pel­mel since those three thousand had but just be­fore made profession of their faith and repentance; 2ly. Held forth that profession exemplarily both in works of Piety and Charity. 3ly. But two of them (Ananias & Saphira) contradicting their profession by Hypocrisy, were put to an other­gates Test then our Church-members are. Con­tra, Divers of our Church-members are grossely ignorant, or openly prosane, covetous, griping, oppressive, or erroneous and hereticall in funda­mentalls. Will Mr. Humphrey put no difference between the first and purest Primitive Church and our leavened Congregations?

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 67. My seventh Text was Acts 10. 28. which I apply onely as to the Expression: Yet does he pur sue it in four pittifull exceptions, [Page 87] pag. 34, 35. The first whereof is untrue: Saint Paul saies not, Tit. 1. 15. The unbeliever is un­cleane to us, but all things are uncleane to him.

Ans. 1. Are those words Dr. Drakes which first he pins upon my slieve, and then charges with un­truth? My words are these, That God, who taught Peter to count no man unclean, taught Paul to count some men unclean; yea, persons within the Church, and not excommuni­cated, Tit. 1. 15, 16. where, in all these words, do I say, The Unbeliever is unclean to us? Doth not the Text brand some with defilement as well as unbelief?

2ly. Doth not the Apostle explain what defile­ment he means, when he tells us, their very mind and Conscience is defiled?

3ly. Is not this contradictory to Mr. Hum­phrey his profession: That he counts no man un­clean, unlesse excommunicaeed? I had thought Excommunication did not make a man unclean, but declare him to be unclean, and cast him out as unclean, 1 Cor. 5. 7. The incestuous Corinth was a Leaven of uncleanesse before hee was cast out. His sin made him unclean really, Excommu­nication declaratively.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 57. This Text Act, 10. 38. may be full and solid, for those weak Christians who think they shall be defiled if they communicate in our mixt Churches, though it reach not others. Mr. Drake should be more tender then to debili­tate their supports.

Ans. 1. It follows not, that because Peter was to count no man Levitically unclean, therefore we must count no man Morally unclean.

2ly. Mr. Humphrey knows, its my declared [Page 88] judgement, that he who is absolutely unclean, is not straightwaies relatively unclean: and that wicked mens presence and receiving doth not defile the godly who receive with them; but the godly contract guilt and pollution by virtuall consent to their wickednesse, as if they do not reprove them, or inform against them being obsti­nate. I hope tender Consciences will not look at me, as one that debilitates their supports, because I cannot encourage them to build upon a sandy-Foundation. Sin cannot defile me but by a touch, 1 John 5. 18. It cannot touch me but by consent either formall or virtuall. Its not sin in the wic­ked, but sinfull connivance in the godly, that doth defile the godly. Levit. 5. 1. & 19. 17.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 58. While persons are Federally cleane, wee need not doubt that they may bee communicated withall, without any pollution; and a man is not Faederally unclean, till excommunica­ted.

Ans. Bee persons federally clean or unclean, they may bee communicated withall without pollution, provided I do my endeavour in my place to reform them or keep them away. Suppose through the connivance of Church-Officers, an Heathen or person excommunicated come and partake of the Sacrament: This great disorder I dissent from, complain of, and desire it may bee reformed, but my desire will not be granted shall his presence and receiving either defile or turn me from the Sacrament? Its their sin indeed who ad­mit him, and who give consent to his admission; but the presence and partaking of such a one, is no Bar to my receiving, nor can defile me having done my duty. A man might bee Levitically defi­led [Page 89] without, yea against his consent, but so hee cannot be morally defiled. But what is all this to their receiving, and the Churches admitting of them? A person unclean may sin by receiving, and the Church by admitting him wittingly, while at the same time his presence and receiving defiles none who are innocent.

2ly. Children of Christian Parents are faede­rally clean by Birth, before they are admitted solemnly into the Church by Baptism, 1 Cor. 7. 14. nor doth faederall holiness cease til themselves do formally renounce Christ and the Covenant, and thereby cut off themselves and their Posterity. Rom. 11 19, 20. Hence one that turnes witch, Jew or Pagan is faederally unclean, though he or she be not excommunicated: And a person ex­communicated, may after Excommunication be both faederally and really holy, since Excommu­nication, till it rise up to Maran-atha, is medi­cinall and not destructive, as a branch cut off, that it may faster and better be grafted in. He erres then, in making. Faederall holinesse to lie in Church-membership, seeing a man may be a Church-member, and yet faederally unholy; and faederally holy, yet no Church-member in his sence.

Mr. Humphrey. He objects, wicked Christi­ans reject Christ, pag. 35. and answers himself with me, pag. 84. Though they transgresse, they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do, and are Church-members, till Excommunica­cated.

Ans. 1. Set both Propofitions together, 1. Prop. Wicked Christians reject Christ. 2. Prop. Wicked Christians do not renounce the Cove­nant [Page 90] as Turkes do, and are Church-members till excommunicated. If these three, a rejecter of Christ, a Church-member, and a non-renouncer of the Covenant, may stand together in a right sence, then here is no contradiction: but these three may stand together in a right sence; Instance in Simon-Magus, Acts 8. By his wickednesse he rejected Christ virtually, compare 1 Sam. 10. 19. John 12. 48. Yet at the same time he was a Church-member, and did not renounce Christ for­mally.

2ly. Therefore there is a twofold renouncing of Christ, 1. Virtuall by wittingly acting or li­ving in any known sin, especially grosse and scandalous. 2ly. Formall and expresse by word and deed, as Witches, Jews, and Turks do. Both these a man may do & yet be a Church-member, (in Mr. Humphrey his sence) till Excommu­nicated. The latter makes him faederally unclean, not so the former at least presently. Therefore the Children of the former are more capable of Bap­tism then the Children of the latter; yea, suppo­sing the former were Excommunicated, the lat­ter not: much more, if the former be not Ex­communicated. A formall and expresse rejection of Christ and the Covenant, contributes far more to Separation from Christ, then a virtuall and in­terpretative rejecting of either. By all hath been said, it appears that by the two forementioned places compared (which Mr. Humphrey would faine set together by the Ears) I answer, not my self but Mr. Humphrey. My other three excepti­ons, because he only Quibbles upon them, but answers them not, I passe; as also his vapour in the close, since my work is not to answer words but Arguments.

[Page 91]Mr. Humphrey. For the close hereof, I gathe­red up some Texts, as, Rev. 22. 17. &c. that doth set forth the most free offers of Jesus Christ, which, though Mr. Drake make but light of, &c.

Ans. 1. I make not light of the offers of free grace, but say, those free offers are no ground for his Free Admission to the Sacrament, since those offers are free to Heathen and excommuni­cate persons (as well as to Church-Members) who undoubtedly are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. 2 ly. Add Church-membership to these free offers, since persons, jure excommuni­cate, are Church-members, and are also under these free offers; yet, may be kept away, as Mr. Humphrey grants, page 21. Is it not evident, that free grace may be conditionally offered and applyed to Church members, though they do not receive the Sacrament, but are justly barr'd from it for the present. 3 ly. Whereas he addes, Jesus Christ is proportionably gratious in his ex­rernall, as he is in his internall priviledges, &c. What followes from thence, but that as they who reject internall priviledges, shall misse of, and be kept from, them; so they who reject externall priviledges (further then those priviledges are ne­cessary, in order to their conversion) ought to be kept from them.

Object. True if they reject them: But we keep many away who desire the Sacrament. Ans. So Christ keeps internall priviledges from many, who, in some sense, desire them, Luke 13. 24. May not an Hypocrite desire truth of grace, as a necessary means to free him from Hell &c. who yet at the same time, rejects and hates holinesse? [Page 92] Now the signe and thing signified are Correlates, and he that rejects either, rejects both interpre­tatively. He then that rejects Grace, rejects the Sa­crament the signe of Grace; and therefore upon Mr. Humphrey his own Principle, ought to be kept from it, unlesse actuall receiving be a con­verting Ordinance, &c. of which afterwards. What therefore Mr. Humphrey saies, Pag. 59. What sense is there in this? Jesus Christ is to be freely shew­ed forth, to bring men home effectually to him; and yet must the Receiver make out that right unto the Minister, before we dare offer, or condi­tionally apply him to them, reaches not our case home: We granting that Christ ought to be free­ly offered, and conditionally applyed to all, be they Church-members or not: But, is there no way of offering, or conditionally applying, Christ, to all, or to any, but by his actuall re­ceiving the Sacrament?

Mr. Humphrey. We must not make the notion of sealing so dreadfull, and bring so much blood upon our soules; we need not fear to judge the Heathen, visible Rebels, &c.

Ans. 1. If the notion of Sealing a mans own Damnation must not be made dreadfull, I know not what must. 2 ly. What ever cavill may be made about the notion of Sealing, he will not deny, but to eat and drink a mans own Dam­nation, is very dreadfull; and that, every one who receives unworthily, doth, 1 Cor. 11. 29. 3 ly. We should not indeed bring so much blood upon our soules; but they who receive unworthi­ly, do bring so much blood upon their own soules, if the Apostle speak true, verse 27. and they who admit such, when they may be regu­larly [Page 93] kept away, are accessary to this their blood­guiltinesse. 4 ly. Are Heathen visible Rebells, who never profest subjection to Christ; and is not he a visible Rebell, who after, yea under, profest subjection, acts open Rebellion, doing the same, and worse, acts of hostility against Christ, than Heathen do? 2 Kings 21. 11. and, 1 Cor. 5. 1. Was not Judas, at the time of Christs apprehen­sion, for all his profession, as visible an enemy of Christ, as the Ruffians who came to take him? 5 ly. Should not all care and diligence be used to discover and make visible those Judasses, who after, and under, profession, are worse enemies of Christ, than heathen are, Matth. 19. verse 14, 27. Rev. 3. verse 15, 16.

Mr. Humphrey. Page 60. The word is no sealed word, (even outwardly) but to the Church.

Ans. This is gratis dictum. In the Word Preached, the Covenant is held forth conditio­nally to all the World, instance, Mark 16. 16. and John 3. 16. And if all the World be in the Covenant conditionally, then when ever the Covenant is sealed (as it is ever in the Sacrament) it's sealed to all the World conditionally, and that whether they receive or no; yea, though they be not so much as present, as a Pardon may be sealed conditionally to Traytors, though they be absent; yea, in the height of their Rebellion: Is Christs death shewed forth to all at the Sacra­ment, 1 Cor. 11. 26. and is it not offered to all at the Sacrament, and sealed there to all condi­tionally? Why may not open Rebells be present at the sealing, as well as at the publication of a Pardon? Here seemes to lie Mr. Humphrey his great mistake, in that he thinks the Covenant is [Page 94] not sealed to me, unlesse I actually receive. Indeed by receiving, I, in a speciall manner, put to my Seal, and God doth more particularly seal to me; but, whether I receive or no, God, in the Sacrament, seales to the Covenant, in which, I being comprehended as a party, its no more ab­surd, the Covenant should be sealed to me, being absent, then it is absurd, a Covenant of Inden­tures should be sealed to a person absent; yea, to a child unborn, who likewise doth seal vir­tually, though not formally. As at every Bap­tisme grace redounds, and the Covenant is by it sealed, not only to the party Baptized, but also to all present, yea, to all the world conditional­ly, who are not hindred from presence at any Baptising: And why should it not be so at the Lords Supper.

Mr. Humphrey. We cannot compell any tryall of Church-members more (unlesse by way of Catechisme and Instruction, wherein yet, there is no man too old to learn, Luke 14.) but it must be as to the truth of their profession, or effectuall sincerity: which for to do (where no scandall calls them in question) is to go about to judge mens hearts, and to enter into the seat of God, &c.

Ans. 1. Note it, Mr. Humphrey grants we may compell tryall of Church-members, by way of Catechisme and Instruction, from Luke 14. 23. and that mone are too old to learn. Doth not Mr. Humphrey know, that one great make-bate is, because many Elder persons will not be per­swaded, much lesse compelled, to tryall, by way of Catechising, no, not by their own Minister, though none of the Elders be present?

2 ly. By Mr. Humphrey his own confession, [Page 95] in some cases persons may be tryed, as to the truth of their profession, or effectuall sincerity, to wit, when some scandall calls them in question. Let Mr. Humphrey give any Scripture-rule for such tryall, in case of scandall, which will not extend to the like tryall upon other occasions.

3 ly. If tryall, as to the truth of profession, be a going about to judge mens hearts, and to enter into the seat of God, how can Mr. Humphrey allow it at any time, in any case? If it be not an entring into the seat of God, then Mr. Hum­phrey his main Argument against it, failes him.

4 ly. If putting a man to the test about his sin­cerity, be an entring into the seat of God, then Philip in asking the Eunuch, Whether he be­lieved with all his heart, Acts 8. 37. entred into the seat of God; and Ministers, when they ask the party Baptised (supposing he be of age) Dost thou for sake the Devi [...]l and all his works, &c. enter into the seat of God: Yea, then Jehu as­king Jehonadab, 2 Kings, 10. 15. Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart? entred into the seat of God. He indeed that will undertake to know the heart immediately, intuitively, and infallibly, enters into the seat of God: Not so, I hope, he, who by discourse, observation, and consequent effects, labours to draw out what is in the heart, Prov. 20. 5. The Tree may be known by its Fruit, yea, by its Leaves; and the heart may be known by some expressions and actions, or at least shreudly guest at: Otherwise how did Peter perceive Simon Magus to be in the gall of bitternesse, Acts 8. 23. yet, I hope at that time, he entred not into the seat of God. A dying man sends for his Minister to comfort him: May not [Page 96] the Minister puts him to the Test, whether, at least in the judgment of charity, he be a subject ca­pable of comfort: May he not 1. try him in point of Knowledge? 2 ly. May he not enquire about his truth of grace, and from Scripture-evi­dence, labour to finde out whether he hath true faith and repentance, that accordingly, he may either comfort or warn him? 3 ly. In so do­ing, is he justly chargeable with entring into the seat of God? Do we any more to people, in order to their Sacramentall preparation, then they will be glad to have us do at the houre of their death, if they have any sense of their spirituall condition, and minde their poor soules in any measure? The truth is, if many of our people minded Heaven but halfe so much as they minde Earth, they would upon their very knees intreat us, to do that against every Sacrament, which we beg of them we may do but once, in order to their edification, comfort, and salvation: Yet, they will not hearken unto us, upon which ac­count, in some poor measure (though we dare not say, we have endeavoured our uttermost, de jure, in any thing) we may wash our hands from the guilt of the blood of their poor soules. Oh Sir, I beseech you do not bolster up People in that, of which one day, both you and them­selves will see, there is great cause to repent.

Mr. Humphrey. I must confesse, I believe, it was only the zeal and piety of good men, that made them thus to rise up against ignorance and sin, without intending to enter upon Gods Throne; but, if we have erred, &c.

Ans. 1. Sir, you speak in part, truly and cha­ritably, as to the first branch: Therefore I be­seech [Page 97] you, be not a Quench-cole to that zeal and piety.

2ly. It was not a blind zeal acted them herein, but a zeal according to knowledge; I beseech you, do not seek to hide that Light under a Bushell.

3ly. In so doing, they neither did, nor inten­ded to enter upon Gods Throne. I beseech you, do not charge them falsely and uncharitably: But where you have erred (I wish the same to my self) by false Doctrine, misapplication and wrong-imputations, be content to lie down in the dust, to acknowledge the truth whereby you may be sweetly led to acknowledge Gods hand in return­ing your Captivity from the Rivers of Babel, when you have sate down and wept, &c.

Sect VI.

Having surveyed Mr. Humphrey his stating of the Question, and his proofs from Scripture, and laid open what strength or weaknesse I apprehend therein; I shall now proceed to his Reasons and Arguments, with candor and simplicity of heart by the grace of God, as in the presence of God, to whom both of us must one day give an account of this, and all other our Transactions. Glad shall I be to close with him in any truth, and to keep company with him one mile, if I cannot goe with him twain: And where I am forced to shake hands with him, I shall endeavour to give him and others such grounds of my dissatisfaction in the Spirit of meeknesse, as thereby it may ap­pear, I do not act either irrationally or unchari­tably. The Lord send the Spirit of truth, grace and love into all our hearts, to lead us into all truth, holinesse and unity.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 61. My first reason was from the [Page 98] nature of the Sacrament, It is the shewing of Christs death, a visible Gospell, and so a firm ground of free Admission. Unto this the sum of what he saies over and over from pag. 37. to pag. 52. comes but to this. All may be present, but not actually receive, granting the foundation.

Ans. 1. If the Reader wil please to peruse my Text, I am confident he will be more candid to me then Mr. Humphrey hath been, and not judge I have spent those seven or eight leaves in meer tautologies. Such weak imputations argue more strength of passion then of reason, and serve rather to catch, than to convince the Reader.

2ly. Can there be fairer play then to yield my Antagonist (by way of position or supposition) as much as he desires for his stronger convicti­on?

3ly. If Mr. Humphrey his Free-Admission flow not from this Principle, I hope he will remem­ber himself better, and not here-after charge his Brethren as going about to abolish the remem­brance of Christs death, because they cannot ad­mit all as Receivers, whom yet they are willing to admit as Auditors and Spectators at the Lords Supper, be they Church-members or no: And I think in so doing, we make better provision for the Publishing and declaring of Christs death, then Mr. Humphrey doth by admitting onely Church-members, and shutting the Chancell­door against all others, as if men might not see Christ crucyfied, and hear a crucified Saviour speak, because they may not feed Sacramentally upon a crucified Saviour.

Mr. Humphrey. I shall begin with the last. His [Page 99] words are these. The word and the Sacrament, tis true, must go hand in hand together: but the Covenant of grace, or the Word is not (visibly) applicable to all, therefore not the Sacrament. Mr. H. For my answer to this, which is all his weight with but a very few grains more: We must know, The Ministers of Christ are the Ministers of the New-Covenant to be revealed, & that not of the absolute, Heb. 8. which is secret, and belonging to Election; Pag. 62. but of the conditionall Covenant, (or the Covenant in its conditionall capacity) which is tenderable to all the World and that more es­pecially applicable with a distinction of outward priviledges, and interest to the Church. Now look what is the Tenor of the Covenant, the Sa­crament seales; and nothing else. May not I say to all, and every Intelligent Church-member, If thou believe thou shalt be saved? and may not I seal to such what the Word saies?

Ans. 1. Granting we are Ministers of the con­ditionall Covenant, how doth that exclude us from being Ministers of the absolute Covenant? Is not the absolute Covenant revealed in the Word, as well as the Conditionall Covenant; and ought not Ministers to declare unto people the whole Counsell of God. Acts 20. 29. Is not the writing of the Law in the heart, part of the absolute Covenant, Heb. 8. 10? and is not the whole Covenant of Grace sealed at the Sacra­ment? Are not Ministers Instruments of Conversi­on, and Edification, and thereby of applying the absolute Covenant. 2 Cor. 3. 6? Is the Sacra­ment (in Mr. Humphrey his profest judgement) a means of Conversion, and yet hath it nothing to do with the absolute Covenant?

[Page 100] 2ly. If the Conditionall Covenant be tende­rable to all the World (as Mr. Humphrey right­ly asserts) will it not follow (he building his Free-admission upon this Principle) that all the World ought to be admitted to the Sacrament. To use his own words, May not I say to all (not onely to every intelligent Church-member) If thou be­lievest, thou shalt be saved? and may not I seal to such what the Word saies? Christ is tenderable to all, conditionally, be they Church-members or no, and that in every Ordinance, therefore e­ven Heathen may be present at prayer, hearing, Baptism, &c. and why not proportionably at the Lords Supper, &c? in all which the conditi­onall tender of Christ is universally held forth. But doth it thence follow that Christ is, or must be applyed to all by way of promise or Seal in either of these? The Latitude then of the Cove­nant-tender, is no ground for the Latitude of Mr. H. his Free-Admission.

3ly. Nor will the Latitude of the Covenant Tender, prove it should be apply'd by the Sacra­ment to all Intelligent Church-members: for then it ought to be applyed to persons jure Excommu­nicate, who yet (according to truth, and Mr. H. his own grant) may be suspended. Might not Theodosius have pleaded the Latitude of the Co­venant, when Ambrose denyed him the Sacrament divers months together for his cruelty in Massa­cring thousands of Thessalonians upon the The­ater? Yea, might he not have pleaded, that consi­dering his great guilt he had more need to receive the Sacrament, that thereby he might seal Dam­nation to himself for his deeper conviction and humiliation? yea, if Mr. Humphrey his Doctrine [Page 101] in this particular be true, ought not persons jure excommunicate, of all others, to be admitted to receive, that thereby they may seal damnati­on to themselves?

‘ D. Dr. page 42. Dares Mr. Humphrey say to a person in the state of Nature, Sir, All the benefits of the Covenant are actually yours! The Language of every actuall giving is, Christ is thine in particular.’

Mr. Humphrey. I answer, this is a manifest errour: The Language of the Sacrament, is the Language of the Covenant; and that is not, Christ is thine, but Christ is thine if thou wilt believe. And who doubts, but I dare say so to one in the state of Nature, conceiving we know it not, and cannot judge thereof.

Ans. 1. That the Language of the Sacrament is, Christ is thine, and that in a saving way: Let our Saviour be judge, Luke 22. verse 19, 20. This is my Body which is given for you, not against you: And, This Cup is the New Testa­ment in my Blood, which is shed for you; and for what end? see Matth. 26. 28. for the remission of sins: Which words we use as an Argument, to prove Judas did not receive, since our Savi­our could not say to Judas (who was to Christ visibly in the state of Nature) This is my blood which is shed for thee, for the remission of sins. And that it is otherwise with any receiver, is ac­cidentall by reason of his unworthinesse: which unworthinesse, if it may be discerned, why ought not Church-Officers, by Suspension, to prevent the sin and misery of such a person, at least in part?

2 ly. Mr. Humphrey wrongs my Answer, by [Page 102] leaving out a very materiall word in it: My words are these, ‘Dare Mr. Humphrey say to a person, visibly in the state of Nature, Be assu­red, &c?’ But, in quoting my Answer, he leaves out the word visibly, to my no small prejudice. We dare say, to persons in the state of Nature, (where we have not clear evidence against them, or good ground to suspect their sincerity) from the fair account they give us, of the truth of grace in them, All the benefits of the Covenant of grace, are thine; By which assertion we do not exclude Mr. Humphrey his supposition (Christ is thine if thou believe) but declare our perswasion about such a person; namely, that we believe he hath the condition, which entitles him to Christ, as, 2 Tim. 1. 5. which perswasion we cannot have of any, who is visibly in the state of Nature, and therefore dare not say to him, Christ is thine. yea, we dare in the Name of the Lord command them to believe so, where we have no ground to suspect the absence of the Condition in them, but have very good evidence of the condition of the Covenant performed in them, and by them through grace. If upon tryall we have ground to sus­pect them, then we can speak those words to them only conditionally: But, when we have evidence they are in the state of Nature, and know they have not the Condition, it's in vain to say to them in that estate, Christ is thine, if thou do believe; And it's all one, as if I should say to a proud and insolent Traytor, acting in the height of Rebellion, Sir, Pardon is yours, if you do come in and submit; taking the words in their Grammaticall construction, I may assure him he shall be pardoned, if he will pre­sently come in, and submit: But, it's incongru­ous to say, Sir, Pardon is yours, if you do sub­mit, since at present he is visibly neither an object [Page 103] of pardon, nor a subject of submission. Upon which account I apprehend those expressions of Mr. Humphrey, not so congruous, Christ is thine, if thou wilt believe: I may say, Christ is thine, if thou do believe, where I have not clear evidence of the dominion of unbeliefe: Or, Christ shall be thine, if thou wilt believe, where I have never so clear evidence of unbeliefe in dominion: But, to apply the Promise, de praesenti, upon a conditi­on, de futuro, I think is neither Grammaticall, Logicall, nor Theologicall: Some truth there may be in it, if understood Rhetorically; but Rhetorick is fitter for an Oratour, then a Dis­putant.

3 ly. Mr. Humphrey himselfe scruples to use these words, to a person visibly in the state of Nature, witnesse, those expressions of his, VVho doubts, but I dare say this to one in the state of Nature, conceiving we know it not, and cannot judge thereof? Where therefore we know, and can can judge a person to be in the state of Na­ture, Mr. Humphrey will not encourage us to say, Be assured, all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace, are actually thine. Pag. 63. To answer there­fore Mr. Humphrey his retortion, I dare say to the visibly Godly, what Christ said before me in the Sacrament, The Body of Christ is broken for thee, the Blood of Christ is shed for thee, for remission of sins. But these words I dare not say to one, against whom I have evidence (by his grosse ignorance, or profane conversation) that he is in the state of Nature.

However therefore, page 63. Mr. Humphrey utterly renounces the very undertaking to make any Church-Member visibly in the state of Na­ture; [Page 104] Yet, that herein he is heterodox, is evident by clear testimony of Scripture, Matth. 7. verse 15. to 20. our Saviour there teaching us, that, as a Tree, so a Person, may be known by his fruits. And, Acts 8. 23. Peter, by that wicked offer of Simon Magus, knew he was in the state of Na­ture. See also Tit. 3. verse 10, 11. the Epistle of Jude, 2 Pet. Chap. 2 and 3. and 1 Cor. 6. verse 9, 10. and Ephes. 5. verse 5, 6. But I will not trouble the Reader in so clear a case. And indeed, if grosse ignorance, fundamentall errours obsti­nately maintained, open profanenesse, scoffing at holinesse; if these, I say, lived in (especially after due means of conviction) be not palpable evi­dences of a person at present in the state of na­ture, then the forementioned texts must be rased out of Scripture, and Ministers (as to this par­ticular) must learn a new Gospell of Mr. Hum­phrey.

Mr. Humphrey. The solidity of this answer may appear the more, by this mans weak­nesse, to solve the objection, page 48. which o­therwise cannot be done. It is this, Doth not the a Minister seale to a lie, if he seal to the unwor­thy? He answers most miserably, He does but seal to an untruth, not to a lie, so long as he comes in to the Elders, and is thought visibly worthy by them. Well, but what if the Elders should admit one visibly unworthy, and the Minister judge him so to be; yet the Major part carrying it, what shall become of him then? [...]g. 64. Here his untruth must be a lie again. It is not his pleading an ad­monition, or that he cannot help it, will serve him, if it be positively a lie, or a sin to admit any that is visibly unworthy, he may not offend [Page 105] his Conscience, and presume upon God though he lost his place and life too. So that he must of ne­cessity come over to us, and then he may know how neither to commit an untruth nor a lie neither, by saying, He offers or applies Christ but conditio­nally, &c. The truth is, seeing the Minister is Gods Embassador, and what he does is by his Com­mission, we may as soon say, the God of Israel can lie, as that the Minister ever Seales an untruth, or lie either, in doing his Office, &c.

Ans. This charge being heavy, and managed with a very high hand by H, I thought it needfull to recite his words more carefully, lest by altering of them (as he hath done mine) I should seem to wrong him.

1. Therefore, in propounding the Objection, he takes not my words; but frames it for his own advantage and my prejudice. My words are these, But doth not the Minister Seal to a lie by giving the Sacrament to those who are visibly worthy, yet really unworthy? pag. 48. Mr. Hum­phrey propounds my Objection thus. Doth not the Minister Seal to a lie if he Seal to the unwor­thy? The Objection thus propounded may bear a very foul sense, as seeming to include persons both really and visibly unworthy, whereas my Objection clearly hints a distinction between per­sons visibly worthy, yet really unworthy, and between persons both really and visibly unworthy. Besides that in the latter branch also, I use not the terme of Sealing, but of giving the Sacrament. And however he may possibly agree with me in sense, yet the termes altered may occasion a foule mistake in the Reader. But to passe that: Let us scan his exceptions against my answer to that Objection.

[Page 106] And 1. He corrupts my Text in the answer, as he did in the objection. Mr. Humphrey frames my answer thus, He does but Seal to an untruth, not to a lie, so long as he comes in to the Elders, and is thought visibly worthy by them. page 63. This Answer thus framed is obscure, absurd, and little better than nonsence. Obscure, the second Person thee, being there applicable, either to the Minister admitting, or to the person admit­ted. Absurd, &c. as making the Reader believe we hold, That the Minister, without danger of a lie, may assure that Communicant of a saving in­terest in Christ, who he is assured hath no part in Christ, and all because the Elders have approved that Communicant against the vote and certaine Knowledge of the Minister. Besides, That ex­pression, He is thought visibly worthy, is little better then nonsence. For I pray, what is a per­son visibly worthy, but one that is thought and judged worthy, at least upon evidence of compe­tent knowledge and vacancy of scandall. So then to think a person is visibly worthy, is to think I think such a man worthy, which for my part, I think is little better then non-sence, either in Grammer, Logick, or Rhetorick. Thus you see how Mr. Humphrey propounds my Answer, I will not say, faithfully, but I dare say very pru­dently.

My answer to the Objection is this, pag. 48. He may possibly Seal to an untruth, but doth not Seal to a lie, in admitting that person, whom in charity (being approved, upon due tryall) he may and ought to judge worthy. 2ly. If the Minister suspect a person legally approved, he may and ought the more carefully to warn him, &c. and by [Page 107] this means I conceive he may clear himself, but cannot keep back him that is approved by the Major vote of the Eldership. Onely afterwards hath power to appeal, &c. Let the Reader now judge, whether by Sealing a saving interest in Christ to a person whom I may and ought to think Evangelically worthy, the Minister doth Seal to a lie. Or 2ly. If he Seale a saving interest in Christ to a person whom himself sus­pects (yet cannot evince to be unworthy, and whom others having the same power and piety with himself judge worthy) be a Sealing to a lie? If indeed the Minister know this person to be unworthy, as being in the state of nature or jure Excommunicate, here the case is much altered: of which I speak not in that Paragraph, onely I am much beholding to Mr. Humphrey for en­deavouring to pin such an absurdity upon my sleeve. If Mr. Humphrey and the Reader desire my judgement in this particular; For my part, if not only a Presbytery, but if a Classis, yea, Province voted a person worthy whom I knew to be un­worthy (as having sufficient evidence of his gross, ignorant, or scandalous conversation backt with impenitency and obstinacy) I must desire them all to excuse me for giving the Sacrament to such a one. Yet would I not make any stirre in the Church, if they appointed an other Minister to give him the Sacrament in my Congregation: By which means, I apprehend, I shall be both cleare of the guilt of his Admission, and withall pre­serve the peace and unity of the Church. And, should this carriage of mine cost me a Sequestra­tion, I hope I should chuse rather to suffer a pe­nall [Page 108] then to commit a Morall evill. The case may be illustrated by other Acts of Judicature, both Civill and Sacred. Suppose the Eldership vote the Excommunication of a person whom I knew to be innocent, or vote the non-Excommunication of a person whom I knew to be jure-Excommu­nicate: In such case they must give me leave to en­ter my protest, and not to act according to their vote against my Knowledge and Conscience. A­gain, in Civill Tryalls, suppose the Jury find a person guilty, whom the Judge knowes to be Innocent, were I Judge in that case, I hope, by Gods assistance, neither Law nor Jury should prevail with me to pronounce sentence against such a person. The like might be said about the Judges clearing a person whom hee knows to be guilty, yet is acquitted by the Jury, if the Judge should be put to pronounce a Sentence of absolu­tion against his Knowledge and Conscience: Which yet I think is not in practice amongst us, since the Verdict of the Jury doth acquit the Prisoner; only the Judge in such case might hap­ly complain of the Jury, &c. My drift and scope in all this, is to shew the weaknesse of Mr. Hum­phrey his Cords, where-with he thinks to bind me, and withall that I might make it appear to the Reader, That however pag. 64. Mr. Hum­phrey triumphs before the Victory, yet we are not forced either to lie on the one hand, or to come over to Mr. Humphry on the other hand.

For the last clause in this Paragraph, That, seeing a Minister is Gods Embassadour, and what he doth is by Commission, we may as soone say, the [Page 109] God of Israel can lic, as that the Minister either Seals an untruth or tie, in doing his Office.

Ans. Either the sense is, That a Minister when he acts clave non errante, Seales neither an un­truth nor a lie, which is as pertinent, as if I should say, when Mr. Humphrey Preaches Truth, hee Preaches not an untruth or lie. Or his meaning is, that, because a Minister is Commissioned by Christ, therefore he cannot erre in this or any o­ther part of his Ministeriall function; which as it is a palpable errour, so it smells strongly of Popish infallibility.

What he addes by way of amplification; Pag. 64, 65, 66. as there is much truth in it, so his great mistake lies in apprehending, that we cannot judge a person to be worthy or unworthy, but presently we med­dle with Gods Ark, and enter upon Gods Throne. The weaknesse of which inference hath been formerly laid open, and therefore I do but only note it here.

For his answer to my exception against divers Church-members receiving, Pag. 66. though all may bee present, &c. That yet the Minister may be free in his Office, in delivering the Sacrament in ge­nerall as Christ did, and that especially because it is a visible Word.

Ans. 1. This indeed accompanied with due admonition, may be a relief to the Minister, hee being thereby excused from giving the Sacra­ment to persons visibly unworthy; My mean­ing is, If the Mini­ster acqui­esce in the vote of the Elders, and do not his indeavour in a Morall way to have such a person kept from receiving. For I do not think the Minister is bound to thrust him away from the Table, or to pull the Bread and Cup violently out of his hands, who upon the unrighteous vote and incourage­ment of the Elders laies hold upon those holy mysteries. but it can­not [Page 110] clear him of guilt, as permitting them to eat and drink judgment to themselves, whom he ought to keep back.

2ly. Though the Elements and divers Sacra­mentall actions be explicatory, and so a visible word common to all, be they Church-members or no, yet giving and receiving are applicatory, and where a Minister or a private Christian can­not apply the writing or promise of Christ (I speak as de jure) there they cannot apply the seal of that writing.

Here I cannot but take notice of Mr. Hum­phrey his ingenuity, in confessing, That presence at the Sacrament is more free than actuall re­ceiving, in these words: Pag. 68. Not that I am so moved at free presence, but that actuall receiving is not as free to our intelligent Members. Not that bare presence makes them guilty, but their unworthy carriage at the Sacrament, and their unprofitablenesse under it as a visible word. And I do as easily yield to him, that by presence onely, persons may be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as well as by receiving, but not as much, since actuall receiving is like Judas his betraying Christ with a kisse, whereby hee contracted deeper guilt then others of his damned Crew, especially such as came haply to see Christ taken, but put not forth a tongue or hand in order to Christs apprehension. Yet withall, it being agreed on both hands, that presence is freer then receiving (for which Mr. Humphrey himselfe holds forth the practice of the Primitive Church) let him confider how he will salve his own Objections against this Tenet; and that it argues weaknesse for a man to yield the Cause, and yet to dispute against it.

Mr. Humphrey. Indeed if persons be Excommu­nicate [Page 111] (as the Primitive Church did punish such with bare presence) or men have their gathered Companies; if they do not communicate with those who are present, and hear, their reason is open, they own them not as their Members: But as for us, that are not yet convinced by them, either we must main­tain, or new-mould, our mixed Congregations.

Ans. 1. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant, that in the Primitive times, persons excommu­nicated in this sense, were not to be present at the Sacrament, since the fourth degree of excommu­nication, called [...], shut persons quite out of the Church, where they were to stand with tears, requesting those who entred in, to pray for them; and thence they were called Plorantes. See Goodwin's Moses and Aaron. They who were quite shut out of the Church, could not be pre­sent at the Sacrament, administred in the Chan­cell. 2 ly. It appears further by this Answer of Mr. Humphrey, that in the Primitive Times, suspension was a part or degree of excommunica­tion, since some persons excommunicated might be present, yet, not receive; but others might neither be admitted to presence, nor to receiving. And this makes much for us, and against him­selfe, who grants, that persons excommunicated, may be kept from the Sacrament: But, say we, persons juridically suspended, are excommunica­ted (both in our sense, and in the sense of the Pri­mitive Church) Ergo, By Mr. Humphrey his own Principle, they are to be kept from recei­ving. 3 ly. The ground of their separation from us, who are in gathered Companies (yet are not Brownists) is it not, because we admit pel-mel, Church members visibly unworthy? And, had [Page 112] our Sacraments been kept pure, their very pre­tence of separation had been cut off (I mean, as to the point of Communicants). Besides, some of those separated Congregations, have admitted to their Sacraments our Church-members, whom they apprehended godly, when at the same time, other Church-members of ours, concerning whom, they have not had sufficient evidence of their piety, did not passe for current. A clear evi­dence, that they (as well as we) look more at visible worthinesse, then at Church-member­ship.

D. Dr. Page 37. If the Sacrament have the same latititude with the Word, then a Heathen may receive it as well as a Christian.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 69. He hath left out my main caution (within the Church). The Word may be considered as a bare word, and an Instrument in writing, &c. or, as a Sealed word and instru­ment, delivered to peculiar use. The Covenant is a sealed Covenant, only unto the Church, &c.

Ans. 1. We demand Scripture-proofe for all this: Mr. Humphrey indeed quotes Rom. 3. 2. To them were committed the Oracles of God. And, Rom. 9. 4. To whom pertained the Cove­nants. But, 1. There is not one word of the Sa­crament. 2 ly. If he will urge those places, then Heathen must be excluded from the Oracles and Covenant, whether sealed or unsealed, there be­ing not one word about that particular of sea­ling. Suppose the Apostle had said, To whom be­longs the Oracles, and the Covenants, and the Sacraments. If Mr. Humphrey will thence ar­gue, Therefore Heathen ought not to partake [Page 113] of the Sacraments, is it not easie to retort out of the same place, that then, by the same reason, they ought not to read the Scripture, or to hear the Word Preached, and the Covenant declared and published, since all these were in some way, peculiar to the Jewes. Yea, to some Sacraments, Heathen were admitted; namely, to Baptisme under the Cloud, to the Manna, and to the Rock-Water, to wit, the mixed Multitude, as well as divers uncircumcised Israelites, in which there was somewhat extraordinary. I agree with Mr. Humphrey, that Heathen may partake of the Word, yet not of the Sacraments; but his proof thereof from Rom. 3. and 9. is not valid.

2 ly. He mistakes, in saying the Word is not a sealed Instrument to Heathen; and in thinking, the Word is not sealed to Heathen by the Sacra­ments, unlesse they partake of the Sacraments, Shew me any Covenant in the World, where the Seales doth not concern them, whom the Articles of the Covenant doe concern. If the Articles of the Covenant of Grace concern all the World, and are published and tendered to all conditionally, what absurdity is there, in sealing the same conditionall offer to all, in the Sacra­ment?

3 ly. The sealing of the Covenant is generall or particular; on Gods part, or on mans part. In generall, God seales the Covenant by every Sa­crament conditionally to all the World: Parti­cularly, he seales the Covenant to the worthy Receiver at the Sacrament. Further, whether I Receive or no, God seales the Covenant to me as well as to others, in generall; but, by Re­ceiving, I my selfe seal in particular, which [Page 114] standers by do not. We easily agree with Mr. Humphrey, That every Church-member (with­out a just forfeiture) hath a publick right to the use of the Sacrament. But, the Question is, Wherein this forfeiture lies? We say, the forfei­ture lies in visible unworthinesse: He saies, it lies in Excommunication. We answer, That cannot be, since forfeiture of a priviledge is grounded up­on an offence; but, excommunication rightly managed is no offence. The Church indeed by excommunication takes the forfeiture, but the Church-member by the offence makes the for­feiture. This offence known, is nothing else, but his visible unworthinesse, upon which, the Church may justly deny him the use of the Sa­crament for all his publick right to it as a Church-member. Herein indeed, an unworthy Church-member is distinguished from an Hea­then, in that he hath a publick right to the Sacrament (as a Jew, when unclean, had to the Passover; and a Priest, when unclean, had to the holy Things) which no Heathen have. But the influence of that right is suspended, as to his actuall receiving, till he visibly repent, of his vi­sible unworthinesse.

D. Dr. There are some righteous persons in their own conceit, many false justitiaries, &c.

Mr. Humphrey. Of all men, I think, such as these, had most need of conviction; but I finde not the Scriptures send forth any spirituall hue and cry, to make search for them; If it did, I will not for any thing, say, who are the men, &c.

Ans. 1. That conviction they may have, by presence at all Ordinances. 2 ly. A Scripture hue [Page 115] and cry for such hath been formerly noted, and I shall not here trouble my Reader with repeti­tions. 3 ly. For any to professe, They will not help to discover those, after whom the Scripture makes hue and cry, argues at the best, very great weaknesse, and is in effect to say, I will not do what the Word of God commands me.

4 ly. For his reflection upon divers of our Ministers and Elders; let Mr. Humphrey but discover in particular, those whom he charges in generall, and make good his charge, we shall thank him for it, and trust, through mercy (so far as our power reaches) we shall not be willing­ly partiall in Gods Law, but be ready to throw the first stone at our selves. And as we have cause to thank God, where he hath kept any of us from breaking out into grosser abominations; so we desire at all times, especially at the Sacrament, to lie low in the sense of our own great unwor­thinesse, to renounce our own righteousnesse, as well as our unrighteousnesse; Psal. 15. 4. and to pitty, not presently to despise, the greatest offendors, whether they fall under the sentence of suspen­sion, or of excommunication: And this we hope is not Pharisaisme, Luke 18. verse 9. to 14.

D. Dr. Pag. 70, 71, 72. All may be present, but not actually partake, &c. Against this, Mr. Humphrey hath foure Exceptions. To the first, I answer, he wrongs me, in making the World believe, I make nothing of the whole Administration, but only of actuall Receiving. I have formerly shewed, that they who hear and see unworthily at the Sacra­ment, are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ; as well, but not as much, as those who receive: Yet, because hearing and seeing may be [Page 116] means of Conversion; not so, receiving; therefore all may hear and see, but not receive. I determine not here, whether seeing the Sacramentall Elements do convert; but, am very inclinable to believe, that the observation of the humble devotion of the Communicants, may be effectuall for such a purpose; as, 1 Pet, 3. vers. 1, 2. And as the cou­rage of divers Martyrs have been means to change some Persecutors.

To his second Exception. VVe hold not, that Baptisme is to be repeated; nor do we believe, that Christ hath commanded absolutely all in­telligent Church-members to receive. But, as a Circumcised Jew might be kept from the Passo­ver, when Legally or Morally unclean; so may a Baptized Christian be kept from the Lords Sup­per, when Morally unclean.

Doctor Rivet, upon Exod. 12, notes, 1. That Women were admitted to the Passover as well as men. 2 ly. That profession of their faith was required (of adult Females) before they were admitted to the Passover. A clear evidence of vi­sible Morall purity requisite as well as Leviticall purity.

To his third Exception we answere. An un­regenerate mans undisposednesse, doth no more frustrate Gods precept, of receiving the Lords Supper, than an unclean mans indisposednesse did frustrate the command, for all the Congre­gation to keep the Passover, Exod. 12. 47.

For his fourth Exception, That we go con­trary to the expresse command, Drink ye all of it, we answer, 1. If Judas received not, (which is probable) then it is evident, the command reaches only those, who are really and visibly worthy. 2 ly. Supposing Judas did receive. 1. Let [Page 117] Mr. Humphrey peruse Mr. Timson's Answer, page 3. and 4. who, though zealous for free Ad­mission, yet lookes at this Argument as very weak. 2 ly. I have answered formerly, that in Ju­das his Admission, Christs dispensation was ex­traordinary, and so not imitable by us. 3 ly. We admit all to the Marriage Feast, as well, yea, more then himselfe, but not to cat the Feast in every Dish; yea, we admit all to the Sacrament, but not to every Sacramentall action. 4 ly. If putting the ignorant upon knowledge, the care­lesse upon diligence to prepare, the hard-hearted upon repentance, be to make them more secure, carelesse, and hard-bearted, we must confesse our selves guilty of Mr. Humphrey his charge; other­wise, not. And certainly, if our suspension from but part of one Ordinance, do harden (as he ap­prehends) what will his excommunication from all Ordinances do? 5 ly. For his charging us, To afflict tender Consciences; We see not how any such Conclusion can flow from our Princi­ples, rightly understood; or, that our Principles tend, to lay wast the Ordinance of the Lords Sup­per. We desire, that every Ordinance may be used in every Congregation, particularly, the Lords Supper, where there are any Church­members capable of it. Nor do we believe, the Administration of this Sacrament doth absolute­ly depend upon the being or acting of the Elders, who are not necessary to the esse, but to the bone esse of the Church, and to the more regular Ad­ministration of the Sacrament. We believe, the principall care of Soules lies upon Ministers, who therefore ought to do their duty (whether they have Elders or no) in fitting their people for, [Page 118] and then admitting them to the Sacrament. Nor do we apprehend what there can be in this car­riage of ours, to afflict tender Consciences, whom of all persons we shall most willingly ad­mit: If indeed we forced any to approve, and own tryall before the Eldership, there might be some plea against us in that kinde; but, that there should be any such thing in giving an ac­count of our faith before any, especially to our Minister, who, without all controversy, is char­ged with our Soules, as he that must give an account to God for them, is to me a very strange paradox. Yet further; Suppose one be kept from the Sacrament, yea, unjustly kept from it, what is there here to scruple his conscience? It may indeed grieve his spirit, and cause him to reflect, and that to his great and spirituall advantage; but the sin is theirs who do unjustly detain him. For our part, if we know any thing of our selves, our great care is to invite, and encourage tender Consciences, to partake of, not to keep them from, the Sacrament; and such we are assured, will never put us against our Consciences, to ad­mit all pel-mel. A tender Conscience is tender of other mens Consciences, as well as of its own.

Page 72. to 74. Mr. Humphrey thinks, I wrong his Simile, and take hold of it by the left handle.

Ans. Let the Reader peruse my Answer, page 40, and 41. and compare it with page 14. of Mr. Humphrey his Vindication, he will easily perceive Mr. Humphrey wrongs himselfe by it; but I wrong neither him nor his Simile. God is the Prince wronged, Christ is the great Favou­rit, upon whose intercession Grace is proclai­med [Page 119] to all the World conditionally, and sealed in the Sacrament. Now mark what Mr. Hum­phrey addes, page 15. of his Vindication, Can it be imagined, there is any the Proclamation be­longs to without the seal? is not the seal publick, as the contents of it? Is not here a free Admissi­on for all the World, and thereby even for Hea­then, to the Sacrament? That grace is proclai­med conditionally to all the World, see Matth. 28. 19. and Mark 16. vers. 15, 16. Mr. Hum­phrey addes in the forementioned words, The Seal is as extensive as the Proclamation; there­fore by his own Principles, they must be admit­ted to the Lords Supper, since they are part of the World, yea, the greatest part. Nor will his following words be a salvo for this wide gap, That as we offer the conditions thereof to any, so likewise may we, and must we, the seal (upon their desire) &c. page 15. of his Vindication: Unlesse we have good evidence (at least in the judgment of charity) that their desire is reall, Acts 8. verse 36, 37. And hence, when Heathen came on to the Church, they were first Catechu­meni, and gave evidence of their faith and repen­tance, before they were admitted Church-mem­bers, and Baptized: Nor was Paul himselfe ad­mitted by the Church of Jerusalem, till upon good evidence, Acts 9. vers. 26, 27. And why the like care should not be used in the Sacrament of growth, as was in the Sacrament of initiation, there being with us so great a distance of time, between the one and the other, and we having so good ground to fear the declension of Church-members, as well as they had to fear the hypocri­ticall approach of Church-candidates; Mr. Hum­phrey, [Page 120] I believe, can give no solid reason. All Heathen may, and must, be admitted to Bap­tisine, upon their desire, and all Church-mem­bers may, and must, be admitted to the Lords Supper, upon their desire provided, the desire in both be regular. And certainly, if moderate in­quisition after the sincerity of Heathens desire, be no entring upon Gods Throne; then the same inquisition after the sincerity of Church-mem­bers d [...]sires, cannot be charged as an intruding upon Gods secrets. For our parts, we believe the Covenant is sealed conditionally in the Sacra­ment to all the World, as well at to all Church-members: But, from thence to argue, that all the world, or every Church-member, should receive the Sacrament, is a conclusion, Mr. Humphrey himselfe cannot swallow, much lesse others, who are not of his large Principles. Whereas therefore he addes, Pag. 74. We may not judge, men are outwardly Rebells, unlesse we have somewhat to alledge against them, and then they must be ex­communicated. Ans. 1. We judge not any to be outwardly Rebells, unlesse we have something to alledge against them (as David had against Absolums party, who, I think, were outwardly Rebells, as well as Edomites or Philistines) to wit, ignorance, obstinacy, scandal; and if tryall of Church-members be commanded, he that wilfully refuseth it, shewes himselfe a Rebell, as well as he that wilfully refuseth to obey his Prince. 2 ly. Such we judge are to be excommu­nicated but not presently, with the highest de­gree of excommunication, unlesse the greatnesse and palpablenesse of the offence, with other cir­cumstances, do require the same. 3 ly. Whereas [Page 121] he pretends, There is not Scripture-warrant for tryall of Church-members. Ans. Besides what hath been formerly said to this, I adde, If Scrip­ture warrant tryall in generall, and apply this rule particularly to some Church-members, this is enough for us; and it lies upon Mr. Humphrey to prove, that this tryall must not be against the Sacrament, which when he can do, we shall easily yield him the cause. Now that Tryall is commanded in generall, see 1 Thess. 5. 21. we are commanded to Try all things; and if a person be not a thing, let Mr. Humphrey put him out of that generall. Private Christians may put each other upon tryall, Jam. 2. vers. 18, 20. We ought not to refuse tryall from any, where there is just occasion. 1 Pet. 3. 15. In particular, the Deacons were to be tryed, 1 Tim. 3. 10. Ministers, or such as pre­tended to be Ministers, were to be tryed by the people, 1 Joh. 4. 1. The Church of Ephesus is com­mended for trying the false Apostles, Revel. 2. 2. See Jer. 6. 27. If people have power to try their Officers, shall Church Officers have no power to try their people? Hath every Church-member a tryall and judgment of discretion, and shall not Church-Officers have a tryall and judgment of decision? Whereas therefore in the foot of this page, he upbraides me again, as giving more power to the servant, then to the Lord himselfe; As I pardon him this wrong, so I must minde my Reader, that that cavill hath been already answered. We doubt not but Christ, as Lord and King of the Church, might have tryed, suspen­ded, or excommunicated Judas by his owne power, had he pleased so to do; yet, Christ for­bearing to do either of these, is no rule for our imitation. What Christ might do as a Minister, [Page 122] is an other question; and of that I spake, and said, That if Christ, as a Minister, might sus­pend or excommunicate, then every Minister might by himselfe alone suspend and excommu­nicate; which power, if given to every particu­lar Minister, might provefatall to the Church: Nor do I finde in Scripture, that one particular Minister is the Church governing, Matth. 18. 17. Yet withall, for further explication of my selfe in that particular, I think we may safely distinguish between a regular and irregular state of the Church. Where Church-government can­not be setled regularly, in that case, I believe, much lies upon the Minister: or, where the El­ders will not act, I do not apprehend, that there­fore Sacraments are to be omitted; but the Mini­ster, who on all hands is acknowledged as an undoubted Officer, must endeavour to supply that defect. Haply, in some cases, and for some persons, the Elders for a time may devolve the sole power of tryall upon the Minister, where they have good assurance of his integrity. 2 ly. I distinguish between the Ministers Pastorall and Judiciall power: Suppose he cannot suspend an ignorant and scandalous person Judicially, may he not therefore suspend him Pastorally? Sup­pose he cannot suspend such by a formall sen­tence, may he not suspend his own act, as being not bound against his conscience to give the Sa­crament to one visibly unworthy? May there not be a negative, where there is no formall Suspen­sion?

Pag. 75. He thinks I slander the Sacrament, in com­paring it to the bitter Water, and saying, It can do good to none, but such as are good already. [Page 123] Ans. 1. Though I be not bound to answer Mr. Humphrey his thoughts, but his arguments; yet, herein I dare refer my selfe to an indifferent person, what slander it is to compare any of the Ordinances to the bitter Water, which ever did good or hurt, as every Ordinance doth, not ac­cording to its own nature, but according to the disposition of the subject, or the dispensati­on of free grace. 2 ly. I believe the Sacrament may do good, even to those who are bad; upon which account all sorts may be present: Only, I dissent about actuall receiving, which if Mr. Humphrey can prove a converting Ordinance, he shall not only make me his Proselyte, but a greater Zelot for free Admission, yea, freer Admission, then himselfe is. What he repeats here and page 76. I passe, as having been formerly answered. Page 75. Mr. Humphrey feeling himselfe pinched with the instance of godly Parents and Masters, keeping their Children and Servants from the Sacrament, till they were visibly qualified, hath nothing to except against, but my ill language, as he is pleased to terme it. Ans. The worst of my ill language is to ask him, whether it be not a shame for one, scarce out of the shell for Lear­ning and Divinity, to reflect upon such eminent and pious persons, who were Counsellours and Authors of Church-government amongst us, As if they were children of Simon Magus, and went about with Judas to make a bargain of Christ at the Supper. To be a young Scholler or Divine is no reproach; but, for such a one to cen­sure an Assembly of such Senators and Divines as he doth, I thinke is shamefull; if it be not, I shall willingly ask Mr. Humphrey pardon for saying so.

[Page 124]As I deny not, Pag. 77. but the Word and seal must go together, so I am assured, they do both go to­gether in every Sacrament, and that the Cove­nant is sealed conditionally in every Sacrament to all the World, though the greatest part of the VVorld do not receive. But it followes not from thence, that all may receive: Nor can Mr. Humphrey bring any Scripture-evidence, That men must come to the Sacrament to seal their own damnation: Yea, probably such Doctrine Preached, would be a greater bar to his free Ad­mission, then the Tryall before the Eldership, which yet he so much decries. I perceive the in­stance of Infants and scandalous persons troubles him, which though he snarle at, will not budge or move their place. But that I passe, as having been formerly cleared. He is also displeased, that we go by a rule of visibility, in admitting Church-members to the Lords Supper: But, let Mr. Humphrey answer himselfe, and either ad­mit all Church-members, or give us a better rule then the rule of visibility, to wit, That such members as are visibly capable of the Sacrament, should be admitted, others not. His rule of visi­bility is naturall intelligence, when Church-members have the use of Reason: Our rule is spirituall intelligence, and vacancy of scandall, when persons have some competent knowledge of Divine and Sacramentall mysteries, and live unblamably. Will Mr. Humphrey in one breath cry up and cry down the rule of visibility? If yet he ask, Where is there any ground to try Church-members, whether they be ignorant, or no, &c. Let him answer himselfe, Where is there any ground to try Church-members, whether they [Page 125] have the use of reason or no? Or, where doth Christ forbid the admitting of distracted persons? If the ground be, because they cannot examine themselves, the same ground will reach ignorant persons in the Church, whose inability for selfe-examination is so much the worse, as it is will­full.

Mr. Humphrey. For his answer to my four Considerations, I reply as briefly. 1. An Histo­ricall Faith suffices to Baptisme Acts 8. 13.

Ans. What is this Reply to my Answer, page 42? my words are these, Those whom we would not Baptise, had they bin to have been Baptised at years of discretion, those we cannot admit to the Lords Supper, though Baptized, &c. To this, all he answers, is, that, Historicall Faith is enough to Baptisme. As, 1. its utterly impertinent: So, 2 ly. its false, since not only an Historicall Faith, but also profession of Repentance, is necessary to Baptisme, which is therefore called, The Bap­tisme of Repentance. Mark 1. 4, 5. 3 ly. Pro­fession of Faith and Repentance, cannot stand with conviction of grosse ignorance, and with scandall. We refuse none, who make a charita­tive profession of Faith and Repentance. And here once more, let Mr. Humphrey remember his own rule, Adultis cadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 78. A Church-members outward Acceptance is his Receiving; as for any other, the Scriptures he pleads as abundant enough, are none at all.

Ans. In my answer to his second considera­tion, I do not quote Scripture, therefore Mr. Humphrey should either have mentioned those [Page 126] Scriptures, or referred the Reader to them. But, to come to the point; Will Mr. Humphrey stand to that assertion of his, That a Church-mem­bers outward Acceptance, is no other but his Receiving? What thinks he of publick Prayer, Hearing, the Parents confession of Faith at the Baptising of his Children, &c. are not each of these an outward acceptance? Then sure Recei­ving the Lords Supper, is not the sole outward or visible acceptance. How many Church-members will scarce come to Church from years end to years end, who yet would think themselves much wronged, if the Sacrament be denyed them? Is their offering to Receive once a year, acceptance enough, who all the year after will scarce come to the publick Ordinances? Do not they as visibly reject Christ, by neglecting to Hear, &c. all the year long, as they do accept Christ, by comming once a year to the Sacra­ment? 2 ly. True, Receiving is an outward ac­ceptance of the Sacrament; but is it a sufficient outward acceptance of Christ and Grace, offe­red in the Sacrament? Then persons jure excom­municate, cannot be suspended. Suppose a Church-member publickly renounce Christ, and yet desire to Receive; this Wretch, by Mr. Humphrey his rule, must have the Sacrament, if outward acceptance be enough. For his charging me here again with foul language, why did not Mr. Humphrey transcribe it, as a further evi­dence against me? Let the Reader peruse page 43. 44, and 45. of my Bar, he will easily un­vail the mysterie. The truth is, in those pages I lay open his foul slanders, and this, forsooth, is my foul language.

[Page 127]Mr. Humphrey. To the Third, where are many things, I say 1. Though conviction is not enough to convert without grace, what then? Is it not a means therefore with it?

Ans. 1. Sure Mr. Humphrey forgot his own words, page 16. of his Vindication, Let a man be fully convinced of the free grace of Christ, his heart can stand it out no longer against his conversion. Is it not here evident, he makes full conviction alone, a meanes of conversion, yea, a sufficient means? If a man cannot stand it out against full conviction, then full conviction is a sufficient means of conversion. This was it, I ex­cepted against: To which, in his Reply, he An­swers, Conviction, with grace, is a means of con­version. For my part, I believe it's a means of conversion, either with, or without grace; but, not a sufficient means. An Horse is a means to draw a million of weight, but I hope not a suffi­cient means: but, if a horse alone could draw it, he were a sufficient means. If Mr. Humphrey his first assertion (to which I answered) be true, then full conviction, even without grace, must be a sufficient means of conversion.

Mr. Humphrey. 2 ly. Conviction of the truth of the Covenant comes directly by sealing it; and conviction of the generall offer, by applying it to every single person.

Ans. There is a double sealing in the Sacra­ment: 1. By application of the Seal to the Co­venant it selfe. 2 ly. By application of the Seal to particular persons in their receiving. In the for­mer sense we agree, conviction comes by sealing the generall offer, even to those who do not re­ceive, but may be present: But it followes not [Page 128] immediately, nor directly, that because the Co­venant is particularly applyed to some persons, therefore it is offered to all. It's bad Logick, to argue from a particular to a generall, unlesse up­on a generall reason: And hence, the consequence from a particular to a generall, is not immediate, but remote. It followes not, that because pardon is by the seal applyed to some Traitors, there­fore it is offered to all Traitors: No more is it true [...], that, because grace is sealed by par­ticular application to some persons in the Sacra­ment, therefore it is offered unto all. The con­sequent indeed is true, not so the consequence. In the last clause, Mr. Humphrey is ambiguous: If by every single person he means every man, woman, and child in the world; then undoubt­edly, conviction of the generall offer, flowes pro­perly and immediately from such application: But there never was, nor will be, such an appli­cation. If by every single person, he means some single persons of all sorts, neither is there such an application at the Sacrament, even in Mr. Hum­phrey his own judgment who excludes, not on­ly Ideots, but also Heathen and excommunicated persons. If by every single person he mean only, every person admitted to receive, here his every person notes but some persons in the World; nor will it follow, that because the Covenant is applyed to some persons, by actuall Receiving, therefore it is offered unto all? My assertion then holds thus far true, That conviction of the ge­nerall offer of the Covenant, comes by significa­tion, and generall obsignation, not by personall and particular obsignation and application: which was the thing I drove at, and which Mr. [Page 129] Humphrey must evince, if he will speak to pur­pose; nor is the distinction between offering and applying so nice as he would make it.

Mr. Humphrey. 3 ly. Conviction that Christ is mine in particular, as to faith of particular evi­dence, comes not at all by the Sacrament: 1. Be­cause the Sacrament seales nothing, but the Word; which speaks not particularly, I believe. 2 ly. What is common to the hypocrite with the true believer, cannot bring any evidence to me, &c.

Ans. 1. Let the Reader mark it: Mr. Hum­phrey denies, that faith of evidence, comes ei­ther by the Word or Sacrament. 2 ly. He denies it upon a Popish ground, because the Word speaks not particularly. 3 ly. We grant, the Word saies not particularly, Thou John Hum­phrey, shalt be saved; no more doth it say, Thou John Humphrey, shalt rise from the dead; or, Thou John Humphrey, shalt have no other Gods but Jehovah. Cannot Mr. Humphrey therefore attain to a faith of evidence, that he in particular shall rise, and that its his duty in particular, to have Jehovah only for his God? 4 ly. We grant, the Sacrament seales nothing, but the Word; but, doth not the Sacrament by sealing ratifie the Word? And then, if the Word conduce to faith of evidence, doth not the Sa­crament also? Take for instance the syllogisme of Assurance: He that believes, shall be saved; I believe, therefore I shall be saved. The Con­clusion, I shall be saved, is faith of evidence. This Conclusion depends necessarily upon both Propositions: The Major is Scripture in terms, Mark 16. 26. The Minor, we say, depends part­ly [Page 130] upon Scripture, in respect of the signes of true faith laid down therein: According to Mr. Humphrey here (with whom we also agree) the Minor depends upon the testimony of my own Conscience, and the Spirit. The Conclusion flowes necessarily from both: If so, then Assu­rance depends in part upon Scripture, and parti­cularly the Promise; this Promise is ratified by the Sacrament as by a Seal: and how then can Mr. Humphrey his Assertion hold Water, That faith of evidence comes not at all by the Sacra­ment. If my evidence for a Possession depend upon a Deed, and that Deed be ratified by a Seal, is it not clear, my Evidence depends much upon the Seal? Is not a Deed cancelled, by pulling off the Seales, and doth it not then depend much upon the Seales? True, Gods Word (considering his infallibility) is as good as his Bond; yet, to strengthen our weak faith, he is pleased to annex Seales, &c. that by strong assurance, we might have strong consolation, Heb. 6. 17, 18. His se­cond Argument, as it makes further discovery of Mr. Humphrey his judgment, so it shamefully laies open his weaknesse: It discovers his judg­ment, that he believes, no outward Ordinance can bring any evidence: it discovers his weak­nesse, in asserting, That nothing common to hypo­crites with believers, can bring evidence to any, which, though true in some sense, is false in his sense; and he may as well say, Nothing common to hypocrites with believers can convert, and thereby deny the power of Conversion to the Word preached. Can the Word convert, and can it not evidence conversion? Can it convince me to be in the state of Nature, and can it not as [Page 131] well convince me to be in the state of Grace? Can it do the greater, and can it not do the les­ser? True, nothing common to hypocrites with believers, can be a formall cause of evidence; but, divers things common to both, may be ef­ficient causes of evidence, I mean, as instru­ments; to wit, Prayer, by impetration; the Word, by conviction; the Sacraments, by obsig­nation; and conscience, by reflection; all back't by the Spirit as the Principle, who by the Word, &c. convinces of righteousnesse and judgment, as well, as of sin, John 16. 8.

For his Reply to my Answer of his fourth Consideration, Pag. 79. illustrated by the Magitian and his Friend, it may indeed take the Reader with its pleasantnesse; but is altogether impertinent, unlesse Mr. Humphrey can prove, that Suspen­sion is not only the occasion, but also the proper cause of Church-division. I wonder Mr. Hum­phrey doth not cry out of all Church-censures, and excommunication it selfe, upon the same account. See my Answer to his fourth Conside­ration, page 49, and 50. of my Bar, which Mr. Humphrey only plaies with, in his Reply, as well knowing it will bear jeast better than ear­nest.

Sect. VII.

Pag. 80. In defence of his second Reason, he makes the Sacraments essentiall notes of the visible Church.

Ans. I grant, the Sacraments rightly admi­nistred, are infallible notes of the Church visible; but, I question whether they be essentiall notes, because such notes hold both negatively and af­firmatively. An essentiall note of a man, proves [Page 132] the subject where it is, to be a man, and the sub­ject where it is not, to be no man: Upon which account, I dare not say, the Sacraments are es­sentiall notes of the Church visible, since a Church may be truly visible, though it have them not for a long time: Such was the Church of those Israelites, who were not Circumcised in the Wildernesse, Josh. 5. ve s. 5, 7. which an­swers our Baptisme: Nor do I doubt, but Con­stantine the Great was a true member of the vi­sible Church, even before he was Baptized: The like may be said of Abraham's family, before Circumcision was instituted; and likewise of the Catechumeni, who were members (though in­compleat) of the Church-visible, yet were ad­mitted to neither of the Sacraments, which how­ever necessary, necessitate praecepti, yet are not necessary absolutely necessitate medit, so their absence proceed not from contempt. The Church cannot be visible without combination, in order to the Preaching of the Word, and Pray­er [...] but was visible from Adams fall to the daies of Abraham, without Sacraments in ordinary. 2 ly. If the Lords Supper be an essentiall note of the visible Church, then many Congregations of England, who have been without it for divers years of late, are thereby unchurched, which I believe, Mr. Humphrey is more charitable than to assert. How many Congregations have for ten or twelve years together, assembled con­stantly at the Word and Prayer, without the Lords Supper, yea some of them, haply, with­out Baptisme? A great fault I grant; but, I hope, not so great, as to unchurch them.

I perceive, Mr. Humphrey is too willing to [Page 133] lie at catch, who cannot forbear snapping at me, even when I plead for him, and excuse him. His definition of a Church-visible I shewed, was liable enough to exception; yet, took it in the best sense, supposing he meant more then he said. He defines a Church visible, to be a number of such, as make profession of Jesus Christ. This definition, I said, was deficient, as wanting the copula, that united them in one body; namely, Combination for Church-ends: Pag. 81. Yet, supposing this might be his meaning, though not mentio­ned in his definition, I passe it: For which he flouts me, as curious, and with a pretty story, thinks to catch his Reader. But, Mr. Humphrey should remember, that in a Dispute, the Reader must be convinced with Arguments, not caught with expressions. Would he play the Logician more, and the Rhetorician lesse, naked Truth would sooner take place. Let me ask Mr. Hum­phrey, whether the Members of the invisible Church be not a number of Professours? If so, VVhat distinguisheth the visible from the invisi­ble Church, but this Combination for Church-Ends? When all the parts of a body can make a totum without union, then all the members of the Church visible, can make a Church visible without the former combination. Pro­fessours make the Church invisible, by invisible combination in Christ; and the Church visible, by visible combination at the Ordinances of Christ, the most necessary of which, the visible Church cannot want.

In the same Page, He asserts directly, That all Professours and Saints by Calling, must, eo nomine, be admitted to the Lords Table.

[Page 134] Ans. If so, then many who are not Members of the Church visible, must be admitted to the Lords Table. Suppose an Heathen converted, and making profession, yet, seeks not Baptisme; nay, suppose he be Baptized, yet, joynes not to any particular Congregation, but Hears here and there, where he pleaseth, as an unconverted Hea­then may, 1 Cor. 14. 24. Jam. 2. vers. 2, 6. Will Mr. Humphrey admit this Professour to the Lords Supper? If not, then a Professor and Saint by Calling, may not, eo nomine, be admit­ted. If he will admit him, then one, who is no member of the visible Church, may be admit­ted to the Lords Supper. Now mark, I pray: If one who is no Church-member, may be ad­mitted, and divers who are Church-members, may not be admitted to the Saceament; is it not evident, that the ground of Admission to the Lords Supper, lies not properly in Church­membership, but in visibility, since a visible Saint may be admitted, though no Church­member; but divers Church-members may not be admitted, though invisible Saints.

Pag. 82.By this also may appear the weaknesse of that assertion of Mr. Humphrey, page 82. That he thinks, a visible Professor, and Church-member, are termes convertible. True, every Church­member, eo nomine, is a Professor, but every Pro­fessor is not presently a Church-member: Yet as a Church­member, he may be on­ly a Professor at large, not in the stricter acception of the terme, and as it is commonly taken, when we say, Such a man is a Professor, in op­position (not to Heathen, but) to loose and prophane Church-members. Fit matter he may be for a Church, if his know­ledge [Page 135] and conversation do suit in some good mea­sure with his profession; but, he is no more a Church-member, till in union, than a beam or stone is part of the House, till compacted with the building. This is further evident in the case of excommunication, whereby even a pious Church-member, may be cut off, for a scanda­lous sin, yet remains still, both a professor, and a reall Saint: As, Suppose David had been ex­communicated for his Murther and Adultery. It's evident there, that a Professor, and Church-member, are not termes convertible, since they are not predicated each of the other universal­ly.

The Argument drawn from Infants and Ide­ots, which here again he flies upon with such contempt and scorn, hath been formerly vindi­cated, to which I refer the Reader. For what he addes, That Saint Paul enjoynes us to examine our selves, and to discern the Lords Body: Nor doth it excuse any of age, but they are both to do so, and come; both to prepare, and eat. We must do what we can still, when we cannot do as we ought: But, as for Infants, &c. it's no sin of theirs, if they are not fit to come. For ignorance then, and scandall; if it be not such as makes us forfeit our Church-membership (that is, become excommunicate) it cannot contradict our out­ward Profession.

Ans. 1. By concession, in sensu composito, all of age, must do both: But the Question is, de sensu diviso, whether all of age must receive, though they cannot, will not, receive worthily? It was a duty to kisse Christ sincerely, Luke 7. 45. but the very kisse was a sin, and worse then [Page 136] not kissing, when given treacherously, Luke 22. 48. So likewise to worship Christ is a duty, John 9. 38. but better not worship him at all, then worship him ironically, Matth, 27. 29. Are not all unworthy Receivers, of this Frater­nity?

2 ly. Again by Concession. We must do what we can morally, but not alwaies what we can naturally, when we can not do what we would. Else, suppose a person were stript of all apparell, must he of necessity come to the Sacrament, though naked, because he can get no apparell? The nakednesse of unworthy Receivers, especi­ally, if visibly so, is a great deal worse.

3 ly. Suppose a man be drunk before the Sa­crament, must he therefore Receive the Lords Supper, even when he is actually drunk, because by this sin of his, he wilfully made himselfe un­fit for the Sacrament? Upon Mr. Humphrey his Principles he must; for, he tells us, that chil­dren and Ideots are excused, because they are not wilfully unfit for the Sacrament; but, persons of age being intelligent, must receive, though they be unfit, because these are wilfully, and by their own default, unfit. Will it not hence necessarily follow, that the vilest miscreants, who are jure excommunicate, are bound to come and receive, because by their foul scandalls, they willfully unfit themselves for the Sacrament? And by proportion, the more vile and wilfull sinners are, the more they are bound, to receive the Lords Supper. And therefore a person actually drunk, by his own default, must receive, even when drunk because he was wilfully unfit; but, a per­son forced to be drunk by others, may be excu­sed [Page 137] from Receiving, because he did not wilfully make himselfe unfit and uncapable. Wherefore are Ideots kept away, but because they are chil­dren in understanding, and cannot put forth those acts, which are necessary to worthy re­ceiving? Are not all grosly ignorant persons, children also in understanding, as well as the for­mer, 1 Cor. 14. 20. If he say, they are not wil­fully so, that is not true of divers, who by their lusts, break their brains, and grow distracted. If yet he say, ignorance may be cured, so may distraction and madnesse also; but, till both be cured, the one by spirituall, the other by bodily Physick, I believe the one may plead admission as well as the other.

4 ly. Again, by Concession. Ignorance and scandall do not universally contradict profession, whether I be a Church-member or not: It's e­nough for us, if either of them contradict pro­fession particularly: As, he that contradicts any one Commandement by wilfull disobedience, though he keep the other nine; yet, really con­tradicts the whole Law, Jam. 2. 10. So he who holds up profession in many things, yet, walks contrary to it in one visible scandal, by that one scandal contradicts his whole profession. He that yields up nine Forts to his Soveraigne, but keeps him out of one, is as truly a Rebell, as he that keeps him out of all. As one sin lived in, contradicts reall holinesse; so one sin visibly li­ved in, contradicts visible holinesse, which is Profession. If visible profanenesse, arrayed with visible holinesse, must be admitted, then a known Wolfe, cloathed with a Lambs skin, must be used as a Lamb; and a Dog, having on a Childs [Page 138] coat (though known to be a Dog) must sit at the Table with the Children. The Tridentine Pa­pists do not universally contradict profession, yet we admit them not to our Sacraments, because they contradict profession in divers fundamen­talls, though not universally: upon which ac­count we look at them, as universally contra­dicting profession, and that justly. Do not ma­ny Members of our Churches rase the foundati­on by abominable errors and practices, as well as Papists? And shall such be admitted to the Lords Supper upon this poor account, because they are not actually excommunicated? If so, then let the rankest Papists receive also, since they were never excommunicated by us. We indeed separate from them, and so we may from per­sons, who wilfully go on in grosse ignorance or scandall (though neither of them be excommu­nicated) till they professe their repentance. Why may not sincere Professors in a Church, as to Sa­cramentall Communion, separate from scanda­lous Professors in the same Church, as we do from Papists, though we neither excommuni­cate the one nor the other. Want of separation in Churches, is the cause, or at least the occasion, of separation from Churches; and will, I fear, if not timely remedied, turn the Church of Christ into the Synagogue of Sathan.

Mr. Humphrey. He grants my Notes, but ob­jects the keeping of Children and Servants, till they can give some tolerable account.

Ans. I take it for granted, that the Word and Sacraments rightly administred, are true notes of the visible Church; I do not grant the Sacrament is an essentiall note, and that upon the [Page 139] account forementioned, because the absence of Sacraments doth not unchurch a People, but they may still be a Church, as Combined, for constant hearing of the Word and Prayer, (in which sense godly Families are true, though incompleat Churches, Philem. vers. 2.) though at present they have not the use of Sacraments. Now let's see what Mr. Humphrey saies to my Objection: He tells us, Pag. 83. There is a difference be­tween what is done juridically, by compulsion, and what is done only as prudentially by advice; between forbearance and exclusion. His ground is good, Because affirmative precepts oblige us, semper, but not ad semper. And upon this ac­count, He commends godly Parents and Ma­sters, so long as they follow them with instructi­on, and allowes the same in spirituall Fathers, that go no further in the like admonition.

Ans. 1. I am glad we agree thus far, that both Oeconomicall and Spirituall Parents have power in a prudentiall way, by advice, to cause persons under their severall charges, to forbear the Sa­crament. Now let Mr. Humphrey give me any Scripture-ground to perswade persons, be they never so wicked, not to Hear and Pray. The worst are bound to pray every day, and to Hear as often as their just and necessary occasions will give them leave. Why so? Because 1. These are parts of naturall Worship, unto which all are obliged by the Law of Nature. 2 ly. Because these are means of Conversion, from which none should be kept, least of all the worst, who have most need of Conversion. Contra, Sacraments (as such) are not naturall, but instituted worship. 2 ly. Not means of Conversion, but suppose [Page 140] Conversion: whence persons visibly in the state of Nature, ought not to be admitted to them.

But 2 ly. Mr. Humphrey speaks obscurely and comes not home to the point, though what he granted make against himselfe. For, the next Question is, What if those Children and Ser­vants (though grosly ignorant and scandalous) in spight of admonition, will thrust themselves upon the Sacrament? In this Paragraph Mr. Humphrey saies I think a man may consciona­bly forbear his comming sometimes upon many occasions, and much more upon pious ends, re­garding preparation. You see now the mans [...]incing of the businesse. 1. He may forbear; he doth not say, he must forbear. 2 ly. He may som­times so. bear es [...]ecially, upon want of due pre­paration He doth not say, he must forbear, if he want due preparation. 3 ly. He hints not one word here, what superiours must do or not do, in case a person grosly ignorant or scandalous, will, against their admonition come to the Sa­crament, upon which, yet, the very hinge of the Controversy turnes. For our parts, we are clear, 1. That persons unworthy ought to forbear; un­derstand it of Evangelicall unworthinesse, espe­cially, when sensible; I mean, one who hath no faith and repentance, especially when convinced he hath them not. 2 ly. So long as he continues in this condition, he ought to forbear. If upon selfe examination he apprehend himselfe (though falsely to be in the state of Grace, then his case is the same with his who thinks a sin to be a du­ty who of necessity must sin, whether he act or act not; in that, against the rule; in this, against [Page 141] his Conscience: Or, as he who received the Pas­sover, thinking himselfe clean, yet, was really unclean. If he came not, he sinned against his conscience; if he came he sinned against the rule: yet, this necessity of sinning is only hypotheticall, not absolute. 3 ly. If Oeconomicall Parents know their Children or Servants to be grosly igno­rant or scandalous, they ought not only to dis­swade them, but also to improve their Authori­ty to keep such (being in statu quo) from the Sacrament. 4 ly. It lies upon Oeconomicall Pa­rents to make search, who are grosly ignorant and scandalous in their families, by Catechising and watching over their Children and Servants, and in the use of private, as well as publick means, to bring them to some competent measure of knowledge, and at least, to profession of re­pentance, before they suffer them to Receive, Deut. 6. 7. Prov. 31. 27. And why Spirituall Parents should not do the same (there being the same ground of the one as of the other) a solid reason cannot be given: Both are betrusted with soules, both must take care to prepare those un­der their charge for the Sacrament; which is impossible for them to do (at least, in respect of divers, both Children Servants, and People) if in spight of Parents, persons, though never so ignorant and scandalous, might thrust them­selves upon the Sacrament.

3 ly. Because he laies so much stresse upon kee­ping persons from the Sacrament, uridicall, and by compulsion: I believe it would puzzle Mr. Humphrey to prove, that we have kept any a­way in that manner. Divers of our people will not come to Sacraments, though they may: [Page 142] others desire to come, but will not submit to try­all: Such we intreat to excuse us, and thereupon they abstain, though with discontent. But where have we juridically, or by compulsion, kept any from the Sacrament? If there be any such thing amongst us, I am confident it is very rare. I wish Mr. Humphrey were so good a friend as he pre­tends, to this prudentiall care of Church Go­vernours about the Sacrament; then would he perswade people upon prudence, to submit to tryall, and not blow up the division between Pastour and People, by crying out so causlesly, Violence and Compulsion. Where any benefit or priviledge is offered, upon fair and honourable conditions, and, upon sleighting the condition, is denyed, will Mr. Humphrey look at such a condition as compulsion? Or, if any refusing the condition, shall catch at the Commodity by violence, may not his violence be repelled with violence; & in such case, is not the former charge­able with violence, rather then the latter? Yet, God be thanked, we have no such custome; but, we have reason to fear, that Mr. Humphrey his Book may put heady people upon waies of vio­lence, in order to the Sacrament, though he drive no such designe in the publication there­of.

Mr. Humphrey being urged with the Book of Common-Prayer, answers, As for the Rubricks allowing the Minister to suspend some notorious evill livers, I take it upon the account of ipso jure excommunicate, &c.

Ans. 1. The Minister is not only allowed, but commanded to suspend, in these words, The same course shall the Curate take with those, &c. [Page 143] not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table, &c. 2 ly. The object of the Suspension is not only adulterers, &c. but, malicious, envi­ous, and ignorant persons; yea, such as wrong their neighbours, in word or deed, and will not be perswaded to make them reparation; all which indeed are very great sins, though too rife in, and slighted by, many Professours and Church-members. And particularly for persons grosly ignorant, I appeal to the form of confirmation, which gives charge for their suspension in these words, There shall none be admitted unto the holy Communion, untill such time as he can say the Catechism: In order whereunto, both Mi­nisters and Governours of Families are com­manded, to be diligent in point of instruction, and then to return the names of persons so in­structed, to the Bishop, that he might examine and approve them. From all which, compared with Mr. Humphrey his present Explication and Interpretation, I conclude, That either ignorant and envious persons are ipso jure excommunicate; or, that persons may be suspended, though not ipso jure excommunicate.

He addes, Pag. 84. We may distinguish haply between sins that cannot stand with sincerity, or with profession, as Church-members. It may be the Rubrick teaches the last.

Ans. Passing his hesitancy in this distinction, for which, it may be, his heart checkt him; we are beholding to Mr. Humphrey for this an­swer. 1. He grants some sins, and particularly wilfull sins, cannot stand with sincerity. Thence I gather, That in Mr. Humphrey his own judg­ment, an hypocrite may evidently and certainly [Page 144] be discerned. If so, then I hope we may judge some mens hearts to be naught, without entring upon Gods Throne, or prying into Gods secrets; an heavy charge he laid formerly upon us.

2 ly. It's Mr. Humphrey his judgment, that though it be certainly known a person is a wicked man, in the state of nature, and in the gall of bitternesse (for such are all who have no sinceri­ty) yet, he must be admitted to the Sacrament, so he be a Church-member. Are they jure ex­communicate, who fall into some scandalous sin, (though, as to their state, reall or hopefull Saints) and shall not they be jure excommunicate, who are known to be in the state of nature? Shall the Lambe for a Wolvish act, be denyed the Chil­drens bread; and shall a known Wolfe, stript of his Sheeps cloathing, sit at the Childrens Ta­ble, upon this account only, because he is crept into the Fold? Jud. ver. 4.

Mr. Humphrey. But for Mr. Drake now, me thinks he should blush, to produce me this Autho­rity which himselfe despises.

Ans. 1. Suppose this charge were true, may not I urge him with that Authority, I conceive he ownes, because I own not the same Authority. Were I a Jew, and despised the new Testament; yet, I hope, it would not be irrationall for me to presse him, being a Christian, with the New Te­stament. 2 ly. His Charge is false; I despise not the Book of Common-Prayer, though I ap­prove not divers things in it and about it; and for which, I have both solid reason, the consent of the most pious in the Nation, and both Hou­ses of Parliament to back me. As to the point in hand: If the Exhortation in the Communion [Page 145] make it utterly unlawfull to be present, unlesse we receive; I must crave liberty to dissent from it in that particular, and must oppose to this pre­cept the practice of the Primitive Church. But, may there not be a candid interpretation of that Passage? The Exhortation is but against those, who sleight and neglect the Sacrament, and withall stand by as Gazers. Compare Acts 1. 11. who may come and will not. This certainly is a great sin. But will Mr. Humphrey thence conclude, that because some may not taste, there­fore they may not hear and see the goodnesse of the Lord in the Sacrament? Shall I not come as near the Lord as I can, because I cannot come so near him as I would?

Pag. 85.Mr. Humphrey, page 56. Mr. Drake ac­knowledges this practice of his were against the well being of a true visible Church, if the Lords Supper were a priviledge due to all members.

I think herein his cause is yielded (to all clear­ly, but what we have excepted.) Why, I pray? Because our outward or visible right is Church-membership. As for the subdistinction of this, to be more remote or immediate, found out by some, we cannot receive, without warrant from Scrip­ture.

Ans. 1. To proceed by his own Rule: What warrant of Scripture hath he for his own excep­tions, the vanity whereof I have formerly unca­sed. 2 ly. If warrant from Scripture will satisfie him, I shall give him one from the Old, another from the New-Testament: For the first, All Church-members had a remote right to the Pass­over, as is evident by that universall command, Exod. 12. 47. All the Congregation of Israel [Page 146] shall keep it. 2 ly. That all Church-members had not an immediate right, is as evident, because no Israelite was to eat thereof, when unclean; but to stay till the next Passover, Numb. 9. For the New-Testament, That all Church-members have a mediate right to the Lords Supper, we grant, and Mr. Humphrey disputes eagerly for it, making Church-membership the formall ground thereof. That all Church-members have not an immediate right, is evident; 1. In Infants and Ideots. 2 ly. From that famous place, 1 Cor. 10. 21. You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devills, &c. He speaks to Church-members; and that Cannot holds forth, not a naturall, but morall impossibility: for, whatso­ever is unlawfull, is morally impossible. Those Church-members then, who drank of the Devills Cup at the Idols Temple, might not drink of the Lords Cup at the Sacrament. They had then a mediate right as Church-members; but, not an immediate right, because defiled by the Idol-Feast. His cavills against this place have been formerly answered. I might here add for confirmation, the practice of the Primitive Church, and our own Church, in not admit­ting Church-members, till they had competent knowledge, and were free from scandall: But, I forbear repetitions.

Those three thousand he speaks of, Acts 2, had competent knowledge, and by professed re­pentance cleared themselves of scandall. Com­pare 2 Cor. 7. 11. To such Church-members we shall not deny the Sacrament: The Lord in­crease the number of them in our Churches.

Mr. Humphrey. So long as he is in Communi­on, [Page 147] how can he be debarred the Communion?

Ans. He is actually in Communion, though jure excommunicate; yet, here Mr. Humphrey will allow Suspension. Is it not clear then, by his own grant, that a person in Communion, may be debarred the Communion?

D. Dr. Pag. 86. Good Government lies in the Geome­tricall (not Arithmeticall) Administration of Censures.

Mr. Humphrey. Mr. Drake 's Suspension hangs by Geometry, between admonition and ex­communication.

Ans. Be it so: that which hangs by Geometry hangs fast enough, however persons unskild in Geometry, may fear it will fall. He doth well to make up in Wit, what is defective in Reason. Suspension wants not a Bottom in Scripture, though it hang in the Air of Mr. Humphrer's Brain. But, of this, formerly, and more, haply, hereafter.

Pag. 87. He triumphs, because we grant suspension is not in termes in Scripture.

Ans. No more is Excommunication, which yet, I hope, is an unquestionable: Ordinance. 2 ly. He deceives the Reader, in telling him, I place the whole businesse of excommunication in suspension from actuall Receiving, when its evident by my whole discourse, I place but part of the businesse of excommunication in it; it be­ing a lower degree; and but a negative excom­munication, as we manage it, like his excom­munication of Infants and Ideots.

After sundry pittifull shufflings (with some scoffs intermixed) to make the Parable of the Tares serve his turne, Pag. 88, & 89. Mr. Humphrey at last [Page 148] Matth. 13. 25. comming to issue, and being pinched with the Doctrine of Excommunication, which cuts the throat of his Interpretation of that Parable; is pleased to take notice of my Objection, in these words, If the Lord will have the Tares let alone untill the day of judgment, what will become of Excommunication? To this, all he answers, is, There is no doubt of Christs reconciling his own Ordinances, page 89. f.

Ans. Hath Mr. Humphrey no more pitty up­on tender Consciences, then to leave them thus in the suds? In opening the Parable, he tells us, the Tares cannot be taken up, without prejudice to the Wheat; that is, the Wicked cannot be separated from the Church, without prejudice to the Godly: Yea, so confident is he herein, as to assert, That visible unworthynesse is not so much, as the rule of Excommunication, in these words, I think Mr. Drake must shut his eyes up­on this Text, if he will yet persists, in making visible unworthinesse, the rule of Excommuni­cation, page 88. If visible unworthinesse be not the rule of excommunication, what is? Is visible or invisible worthinesse the rule? Or, is invisible unworthinesse the rule of excommunicating Church-members? What was the Incestuous Co­rinth excommunicated for, but for visible un­worthinesse? unlesse Mr. Humphrey will say, that the charge of Incest made good against him, was not his visible unworthinesse. Church-mem­bers are not excommunicated as Saints, but as Sinners; nor as sinners absolutely, but as visi­ble sinners; else, where is Mr. Humphrey his jure excommunicate? What is visible sin, but visible unworthinesse? And though all visible unwor­thinesse [Page 149] do not make me Evangelically unwor­thy; yet, visible unworthinesse in dominion, doth. This Dominion is either Tyrannicall, by some enormous act wasting the Conscience: or, Regall, when a person is in the state of sin; both which make him Tareish, and if visible, a visible Tare, to be pluckt up (though in order to cure, if possible) by the hands of Excommunication. By Tares then, are meant, persons visibly wicked in the Church, (be it habitually or actually) Matth. 13. vers. 27, 38. compare John 8 34. These Tares Mr. Humphrey will by no means have pluckt up. We Answer, Then farewell Ex­communication, which is a plucking up of the Tares. This Mr. Humphrey doth not answer, (leaving Christ to answer for himselfe, if he please) yet is resolved to hold the Conclusion. What heresie may not passe for current if Mr. Humphrey his Disinity be good? For instance, The Anthropomorphites teach, that God is a Body, and that, because eyes, ears, hands, &c. are attributed to him in Scripture. We reply, God is a Spirit, John 4. 24. and therefore cannot be a Body. How easily now, may they with Mr. Humphrey, hold the Conclusion still, and say, There is no doubt of Gods reconciling his own Truth. God will indeed reconcile his owne Truth and Ordinances, be we never so negligent to reconcile them; but we can expect but little thanks from God and Christ, if either through carelessenesse or prejudice, we do not our endea­vour to reconcile them. For the Satisfaction therefore of tender Consciences, whom Mr. Humphrey leaves in a confused maze of doubt: Know 1. Its true in some sense, that the Tares [Page 150] must not be plucked up, for the Scripture saies it, and the Scripture cannot be broken, John 10. 35. 2 ly. In some sense it is true, the Tares must be plucked up, because Excommunication (which is a plucking up of Tares) is a Scripture-Ordinance, 1 Cor. 5. 5, 7. The termes are see­mingly, but not really, contradictory: The Tares must not be plucked up; and, the Tares must be plucked up. As others of the like nature, God sees no sin in his Children; and, God sees sin in his Children. The Church is without spot; and, the Church is spotted, &c. all which are only see­mingly contradictory, because not understood under the same respect. For the difficulty about plucking up, or not plucking up, the Tares, we cannot have a better Reconciler than Christ himselfe, Matth. 13. 29. where the ground of the Prohibition, is the rule and bound of the Prohibition. From thence I gather, 1. That the Prohibition is not absolute, but with a caution, Lest you pluck up the Wheat also, how ever Mr. Humphrey, page 89. is pleased to judge of it, and in the close, to favour me with a jest. 2 ly. That men visibly wicked must be tolerated in the Church, rather then persons visibly godly should be prejudiced, by rash and preposterous rigour, against wicked Church-members; as it fell out by the Anabaptists: See Calvin and Pa­reus upon the place.

Others think, the Tares in Palestine were like the Wheat, whence there might be danger of eradicating the Wheat with them. But, its evi­dent, the Servants knew the Tares, and were of­fended with them (whether by servants you un­derstand Church-Officers, or other discerning [Page 151] Church-members) whence it seemes to follow, that either some may be known to be Tares, who cannot juridically be proved to be so; and such was the case of Judas: Or, though they can be proved to be such, yet, circumstances may so fall out, that just severity against them, by way of excommunication, may be noxious to the godly: In which cases, such Tares must be patiently tolerated, till either God open a dore for the Church to cast them out, or deal with them himselfe by particular or generall judg­ment. 3 ly. That Church-members may be known to be wicked, and in the state of nature, without danger of entring upon Gods Throne; This Mr. Humphrey grants here, and the Parable holds it forth, Matth. 13. 26, 27. however he dispute against it else-where. 4 ly. That where wicked men may be cut off without prejudice to the godly, there the plucking up of those Tares is not prohibited by the Parable; this will be done at the day of Judgment, hath been done, and may be done by excommunication. 5 ly. That a Ministers knowledge of a man to be a Tare, is not enough to cast him out of the Church, since its of great concernment, that the Wheat (as well as the Servants) should know the Tares: that the Congregation (as well as Church-Officers) should be satisfied, a person is a Tare, before he be pluckt up, which order be­ing observed, there can be no such danger of plucking up the Wheat. A Minister may suspend a positive Act, in not giving the Sacrament to such a person for the present; but, he cannot put forth a positive Act, to cut off such a person from the Church, without consent or satisfaction [Page 152] of the Church, at least, representative. And, if in the former case, the Minister do wrong through mistake or passion, &c. himselfe is accountable to the Church for that particular injury; and the person so wronged, ought to be righted by the Church. If Mr. Humphrey can reconcile the Pa­rable better with excommunication, we shall have cause to thank him: If not, I shall intreat him not to scoff at what he cannot mend: But, however he shall please to deal with me, let him remember, it's a Ministers duty to satisfie, not to encrease, the scruples of tender Consciences; especially when his profest designe is, the satis­faction of tender Consciences. When two Scrip­tures seem to clash, is it fit for a Minister to leave them together by the ears, and say, Matth. 27. 43. Let Christ part them if he will? Such carriage is fitter for a Jewish Priest, then for a Gospell Minister. Is Mr. Humphrey so carefull to reconcile Christs Members, and so carelesse to reconcile Christs Truths?

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 89. Publick confession will hard­ly down, and Auricular we hardly approve of, &c.

Ans. 1. No more will good Physick down with too many; yet, a wise and faithfull Physi­cian will take some course to get it down, where he apprehends its usefull for his Patient. 2 ly. Pub­lick Confession of sin indeed is harsh, because by it, one takes publick shame to himselfe, which the proud heart of man is loath to do; yet, in some cases it must be submitted to: But publick Profession of faith is honourable, and which its a shame for a Christian to be ashamed of. Brides are not ashamed to professe their love of, and [Page 153] confidence in, their Bridegrooms before the Mi­nister, and the Church, if need be; and shall Christs Spouse be ashamed to declare her faith in, and love of, her most precious Lord and Hus­band, before the friends of the Bridegroom?

3 ly. This Profession is not so publick, as to offer violence to the modesty of any, it being made but before two or three, who are also rea­dy to prompt the Bride, when her modesty seals up her lips with silence.

4 ly. To avoid the imputation of auricular Confession, &c. this Profession is not made to the Minister alone, but before persons also of known integrity, whom we hope, without of­fence, we may call Elders; and if they be not such, its the error and fault of those who choose them, and may be remedied by themselves.

Mr. Humphrey. Christ sometimes conversed with Pharisees, I hope to do good upon them, &c.

Ans. 1. So I hope Christs Ministers will make conscience to converse with Pharisees and Pub­licans to do them good, and bring them to re­pentance. 2 ly. Christ admitted neither of them to the Sacrament, till he had done them good, and brought them to repentance. And if this make not for us, and against Mr. Humphrey, I pray what doth?

This is the more remarkable, because both Pharisees and Publicans were members of the Church (divers Publicans being Jewes, as is evident by Matthew, Zacheus, &c. and is made out by Jerome against the mistake of Tertullian: See Goodwin's Moses and Aaron, Lib. 1. Cap. 2.) Christ conversed with both to do them good, [Page 154] but admitted neither to the Lords Supper, till af­ter profession of repentance, as is evident in the case of the Apostle Matthew, who was a Publi­can, Matth. 9. 9. and 10. 3. compare Matth. 26. vers. 20. 27.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 90. Mr. Drake need not so un­justly and so direfully, first accuse me, and then condemn me, for what he forges, as if I deserved to be more then suspended, which in his sense makes me tremble it should enter into his heart. Why should I be thus devoted to the pit of Hell, even irrecoverably? These Censures are things too sharp to be put into the hands of such children of thine. It may be the Lord will look upon mine affliction, and requite me good for his cursing this day, &c.

Ans. Such passionate digressions (at which Mr. Humphrey is excellent) contribute far more to take upon the affections, then his arguments do to convince the judgment. Had he struck at so inconsiderable a person as my selfe alone with­out such sad reflections upon the whole Presby­terian party (whom he looks at as Children, not fit to have the knife of Church-Censures com­mitted to them) well might it have been born, and buried in silence, though I believe, that Mi­nisters are bound more then others, in the use of all honourable means, to wipe off from themselves the blot of false aspersions. Nor can I blame Mr. Humphrey for vindicating himselfe, if I have been so injurious in my charge, as he pretends. But to the point. Such stresse doth Mr. Hum­phrey lay upon Judas his receiving (a thing, 1 so controverted, and improbable enough. 2 ly. So insufficient a ground for universall ad­mission, [Page 155] though granted, his own party being judges) as he concludes in expresse termes, What need more be urged, but that men, when they are willing not to see, will let any hand (put over their eies) be enough to blind them. By this rash censure of his, I noted, that 1. He condem­ned the Churches at home and abroad, as sin­ning wilfully against light, in owning and pra­ctising Suspension, contrary to the cleer and un­doubted example (as he apprehends) of Judas his admission. 2 ly. That his Pen savoured rankly of pride, in this unchristian censure. 3 ly. That himselfe, I fear, deserved more then suspension, for this his scandalous and wicked censure. In all this, 1. Where is there any forgery, unlesse the quotation of his own words be a forgery? 2 ly. Where is the least word of cursing him, or of devoting him irrecoverably to the pit of Hell? I, but in my sense it is so. Ans. Let the Reader judge, if herein Mr. Humphrey deal charitably with me: I charge him only with his own ex­presse termes; he charges me with that, of which I wrote not one tittle, meerly upon jealousie of my sense and meaning. 2 ly. He charges me for­merly as entring into Gods secrets; yet, here takes upon him to enter into Gods secrets, and to judge of my heart and meaning, where my words bear no such thing. 3 ly. He charges me with cursing him, and devoting him to the pit of Hell irrecoverably, who had not one tittle in my book, nor owne thought in my heart to that purpose. I, but all this is implyed, when I say, he deserves more then suspension. Ans. 1. I say more against my selfe, and the Presbyterians in generall, upon supposition, that we were guilty [Page 156] of Mr. Humphrey his charge; namely, that then we were in the high way to the sin against the Holy Ghost, and deserved not only to be suspen­ded, but also to be excommunicated. 2 ly. I said not peremptorily, that he deserved more then suspension but, that I feared he deserved more then suspension. 3 ly. Had I said, he deserved for this his uncharitablenesse everlasting damnation, (supposing he were so uncharitable, of which, let the Reader judge by his own words) I said no more then the truth, unlesse it be false Do­ctrine that an uncharitable act deserves damna­tion 4 ly. If the saying, that such or such a sin deserves damnation, be the cursing of a person guilty thereof, or the devoting of him to dam­nation, then I cannot tell a man, his sin deserves hell and curse, but in that very act I curse him, and devote him to the pit of hell; and so the greatest act of charity, shall be made the foulest act of uncharitablenesse. 5 ly. As my words bear no such cursed sense, as Mr. Humphrey pins up­on them, so I here professe, that in those words, I was far from cursing, or devoting him to the pit of hell; but, did apprehend indeed that such an uncharitable censure of the Churches of Christ at home and abroad, deserved a higher degree of excommunication then suspension is. And if Mr. Humphrey or any else, can make it out, that therein I have been uncharitable, I shall willingly cry both God and him mercy, and be ready to make as publick reparation, as I have given thereby publick offence. I never, to my remembrance, heard before now, that to say, a man deserves excommunication, is a cursing of him, and a devoting of him, irrecoverably, to [Page 157] the pit of Hell, nor do I believe, that the Apostle, by excommunicating the incestuous Corinth, did either curse him, or devote him to the pit of Hell, but designed rather to bring him to Hea­ven, 1 Cor. 5. 5. Whereas therefore, page 90. he makes his appeal to Heaven in these words, Judge me, O Lord, try me, if herein there be any iniquityin me: I shall not wish him so ill as he wisnes himselfe, but do hartily beg of God, that he would please to open his eyes, and pardon this, and all other his iniquities; and if this be uncharitable, I shall thank Mr. Hum­phrey, or any else, for such uncharitablenesse to­wards me.

Sect. VIII.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 91. My third Reason was drawn from Church-fellowship, which ought to be in charity, humility, without judging, every one esteeming others better then themselves. Now, if men will go to set up a discriminating. Ordi­nance, they cannot keep themselves from en­trenching on these duties, and occasioning divi­sions. Our sad experience hath made this Argu­ment too weighty for Mr. Drake 's particulars, which are not worth the naming, unlesse he could first prove its the Ministers duty, to discern be­tween the worthy and unworthy, as the rule of Admission. In the same page also, Mr. Humphrey denyeth, that the rule of visibility hath any foun­dation in Scripture, &c.

Ans. 1. That Church-fellowship ought to be in charity and humility, we willingly grant, and earnestly desire it.

2 ly. We say, that this may stand with Su­spension, as well as with reproof, admonition, [Page 158] or excommunication; all which may be corrup­ted with pride, or graced with humility and cha­rity, according to the temper and affection of those, who do either administer or receive them: and that each of them do ordinarily occasion di­visions and heart-burnings, where they meet with persons disaffected through ignorance, prejudice, or malice; for which, not the Ordi­nances, but our naughty hearts, deserve blame.

3 ly. In charging us to set up a discriminating Ordinance, he seemes to deny, that Church-Ordinances are discriminating: If that be his meaning, I apprehend it is erroneous, since eve­ry Ordinance is discrinsinating in some sense, as in an other sense every Ordinance is common. Every Ordinance, so far as it is publick, is com­mon, as to presence; yet, all parts of every Ordi­nance, are not common immediately and abso­lutely to all. The Word is common to all, yet, not every part of the Word; the Sacraments are common to all, yet, not every part of the Sacra­ment, namely, not the participating part.

4 ly. Because here Mr. Humphrey chargeth us, with setting up an Ordinance of our own inven­tion, by pleading for the divine right of Suspen­sion, I shall therefore briefly by one or two Argu­ments, endeavour to wipe off this aspersion; and prove, that Suspension is not an human inventi­on, but a divine institution: I shall only premise, that Suspension is either Juridicall or Pastorall, Affirmative or Negative; the latter branch of the distinction being granted, the former will ne­cessarily follow, since what a Minister may, or ought, either to do, or omit, as he is a Minister; [Page 159] much more may he, or ought he, to do, or o­mit that particular, upon the vote and sentence of the Eldership. And here, upon second thoughts, I must a little correct what I delivered in my Bar to Free Admission, page 47. namely, That the Minister hath not power of himselfe to admit or keep back, without judiciall Processe, wherein himselfe cannot be both Judge and Wit­nesse. I delivered it then with some hesitancy, and do now apprehend it to be a mistake, is un­questionably both a Ruling and Teaching El­der, hath at least a Pastorall power of trying and judging; and if the Evidence be clear of it selfe, or by sufficient witnesse, he may suspend his own Act, of giving such a person the Sacrament, till either the party be better qualified, or the matter do come to a juridicall processe. These things premised, the Argument stands thus. The first Argument. Non-ad­mission of some intelligent Church-members is commanded by Christ, Ergo, Suspension is commanded by Christ. The Consequence is clear, becausethe formality of Suspension lies in non-admission to the Sacrament; and, let us have but this, we shall not much contend about the manner of managing it, whether by a juridicall act or otherwise. This is further proved by the very terme: What is Suspension in the very no­tion of it, but a demur or forbearance at present, to give unto a person the thing he desires? The Minor is proved thus, Non-admission of a Bro­ther that is a Fornicator, &c, is commanded, Ergo, Non-admission of some intelligent Church-member is commanded. The Conse­sequence is clear, 1. Because Brother is opposed [Page 160] to them without, 1 Cor. 5. verse 10, 11. and therefore this Brother is a Church-member. 2 ly. That he is an intelligent Church-member may be clearly evinced (should Mr. Humphrey deny it) since divers lusts there mentioned are not practicable by any, but grown persons. The Assumption I prove thus: Not to eat the Sacra­ment with a Brother that is a Fornicator, &c. is commanded. Ergo, Non-admission of a Bro­ther that is a Fornicator, &c. is commanded. The Consequence is valid, because of the neces­sary connexion between the Non admission of such a person to eat with me, and my not eating with him. If I must not eat with a person, then (as far as in me lies) I must not admit that per­son to eat with me; for his eating with me, and my eating with him being Correlates, if you grant one, you must of necessity grant both, since he cannot eat with me, but I must eat with him; nor can I eat with him, but he must eat with me. The Antecedent I prove from 1 Cor. 5. 11. If any man that is called a Brother be Fornicator, &c. with such a one, no, not to eat. All that can rationally be objected against this proof, is, That by eating here, is not meant Sacramentall eating, the indefinite Proposition being not to be under­stood universally.

Ans. 1. To this I oppose the received Rule of interpreting Scripture in its utmost latitude, unlesse a solid ground of restriction and limitati­on can be given: But, no solid ground can be given, why Eating here, should be restrained to civill eating.

And 1. Not, that Precept of our Saviour, Matth. 26. 27. Drink ye all of it: Since 1. If [Page 161] Judas were not then present (which is probable enough) none but reall as well as visible Saints, were commanded to receive.

2 ly. Supposing Judas were present and re­ceived, yet, he was a visible Saint; and so farre were the Disciples then from being scandalized at him, that they scarce understood Christs unca­sing Judas, but suspected themselves rather than him: Yea, if Luke observe the exact order of time, Judas (it seemes) was not uncased, till af­ter the Sacrament, Luke 22. vers. 19, 20, 21. since these words, Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, &c. do not precede, but follow the Sacrament; so that at least Judas had received the Bread, before he was discovered nor can it be evinced from Luke's narrative but that he had partaken of the Cup also, it being left in medio, whether Christ did discover him immediately after the command to drink; or, whether he deferred the discovery till Judas and all the rest had drunk of the Sacrament all Cup This I note, not as my own judgment, but upon the suppo­sall of Luke's exact timing of that Circumstance: But, whether it were before or after, the ob­jection lies fair, that Christ knew Judas to be naught, yet commanded him to receive; so far was Christ from improving his Pastorall power to suspend Judas: Ergo Ministers should not only admit those whom they know to be stark naught but also command them to receive. The Reader must remember, that here I give Mr. Humphrey his own advantage, as yielding him (by way of supposall) the Question he begs, namely, that Judas did receive the Sacra­ment.

[Page 162]This premised, I answer, The Argument will not hold from Christs practice to ours, since 1. The discovery of Judas was extraordinary, by immediate revelation: And, should God immediately discover an unworthy Receiver to a Minister, I question, whether without an im­mediate command, this Minister might suspend such a person. Achan was not censured immedi­ately upon divine revelation, but upon evidence of the fact, and his own confession. We see that for all our Saviours discovery, Judas seemed to deny the charge, in that question, Master, is it I? and the Apostles were very inclinable to a good opinion of him. Suppose God should im­mediately discover an Hypocrite to a Minister, and upon that discovery, this Minister should suspend that Hypocrite; might not the Elders or Congregation desire evidence against the party so suspended; and would the Ministers plea of divine revelation, satisfie the Congregation, in case the party so suspended, denyed the charge? Yea, if this Doctrine were good, might not a Minister upon pretence of divine revelation, take liberty to charge any with Hypocrisie, and to suspend them at pleasure? I wish, upon this oc­casion, that those who will be tryed by the Mi­nister alone, and not before the Eldership, would seriously consider, what a snare they put both themselves and their Minister upon.

2 ly. As the discovery was extraordinary, so our Saviour acted extraordinarily in admission and other circumstances, that concerned this first Sacrament: As 1. He admitted only men, no wo­men. 2 ly. Only Ministers, not the People, no, not the Jewes that were in, or of, the same Fa­mily, [Page 163] where the Lords Supper was first celebra­ted, as Mr. Collins well observes. 3 ly. In admit­ting only extraordinary Ministers, namely, A­postles. 4 ly. In admitting them suddainly, with­out previous examination and preparation. 5 ly. In celebrating the Sacrament at night, after Supper, and in private &c. And why may not Christ as well act extraordinarily, in admitting a known Hypocrite? If Mr. Humphrey will tie us to imitate Christ in one of these, why not in all of them? I might add, that if Christs practice in admitting Judas be our rule, then it were a sin to excommunicate any, since Christ did not ex­communicate Judas, though he knew Judas deserved excommunication as well as suspen­sion.

Nor 2 ly. Is that a ground to exclude Sacra­mentall eating, out of the fore-mentioned Text, 1 Cor. 5. 11, Because all are invited to repen­tance, for then even Pagans should not be debar­red the Sacrament; yea, if none should be de­nyed Sacramentall eating, because all are invi­ted to repentance, why should any be denyed civill eating with Church-members, since all are invited to repentance? May not there be in the one as well as in the other, 1. Testification of love. 2 ly. Familiarity. 3 ly. A desire to win the offending-Brother. And 4 ly. Is not the one offen­sive as well as the other?

Nor 3 ly. Is there any contradiction between 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 1 Cor. 11. but rather a sweet harmony; since in the first place be forbids unworthy ones to eat; in the second place he shewes their great sin and danger, if they presume to eat: Here is no opposition, but a regular sub­ordination.

[Page 164]Nor 4 ly. is Sacramentall eating excluded out of 1 Cor. 5. 11. because it is not particularly mentioned in the Text; for then, by the same reason, both civill eating, and eating at their Love-Feasts, should be excluded also, since neither of them are mentioned particularly in the Text, but only eating in generall, which is common to Sacramentall, as well as to civill, eating. It's sufficient, that Sacramentall eating is intended by the Apostle, under the notion of a Feast, 1 Cor. 5. 8. there being no Gospell Ordi­nance so properly and Literally a Feast, as is the Lords Supper, which supplies the Feast of the Pass­over, and comes in its room; and in it, Christ, our Passover, is representatively and declarativly offered for us, and actually offered to us, more then in other Ordinances, Gal. 3. 1. Before whose eyes (not only, to their ears) Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you.

If yet it be objected, There's good reason civill eating should be included in the Text, since the Apostle speaks evidently of such an eating, where­in I may converse with an Infidell, but not with a scandalous Brother. Ans. Therefore we grant the place may be understood of civill eating, but deny it must be understood solely of civill ea­ting, there being good reason also, why it should be understood of Sacramentall eating, since the Sacrament is Literally (as well as Spi­ritually) a Meal, a Feast, in which I testifie love to every Communicant, as well as I do to any, by admitting him to my own Table; and the scandall of admitting a scandalous Brother to the Sacrament (where it lies in my power to keep him away) will be great, as well as it will be, if [Page 165] I admit him to my private Table. A scandalous Brother then, was debarred some priviledges of an Heathen, some priviledges of a Church-m [...]m­ber, and might not be admitted with Christians, either to a Civill Feast, or to the Love Fe [...]sts, or to the Sacramentall Feast: Yea, the Apostle tells us particularly, Such were spots in their Feasts of Charity, Jude, verse 12. And those Love-Feasts were Appendixes of the Lords Sup­per, 1 Cor. 11. verse 21, 22.

Object. They were all partakers of one bread; yet, in the Church of Corinth, there were many scandalous sinners. 1 Cor. 10. 17.

Ans. The word All, can be of no larger ex­tent then visible Saints (such as were those to whom the Apostle wrote) and surely, visible workers of iniquity cannot be visible Saints. This not mine, but Mr. Gillespy's answer, who asserts also, that it cannot be proved, that any came actually drunk to the Sacrament in which, both the terme [...], and the phrase [...], favour him, 1 Cor. 11. 21. This Interpretation is more evident, by the manner of expression, 1 Cor. 10. 17. (compare a like place, Rom 8. 35, 39.) We all are partakers &c. the Apostle putting himselfe in the nūber, though he were not a Member of the Church of Corinth, or of any other particular Church; but, as a reall and visible Saint, did par­take where ever he came: Yea, where Ministers, or other Christians, travelled from one Country to another, they were not easily admitted to Church-communion, without some Testimoniall of their reall or visible Saint-ship, by either word of mouth, or by writing, Acts 9. 26, 27. and 15. verse 25, 26, 27. and 18. 27. and 2 Cor. 3. 1. [Page 166] and 3 John, verse 5-8. &c. What a poor re­commendation had it been; I pray receive the incestuous Corinth, or such a one as denies the Resurrection, to full Church-communion, for he is a Church-member. The Congregationall Churches, yea, and other reformed Churches, will not admit Church-members of our Con­gregations, barely upon the account of Church-membership (though they acknowledge divers of our Congregations to be true Churches) but put us upon the Test (unlesse they have other­wise sufficient testimony) of our visible Saint­ship. More to this purpose, together with sun­dry opposite answers to severall other objections, made against this Scripture, see in Mr. Gillespy and Mr. Collins his late Vindic. Suspensionis, &c. unto whom (for brevities sake) I refer the Reader.

2 Argum.My second Argument for Suspension (which is also Mr. Collins his Argument) is this: It's un­lawfull to admit some intelligent Church-mem­bers to the Lords Supper: Ergo, They ought to be suspended. The Consequence is clear, since to admit, and not to admit, are termes contradi­ctory; and therefore, if the one be unlawfull, the other must needs be a duty: Now Suspension in its formall Nature, is a non-admission; and therefore if it be unlawfull to admit, it is a duty to suspend. The Minor I prove thus: It's unlaw­full to admit those who cannot eat of the Lords Supper: some intelligent Church-members can­not eat of the Lords Supper: Ergo. By persons that cannot receive, I understand those who are morally uncapable, and who (if they be of age) fin by their very receiving, as being forbidden [Page 167] to partake of the Lords Supper, because at pre­sent they are visibly unworthy by grosse igno­rance or scandall; as well as Heathen are forbid­den to receive, upon the account of being no Church-members. Both have a naturall, but neither of them have a morall power to re­ceive: Nor is an Heathen in expresse termes for­bid to receive the Lords Supper, but only by consequence, as are unworthy Church-members. This premised, the Major is evident, upon the very explication of the termes: for, if it be un­lawfull to admit those, who sin by their very re­ceiving, then it is unlawfull to admit those, who cannot eat of the Lords Supper in a morall sense, since that, and that only, is morally impossible which is sinfull. Compare Gen. 39. 9. Deut. 21. 16. Josh. 9. 19. and 2 Cor. 13. 8. they had all naturall, but no morall power, to do the things there mentioned; yet they say absolutely, They cannot do such and such things. Those places, Deut. 16. 16. and Josh. 9. 21. are ren­dred, He may not, and, We may not, &c. but in the Originall it is [...], he cannot, and [...], we cannot &c. or, shall not be able. This is the more remarkable, because the same phrase is used about the Passover, Numb. 9. 6. Certain men were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the Passover on that day. Moses, in the Old Testament saies, You can­not eat the Passover, and touch the dead body of a man. Paul, in the New Testament, saies, You cannot partake of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devills. In both, the Cannot is morall, not naturall. An unclean man might not eat of the Passover; one in communion with [Page 168] Devills, might not receive the Lords Supper. Now that all intelligent Church members have not a morall power to receive, is evident by the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. 21. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of De­vills; ye cannot be partaker, of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devills. Undoubtedly they had a naturall power to eat the Sacramen­tall bread, &c. but they had not a morall power because, being under the guilt of commu­nion with Idolls, it was unlawfull for them at that time to eat. The Steward sins against his Lord, in giving bread to those of the Family, or otherwise, who ought not to eat it. Doth Christ, the Master of the Family, say I will not have such a one to eat of my Supper; and dare any Minister say to that person, Take and eat? If the Lord say, its morally impossible for such a one to eat, he saies, its unlawfull for him to eat. And what a man must not do, that no man must tempt him to do, nor permit him to do, when he can lawfully hinder it: But, Church-Officers may very lawfully and easily hinder those from partaking, who may not partake; and such are all who have fellowship with De­vills. Now fellowship with Devills is either ex­plicite, as in Witches, &c. or implicite, when men drive the Devills trade, and do the works of Sathan willingly, John 8. 44. and 1 John 3. 8. From which number, I know not how persons grosly and wilfully ignorant and scandalous, (especially after due admonition) can be exemp­ted: Sure I am, they communicate more with Devills, then did the Corinthians, who are of the Idolls Feasts, in the Idoll Temples, with­out [Page 169] any intention to honour the Idoll; as judg­ing, that under the Gospell there was no un­cleannesse, either of meats or of places: Yet, even these are forbid by the Apostle to receive the Lords Supper, when they feasted at the Idolls Temples. The Argument stands thus: He that hath communion with Devills, cannot (that is, ought not to) partake of the Lords Table. All grosly ignorant and scandalous persons have communion with Devills: Ergo, No such ought to receive: And, if they ought not to partake, surely the Minister ought not to admit them, and therefore he must needs suspend them.

This I might further illustrate and confirm, by comparing 1 Cor. 5. 12. With such an one, no, not to eat, 1 Cor. 10. 21. You cannot partake of the Lords Table. And 1 Cor. 11. 20. This is not to eat the Lords Supper; or (as its rendred in the Margent) Ye cannot eat, &c. The Verb substantive [...] being put for [...]. If I may not partake with other of Gods People, nor they with me, surely I must be suspended; for what is Suspension really, but non-Admission?

By what hath been delivered, I hope it will appear, that the Sacrament is a discriminating Ordinance, as to the point of receiving; and that Suspension is not an human invention, but a di­vine institution, which (as other Ordinances) may be dispenced with love and humility, if the dispencers thereof be wise, holy, and humble persons, that make conscience to judge them­selves more then others; and when ever, by vir­tue of their Office, they are called, to try and judge others.

Sundry other arguments for the divine right [Page 170] of Suspension or Abstention, See in Mr. Collins his Vindic. &c. The ground, why I pitched upon the two forementioned Arguments, was, because I apprehend they come neerer the point, not on­ly in their scope, but also in the very letter. Now, lest the Reader should think we go alone, or have only some few inconsiderable persons to abet us in this cause, I shall take a little pains to evidence the contrary. And first (besides the de­clared Judgment of the Church, in ancient Councills, and modern Synods, of which be­fore) let us consider the testimonies of the Fa­thers, divers of which are cited by Gerhard, in this matter of Suspension from the Sacrament.

To begin with Justin Martyr, in his Apolo­gy for the Christians, Hoc alimentum apud nos appellatur Eucharistia, quod nulli alii participa­relicitum est quam veram esse doctrinam nostram credenti, & lavacro propter remissionem peccato­rum & regenerationem abluto, &, ita ut Christus tradidit, viventi.

Basil. Lib. 2. de Bapt. Cap. 3. Probat, quàm periculosum sit, si quis non repurgatus ab omni inquinamento Corporis & Spiritûs, edat Corpus Domini, ejusque sanguinem bibat.

Chrysost. Homil. 3. ad Ephes. Cum tali puri­tate accede semper; sine hac ne praesumas unquam: Regem utique non audeas osculari, siquidem os tuum olet graviter; et regem Caelorum impuden­ter oscularis, anima tua vitiis olente, &c?

Augustin. de Eccle. dogmat. Cap. 53. Haben­tem adhuc voluntatem peccandi, gravari magis dico Eucharistiae perceptione quam purificari. Yea, he saies further, Persons unreformed, re­ceive unto judgment; that they are rather corrup­ted [Page 171] then healed, rather kil'd then quickned, by receiving the Sacrament. Serm. Dom. 1. Ad­vent. Tom. 10. Sure then, he thought not, re­ceiving did convert.

Hesychius. Lib. 6. in Cap. 22. Levit. Polluti non sunt admittendi, nec mundati prohibendi. This he explains afterwards to be morall pol­lution, which is a bar to the Sacrament till re­pented of.

Chrysostom. Homil. 83. in Matth. professeth, He had rather lose his life, then admit an un­worthy person to the Sacrament.

Cyprian, Serm. 5. de Lapsis. from 1 Cor. 10. 21. and 1 Cor. 11. 27. declaims vehemently against those, who come from Idol-Feasts, or, un­der the power of morall pollution, to the Lords Table.

Author Sermonis de Coenâ, thought to be Cy­prian, hath these words: Inter Dominicae Coenae convivas, animalis homo non admittitur; Quic­quid caro et sanguis dictat, ab hoc coetu excludi­tur, &c. I pray, what is the animal-man, but the naturall man? 1 Cor. 2. 14. I hope then its not my singular opinion, That persons uncon­verted ought not to receive. What was the opi­nion of Calvin, Beza, and their Followers, is well known; therefore I shall not trouble my Reader about it.

Let us descend to the Lutheran Churches, of whose consent with us, in this particular, Ger­hard (a person of great learning and industry) gives a satisfactory account, in his 5th. Tome. treating of the Lords Supper, cap. 21. his words are these, Neque verò omnes Christiani promiscùe admittendi ad Sacram coenam, sed [Page 172] juxta regulam Paulinam, 1 Cor. 11. Next he shewes who ought not to be admitted, and 1. Such as either cannot, or will not, examine themselves; particularly, Hereticks, notorious sin­ners: And here he argues from the analogie of the Passover, and from 1 Cor. 5. 11. Persons excommunicated, possessed, that are deprived the use of reason, that exeroise infamous Arts or Trades; shewes in what cases deafe and dumbe persons may be admitted; upon what account Infants were admitted to the Sacrament, for 600 years together in the Primitive times, and pro­duceth Chrysostom, professing, That he had ra­ther lose his life, then admit unworthy persons to the Lords Supper. He notes further against Bellarmine, that the Hussites admit to the Sa­crament Infants of six weeks old: And for my part, I believe, that upon the account of unwor­thinesse, there is lesse exception against an Infant, then against a grosly ignorant and scandalous person.

Cap. 22. Gerhard hath these words, Sedulo providere debet Ecclesiae Minister, ne quis indig­nè, hoc est, sine verâ poenit entia & fide hoc Sacra­mento utatur. Whence its evident, he judges them unworthy who want true faith and repentance: See Sect. 232 of the same Chap­ter. Who do not try themselves, that is, who do not acknowledge their sins, do not seriously grieve for them, do not judge themselves, have not a serious purpose of amendment and walking re­gularly; that are not reconciled to their neigh­bours. In the same Chapter he grants, that 1 Cor. 10. 20. is valid, to prove, that they who have fellowship with Devills, ought not to par­take of the Lords Supper; and shewes out of [Page 173] Lyranus, and by comparing other Texts of Scrip­ture, that the Cannot there, must be understood of a morall impossibility.

Yea, lastly, the very Papists themselves are strongly against Mr. Humphrey his free Admissi­on: I shall produce only Aestius and Biell.

Aestius upon 1 Cor. 11. 27. shewes first who re­ceives unworthily, to wit, not only he who comes irreverently, as Mr. Humphrey would have it; but also he, Qui affectum gerit aut reatum pec­cati mortalis. And though their distinction of sins into Mortall and Veniall be corrupt; yet, seeing they conclude, he is in mortall sin, who 1. Affects sin. 2 ly. Is not duly humbled and con­trite. 3 ly.Is unpardoned. See Biel, Lib. 4. Di­stinct. 9. Quaest. 2. Its evident, they must needs conclude, that none in the state of nature can receive worthily: Yea, Aestius, in the fore­quoted place, notes, that he who comes to re­ceive with a spirit of enmity against God, yet unreconciled, is guilty of high Treason against our Lord Jesus Christ, and deserves to be puni­nished as Judas, who betrayed Christ, and those who spit upon him, bound, and crucified him. Further, upon 1 Cor. 11. 28. he shewes, 1. That every one is bound first to examine himselfe, whether he be a fit guest; and if he finde he be not, he must labour to be such a one, by purging his Conscience from sin which makes him un­worthy of the Lords Table. The Councill of Trent, Sess. 3. Cap. 7. besides Contrition, re­quires Sacramentall Confession (where it can be had) of all sorts, before they partake of the Lords Supper, which they ground partly up­on that precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 28. [Page 174] and partly upon an Ecclesiasticall Custome. It seems they were not for Mr. Humphrey his free Admission, but judged, that before Receiving, satisfaction should be given to the Church; though in determining what that satisfaction must be, they declined to Superstition and Ty­ranny.

In the antient Lyturgy, the Minister, before the Sacrament, cryed out, Sancta Sanctis. See other testimonies of the Fathers, cited there by Aestius, and severall arguments he uses, to prove, that no naturall man ought to receive the Sa­crament. Upon 1 Cor. 5. 11. the same Aestius hath these words, His verbis excommunicationis poena significatur; minor tamen ea quâ superi­us plecti voluit incestum illum: Where he also cites Augustine, as referring the place to a lesser degree of excommunication, which may fall up­on him who is a Brother, and so a Church­member.

And upon 2 Thess. 3. 6. he expresly saith, Haec excommunicatio, non à consortio fi­delium, sed tantùm à Sacramentis Ecclesiae re­movet hominem. And, upon verse 15. of this Chapter, Excommunicatio hujus loci non sepa­rabat hominem ab Ecclesiâ, ut, membrum ejus, et proinde fidelium frater, esse de sineret, &c. By which its evident, they held, that positive Sus­pension was 1. A degree of Excommunication. 2 ly. That it did not unchurch a man. 3 ly. That it was a bar to the Sacrament. Our Suspension (which yet Mr. Humphrey cries out of) is but negative, and so not a Church Censure, but an intreaty to forbear, till fitted by competent knowledge, &c. to receive.

[Page 175] Biell upon the Sentences, Lib. 4. Dislinct. 9. Quaest. 1. Effectus Eucharistiae non est prima gratia quâ justificatur impius, sed illam praesup­ponit. Effectus enim manducationis Eucharistiae est gratiae augmentum, quâ anima Deo gratae nutritur et crescit in gratia, ut ad perfectionem perveniat. The Papists then acknowledge, the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance.

In the second Question he shewes, that di­verse, by comming to receive, sin mortally; and withall, that in some cases, if a man be scrupu­lous, and fear he is under the guilt of mortall sin, he must lay aside such a scrupulous Consci­ence before he receive, but must not receive a­gainst Conscience. He shewes also, out of other Schoolmen, in what cases a Minister sins, if he admit such to receive; and instances (as the Lu­therans) in divers sorts of Church-members that are not to be admitted; and concludes, that, Nulli danda est Eucharistia qui non potest ha­bere devotionem, nec fidem actualem. And for the instance of Judas (Mr. Humphrey his great foundation for free Admission) both Lutherans and Papists, though of his minde, that Judas did receive; yet, look at it, as no ground at all, for the free admission of all intelligent Church­members. I hope Mr. Humphrey will be more charitable, then to say, that Councills, Fa­thers, the Reformed Churches, Lutherans; yea, divers Papists, put their hands over their eyes, and sinned against Light, because they were not of his minde, that Judas his admission (suppose he were admitted to receive) is a solid ground for his free Admission.

For fuller satisfaction in this particular, let [Page 176] the Reader consult Mr. Collins his Responsoria Bipartita, Cap. 13. where he makes it out by authentick Testimonies, that Suspension, as di­stinct from absolute Excommunication, hath been the constant judgment and practice, of the Servants and Churches of Christ, in all Ages.

Cap. 14. Mr. Collins takes pains, to good pur­pose, to clear from the writings of the Antients, the severall degrees of persons not excommuni­cated, yet, suspended from the Lords Sup­per.

And for those of the Congregationall way, that they are no enemies to Suspension, as di­stinct from the greater Excommunication; Read what Mr. Collins notes in his 13 Chapter, pag. 153. of his Responsoria or Vindiciae, &c. in these words, For our dissenting Brethren, it is their practice, when once they have admonished an of­fendor; to suspend him from the Sacrament till he repent, or, be wholly cast out of the Church. At this time, in this City, is one who hath been suspended these twelve Months, if he be not lately restored nor excommunicated.

Page 91. and 92. Mr. Humphrey allowes publick Church-tryall, upon conviction; and private tryall, upon charitable suspition, as, Job 1. 5. This ingenious acknowledgment, I shall (with Mr. Humphrey his leave) improve for his conviction.

And 1. If the instance of Job be sufficient to warrant private judgment, why may not the instance of the suspected woman, Numb. 5. warrant publick Church-tryall upon suspi­tion?

[Page 177] 2 ly. If Governours of Families may privately try Children and Servants under their charge, and improve their Authority, to keep from the Sacrament such Children or Servants, in case they be ignorant or scandalous; why may not Church-Officers (who are Stewards of Gods House) do the like to those who are under their charge, as Parents, &c. may, to those under their charge?

3 ly. How was Jeremith set as a Watch-Tower amongst Gods people, to try their waies? Jer. 6. 27. How was Timothy sent upon suspition, to know the faith of the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 3. 5? Why was Ephesus commended, for trying the false Apostles, Rev. 2. 2? Why must Deacons be tryed, and that upon charitable suspition, 1 Tim. 3. 10? If it be objected, The neglect of their tryall is more dangerous: Answ. True, therefore more care must be had in their tryall; but, Magis et minus non variant speciem: Nor doth their tryall exclude the tryall of private Christians; which, if neglected, may prove as dangerous to the Church, as the neglect of try­ing Publick Church-members, if the multitude of private Christians be compared with the paucity of Church Officers. Nor can the tryall of all, of its own nature, prejudice any, but is very conducible to the Edification of Rulers & People.

Page 92. Mr. Humphrey A judgment of proba­bility, as to fitnesse and unfitnesse, may be solid, as to advice and counsell; but, not as to be a rule of admission and suspension.

Ans. 1. Then by Mr. Humphrey his own grant, Church-Tryall of every Church-member is war­rantable, in order to advice and counsell. If so, [Page 178] why doth not Mr. Humphrey perswade the peo­ple to submit to such tryall, which, we are ve­rily perswaded, would soon put an end to the controversy. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant, that too many will not admit tryall upon any termes. 2 ly. What if upon tryall in order to ad­vice and counsell, the party tryed, be found grosly ignorant or scandalous? Is he not, ipso facto, upon such discovery, made by tryall, visi­bly unworthy above suspition? And must the Church, notwithstanding this apparent unwor­thynesse, admit such an one? Yet, even here, our ordinary course is, rather to advise and counsell, then to suspend. And if upon scandall proved, they testify their repentance, we dare not refuse them, or, if upon conviction of grosse ignorance, they desire to be further instructed, we doubt not, through Gods mercy, in a month or two, to instill so much knowledge, as may stand with truth of grace, and so make them vi­sibly worthy; leaving the secrets of the heart to Gods judgment alone, unlesse hypocrisie break out visibly afterwards. What he addes, page 92. and 93. either it hath been already answered, or makes not against us; since Suspension is no prejudice to the firmnesse of Excommunication, but either a degree of it, (if juridically passed) a preparative to it, or a charitable prevention of it, by bringing a person to himselfe and his duty; and, happy that Church, who by such an incision, can for ever forestall excision. We think, as well as Mr. Humphrey, It were a wretched Interpretation to say, the Church could not bear evill persons only at the Sacrament; but, it's a good Interpretation to say, She cannot bear them [Page 179] at the Sacrament, though not only there: For, after Suspension, the Church hath patience, to see if that will amend the Offender; if not, She may proceed to Excommunication. So that his censure of me, page 63. he builds, partly upon his own misreport of my words, both, as to the matter and manner of expression; partly upon his own mistake, who makes Sacramentall tryall (as we hold it forth) the cause of diverse misera­ble effects, of which, it's only the occasion; but the proper causes are, the ignorance or pride of too many, not only Refusers, but even Tryers and Judges.

Mr. Humphrey. There cannot be expressed more bitternesse to a fellow-Minister; &c. (if he would know it) than to number me in the company of Korah, Sanballat, and Tobiah.

Ans. How unjustly Mr. Humphrey loads me with bitter censoriousnesse, the Reader will ea­sily judge, if he please but to peruse my Text, page 66. My words are these, He takes no notice how many are admitted, &c. who blesse God for the care our Builders take, in purging and re­pa [...]ring Gods House, and the new Jerusalem, how ever opposed and discouraged by Sanballat, Tobiah, and other Samaritans. And I wish too many, I hope, reall Jewes, did not too much cor­respond with them. I am sure Mr. Humphrey, by this unhappy Book of his, hath done Sanballat and Tobiah more service, then either Nehemiah or Ezra; the Lord forgive him.

Here 1. is not one word of Korah. 2 ly. Halfe an eye of charity will easily see, that in those expressions, I looked at Mr. Humphrey as a true Jew, rather then a Samaritan. 3 ly. Yet [Page 180] with griefe I declared my apprehension, that by his Treatise of free Admission, he hath done ser­vice to Samaritans rather than to true Jewes. This is my judgment still, not only of Mr. Humphrey, but of the godliest under Heaven, who some way or other, first or last, by error or practice, are too subservient to Sanballat, 1 Cor. 3. vers. 12, to 15. And herein I am far from excepting my selfe, being the weakest of ten thou­sand. If Mr. Humphrey his Tenet be erroneous, sure he hath done Sanballat service: If his Tenet be true. I confesse I have done Sanballat service, in opposing it. Let Mr. Humphrey or any make this good, I shall thank them for their pains and be the first shall put fire to my ney and stub­ble. I hope the pious and judicious Reader will not count this bitter censoriousnesse; no nor Mr. Humphrey neither, upon a second review. I can­not judge Sacramentall tryall a truth, but I must needs judge the opposite Doctrine an errour, and by consequence, that they who promote it, do work for Sanballat, as to that act; however, as to their persons, they may be true Jewes. Let Mr. Humphrey say as much of me, I shall not think him censorious at all, much lesse bitterly censo­rious.

Indeed page 65. I speak these words to Mr. Humphrey, Let him take heed, lest in this rash censure he be not like Korah and his Company. Yet 1. I hope, not every one that doth somthing like Korah, is presently of Korah's company. Nor, 2 ly. did I say he was of Korah's number or company, only, I ventured to Item him, that in rash censuring, he be not like Korah, &c. 3 ly. In my best apprehension, his rash censure is [Page 181] too like the clamour of Korah, &c. Numb. 163. And 1 Korah affirmes, that all the Congrega­tion was holy (just as all our Congregations are cryed up to be holy, yea, every member of our Congregations.) 2 ly. That Moses and Aaron took too much upon them, and lifted up them­selves, &c. (as too many judge the Presbyte­rians, though I must not say Mr. Hamphrey doth so, for fear I should be thought censorious) Let the Reader consult Mr. Humphrey his Vin­dication, page 20. and his Rejoynder, page 91. and I hope he will judge more charitably of my former Item, then Mr. Humphrey doth.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 94. And should I now return him his own language, page 61. ‘See you not here, how the vizard of piety falls off, and his breath and pen savour rankly of pride?’ Should I say, ‘If this do not smell of sublime Pharisa­isme, I beseech you what doth?’ For my part, when he can even wish the earth might open and swallow me, I sire the Lord to open his eies, to see the rents he helps to make, to swallow up the Church, &c.

Ans. 1. Doth not a godly man's Unchristian censure, make the vizzard of piety fall off, and his breath and pen smell rankly of pride in that act? Those words Mr. Humphrey left out of his charge, against the Letter of my Text; by omis­sion of which, the Reader might conceite I cen­sured his person as a proud hypocrite, which uncharitablenesse I desire to adhor. The reason why I concluded, those words of his savoured of pride and hypocrisie, see in my Bar, page 60. and if it be not solid, let the Reader censure me, for so condemning that passage of Mr. Hum­phrey's. [Page 182] Proportionably, may not some acts of a godly man savour of sublime Pharisaisme? 2 ly.Far be it from me to wish, The earth might open and swallow him: Let Mr. Humphrey shew but such a wish in all my Book, I shall hartily ask God and him pardon; I know of no such expression, I abhor it, and shall abhor my selfe for it, if any such bitter passage slipt from me, I desire Mr. Humphrey to convince me, or to clear me. 3 ly. I desire as heartily as Mr. Hum­phrey, that God would open mine eies, to see where I make any rents in the Church: Surely, either Mr. Humphrey or my selfe must be guilty of this sin; he thinks, I am; I think, he is; haply, both of us may be too guilty, by our inordinate heats: We cannot tell how to debate and con­vince each other, but we must be angry. And truly, when the Shepheards are so hot in divifi­on, the Flocks cannot be very firm in union. Yet waving passion on both sides, as extrinsicall, yea, prejudiciall to our cause; that party who promotes and stickles for error, helps by rents to swallow up the Church. Mr. Humphrey charges me, I him, with Error, about Sacramentall try­all; let the Reader weigh Arguments and An­swers on both sides, and then judge, who is the Rent-maker, and Church-swallower.

Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 96. I pitty Mr. Drake's poor ex­cuse, telling us, that the Pharisees judgment, Luk. 18. was private and without tryall; as if a thing, for being the more publick, were the lesse evill; and when he judges himselfe worthy, and many unworthy, he askes this Question. Yet, how do we think our selves better then others?

[Page 183] Ans. 1. The Pharisee's judgment was pri­vate, as to his Call or Authority. 2 ly. It was rash, without tryall had; so is not the judgment of Church-Officers, who are called by Christ to judge, and proceed according to evidence, from the party himselfe, or from sufficient witnesse. Mr. Humphrey leaves out this latter, and plaies with the ambiguity of the word Private, to make my sense ridiculous.

2 ly. How do I judge my selfe worthy, who was not admitted to the Lords Supper, but upon the same account, upon which (if regularly) Mr. Humphrey himselfe was admitted to be a Minister; namely, upon tryall and examination by Church Officers. Doth Mr. Humphry judge himselfe worthy to be a Minister, because with the Presbytery of Ministers, he tries candi­dates for the Ministry; and, upon evidence of in­sufficiency, he with other assisting Ministers, judges some of those candidates not yet fit for the Ministry? Surely (if any) they who make themselves the sole judges of their own Sacra­mentall or Ministeriall worthinesse, are the persons that judge themselves worthy.

Mr. Humphrey. Mr. Drake will a [...]mit none to Christs Table, unlesse converted a [...]ready.

Ans. Dr. Drake hath no such word, nor any such intention, his whole discourse being for the admission of all Church-members, who are in the judgment of charity converted, whether they be really converted or no. In the same place he finds fault with my Interpretation, of Christs calling not the righteous, but sinners, Luke 5. 31, 32. and saies, it must be taken in regard of the effect, not tender of his grace.

[Page 184] Ans. 1. If so, then Christ doth not call proud Pharisees effectually: What then doth Mr. Humphrey think of St. Paul? was not he a proud Pharisee, yet called effectually? If he say, Paul was not called effectually while he was proud; True, no more was he called immediately to saving repentance, till he was legally humbled. As therefore Christ called not Paul to Evange­licall repentance effectually, till he was legally humbled; so he tendred not saving grace im­mediately to him, as proud, but as legally hum­bled, which is a middle thing, between a proud Paul and a converted Paul. Christ tenders grace mediately to the proud sinner, immediately to the humbled sinner, Matth. 11. 28. nor doth he call the proud sinner effectually, till humbled, and by humiliation. Christs Call then, doth as truly respect the tender as the effect; he ten­dring grace orderly, as well as calling to grace orderly.

Mr. Humphrey, page 97. The third was a sweet place, John 8. where, who doth not see, how importinent Mr. Drake is, about opening that Text, as if he could not distinguish be­tween a proof and illustration, &c.

Ans. 1. Who sees not how impertinent Mr. Humphrey is, in charging, but not proving, me to be impertinent: Let my Text speak for it selfe against this charge. See my Bar, page 68.

2 ly. I had thought that illustration, à pari­bus & similibns (if pat and pertinent) had been argumentative.

3 ly. In this very particular, Mr. Humphrey intended not only an Illustration, but an Argu­ment; [Page 185] else, what mean those words, page 20. of his Vindication, To give weight to this (discour­sing on his third Reason,) remember three pas­sages of our Saviours. Now the last of those three, is the instance of the Adulterous woman, John 8. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant, that Illustration, as such, affords only light; but as Argumentative, gives weight. Himselfe af­firmes, that his illustrations give weight: who sees not then, they must needs be Argumenta­tive, and have somewhat of the nature of proofs? If therefore Mr. Humphrey be pertinent in his illustration, Dr. Drake cannot be impertinent in his charge, wherein also he looked at Mr. Hum­phrey his three illustrations, only, as so many amplifications. See my Bar, page 66, 67.

4 ly. Take that instance in Mr. Humphrey his declared sense, it makes against those, who are forward to censure others (See Mr. Humphrey his Rejoynder, page 97.) which we all agree to be very sinfull, but impertinently applied by him against Sacramentall tryall. I wish his own illu­stration may open his eyes, to discern his own forwardnesse to censure others.

Mr. Humphrey. Page 98. If Sacramentall tryall were once proved a precept of Christ, I would yield to Mr. Drake in every particular.

Ans. The profession is very ingenious, and gives some hope, that ere long, Mr. Humphrey will be more favourable to Suspension, then at present he seemes to be.

Sect. IX.

Proceed we next to the matter in Contro­versy betwixt us, about Mr. Humphrey his fourth Argument, drawn, as he saies, from the vanity, [Page 186] formality, and impossibility, of selecting people to this Ordinance.

Mr. Humphrey. Page 101. What Dr. Drake hath to say against this Argument, is barren. (You must suppose my ground is barren, be­cause it will not bear Mr. Humphrey his corn) In generall he saies. 1. In the rule of Admission, they go not by the truth of grace. It is well he is brought to confess this, which so often otherwhere, he thinks himselfe bound to pry into.

Ans. 1. We think our selves bound to look after those trialls, which are 1. Negative. 2 ly. Sensible; as grosse ignorance, heathenish profannesse, visible impenitency, which is walk­ing in a tract or course of any scandalous sin, or falling into some foul abomination, which argues at least the tyranny of fin. By such effects as these, we may safely judge a person Evange­lically unworthy, without prying into his heart, or into Gods secrets, which is impossible for the Creature to do, and sinfull to attempt it: Did Peter pry into Simon Magus's his heart, when he said, I perceive thee to be in the gall of bitternesse, &c. Acts 8. 32? Or did Philip pry into the Eunuchs heart, when he put him to it about the reality of his faith, Acts 8. 37? If Mr. Humphrey will condemn us for the like practice, our comfort is, we have good warrant to bear us out, and good company to suffer with us, under this imputation of his. In vain there­fore, page 101. of his Rejoynder, doth Mr. Humphrey labour to set me against my selfe, by comparing page 117. of my Bar, ‘(How many outwardly pious are there, who, upon tryall, might easily be uncased to live [Page 187] in some known sin)’ with page 73. of my said Bar ‘(That truth of grace in the heart, is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper)’ there being a sweet harmony, but no disso­nancy between those two assertions; The former holding forth, that we judge of men by what is visible, of the Root by the Fruit, according to our Saviour's rule, Matth. 7. 16. The latter shewing, that we judge not of persons by what is invisible; but, as sin, or grace appear visibly in any, so we judge. Were I sure Judas had no grace, yet, if he were knowing, and walked or­derly, I could not suspend him. Again were I sure Peter had grace, yet, if he walk disorderly, he ought to be suspended, till his repentance be evident as well as his fall, 2 Thess 3. verse 6. 14, 15. Further, let the Reader take notice, that, however Mr. Humphrey, page 102. is pleased to favour me with a jest, for denying, that Profession in his sense, is the rule of Admis­sion; yet, he only saies, but proves not, That such profession is the ordinary road of Christians; a Tenet contrary to Scripture, to Antiquity, and the late, as well as present practice of our Church. (Here let the Reader know, that Mr. Humphrey takes a piece of Profession, namely, Baptisme, and comming to Church, for a suffi­cient ground of Admission to the Lords Supper.) We deny not, that compleat Profession is enough for Admission; but, such Professors must have 1. Competent knowledge. 2 ly. Suitable conver­sation, besides initiation by Baptisme, and at­tendance upon the publick Ordinances; other­wise, like Agrippa, they will be but halfe Pro­fessors. As knowledge and pious carriage will [Page 188] not make one a compleat Professor, unlesse he be Baptized and attend ordinarily upon the publick Ordinances. So Baptisme and attendance upon the publick Ordinances will not make a com­pleat Professor, unlesse competent knowledge, and pious conversation, be superadded. When a halfe houre is an whole hour, then an halfe Professor may go for an whole Professor.

Mr. Humphrey. Page 102. Christ tells us of no medium, while he divides all his guests into the Called and Chosen, Matth. 22. 14.

Ans. Doth not the Parable expresly mention two sorts of Guests called, besides those that were chosen? 1. They, who made light of the very Call, verse 5. 2 ly. Such as came, and were not discerned by the very Servants, yet wanted the Wedding Garment, verse 11. and what are these last but medium participationis, so much decryed by Mr. Humphrey. 1. Were not they Professors who slighted the Call? (unlesse he will say, that the Jewes and Pharisees, against whom the Parable was directed, were not Pro­fessors) 2 ly. Was not this their slighting visible to the Servants? Compare verse 7. and Luke 14. 21. And doth it not thence necessarily follow, that there are some Professors, that vi­fibly reject the grace of the Gospell; some, that cordially accept thereof? And between both these (as a middle of participation) are they, who friendly accept of grace offered, and visibly walk up to it, as did he that came without the Wed­ding Garment, whom neither the Servants, nor the other Guests, discerned, but only the Master of the Feast. Withall the Reader may note, that the Feast in this Parable is not the Lords Sup­per [Page 189] (this Parable being delivered by Christ, be­fore the Lords Supper was instituted) but the offer of Christ, and the grace of the Gospell in generall, which is openly sleighted by some, ac­cepted by others, and by some of these feignedly, by others cordially. Some Professors reject Christ offered both outwardly and inwardly; some accept him both outwardly and inwardly: Be­tween both these (as a middle of participation) are they, who accept Christ outwardly, but re­ject him inwardly, as do all cased Hypocrites. It's evident then, that Christ, in this Parable, ownes a middle of participation between both extreams.

By the way take notice, how again, page 103. Mr. Humphrey is pleased to put off my instance of Children with a jest, which at good earnest will be too hard for him: His wit and mirth may tickle the Reader, and make his Books the more vendible. But I shall not tire the Reader, with repeating what I have said for­merly, in order to the vindication of that in­stance.

For that other Argument of mine, to prove Mr. Humphrey his Principle loose, because it will open a dore for the wickedest varlets: Hear what Mr. Humphrey saies to it, page 103. He should say in plain termes, it is a loose Principle, because it is not his Principle, and then he had hit it.

Ans. What is this to the eviction of my Ar­gument? May not I as well return, Mr. Hum­phrey should say in plain termes, his admitting pel-mel is a good and warrantable practice, be­cause it is his practice, and then he had hit it: [Page 190] What weight can such froath bear, in the bal­lance of right Reason and Religion?

D. Dr. If profession be Mr. Humphrey his ground, how dare he excommunicate any Bap­tized person, though most wicked?

Mr. Humphrey. I answer, As the Priest durst shut up the Leper from the whole Congregation, because of Gods speciall command.

Ans. And with us, persons are suspended from the Lords Supper, as they were suspended from the Passover, by Gods especiall command, 1 Cor. 10. 21. May I forfeit a right to all Ordi­nances, and may not I forfeit a right to one Or­dinance? Was not the Incestuous Corinth a Professor, even when excommunicated? That he was Baptized, Mr. Humphrey will grant; that he was kept from Hearing, or any other Ordi­nance, but actuall receiving, Mr. Humphrey cannot prove. He was then a Professor, even after excommunication, though not a Church­member till received again, upon testification of his repentance. If therefore profession be enough for admission, then, even persons excommuni­cated ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper. In persons at age, profession must precede Church­membership, and may continue, after a person is cut off from Church-membership, unlesse he openly renounce Christianity, which, I believe, few excommunicated persons do.

D. Dr. Did he never hear of reall and visible worthinesse? Mr. Humphrey. Page 104, and 105. I confesse I have heard of the visible Church, Saints by calling, Professors, &c. But this visible worthinesse, as distinguished there­from, I have not leightly read of, but in him; [Page 191] and look at his expression and his meaning there­in, as exotick to the Scripture.

Ans. 1. Let Mr. Humphrey shew me the terme visible (as applyed to the Church) in Scripture if he can; I am assured he cannot. 2 ly. The thing of visible worthinesse, the Scrip­ture warrants, as distinct from Church-member­ship; for which, take these Texts, 1 King. 1. 52. If he will shew himselfe a worthy man, &c. But, if wickednesse shall be found in him, &c. Is not worthinesse shewn, visible worthinesse? and contra, Is not wickednesse found in a man, visible unworthinesse? Again. Matth. 10. 11. Enquire who is worthy in a City. Surely, Christ sets them not to enquire who had truth of grace, that were (as Mr. Humphre phrases it) to pry into Gods secrets. Nor doth he bid them enquire barely, who were professors, by Church-mem­bership, fince the whole City, or the greatest part thereof, were such, as being Jewes, to whom only the Apostles were sent, Matth. 10. verse 5, 6. It must needs then be a worthinesse of ac­cepting the Gospell, and of suitable pious walk­ing, that the Apostles were to look after, and not to lodge in profane, but in religious families; which worthinesse might be found out by in­quity. And if this be not visible worthinesse, I pray what is? Once more, Luke 7. verse 4, 5. The Elders of the Jewes testifie, the Centurion is worthy: Surely they were no merit-mongers, nor would Christ have acted upon such an ac­count: He had then a worthinesse of meetnesse, and this worthinesse was visible, by his love to Gods people, in building them a Synagogue. That this Centurion was Circumcized, Bap­tized, [Page 192] or a Church-member, I think Mr. Hum­phrey will not assert; I am consident, he cannot prove it. Yet, here is worthinesse, and visible worthinesse, in one, that was neither Baptized, nor a Church-member. The like may be said of Cornelius, Acts 10. 22. From all which, I con­clude, by Mr. Humphrey his leave, that visible worthinesse, as distinct from Church-member­ship, is not exotick to the Scripture.

In the close of this Section, after some flou­rishes, at which he is excellent, I perceive, that my anatomizing of his Onyon (which I hoped might open his eyes, and make him weep) hath put him into an angry (I will not say, spitefull) distemper; I had rather such words should drop from Mr. Humphrey his pen, then from mine. And because he cannot justly quarrell with my words, therefore he is pleased to put a sense up­on them, As if I censured him, and all of his minde, to be opposers of the Church; and the wicked; and my party, only to be the godly, pag. 106.

A sad charge, and very uncharitable, in re­ference both to my words and meaning. My words are these, page 75. of my Bar: ‘The best use therefore that can be made of his pield Onyon, is, to draw tears from his own, and others eyes; for those extravagant discour­ses of his, whereby he hath as much as in him lies, troubled the Church, hindred reforma­tion, strengthened the hands of the wicked, and sadned the hearts of the righteous, &c.’ These are my words, and 1. Have I in them spoke any more, then the very truth? 2 ly. Is here one word, charging him, and all that are of his [Page 193] minde to be wicked. Thirdly, doth not this discourse of M. Humphrey sadden the Godly, and make the wicked rejoyce? I uttered not these expressions by roat (as he is pleased to upbraid me) but deliberately, and with grief and Sym­pathy. Fourthly, what is there of spight, or of the Spider sucking poyson, in those expressions of mine? As for Antiquity, I wonder how in the same page Master Humphrey can pretend to it, which (if he know any thing of Anti­quity) he cannot be ignorant is against him. I see the man is galled, and cannot bear the gent­lest Item of reproof, but presently throws malice and spleen in the face of the reprover. Truely Sir, what I spake was not by roat, nor in passion. I am of the same mind still, what ever bitter mis­constructions you are pleased to make of those words of mine. Indeed I looked at him, and all that vent themselves for his loose principles, as troublers (I did not say opposers, though even this word is not culpable, if rightly, and candidly understood) of the Church in that act; but I neither looked at all of his minde as ungodly, nor at all of our mindes as Godly. I am far from li­miting piety to a party in his sense, but desire ra­ther to sit down and mourne, that Godly men are so accessary to, in the making, and abetting of parties, both against faith and cha­rity.

Sect. X.

In the tenth Section by instance of the passe­over, &c. M. Humprey labours to make it out that every Church-member ought to receive. The answer is easie. As all circumcised persons were [Page 194] to eat the passe-over, yet divers in some cases might not receive at such, or such a time, so all Church-members are to receive the Lords Sup­per, but not till they be prepared. If all were bound to receive every Sacrament, then were it a sin for any at any time to forbear, and a sin to perswade any to forbear. Which I believe Ma­ster Humphrey will not assert, as that which is Heterodox, and may prove a dangerous snare. If any be kept from the Lords Supper, generally they may thank themselves, as might those Jews, who neglected to purifie themselves for the passe-over. For an additional proof he produces humane testimony. And 1. he quotes Mr. Perkins, pag. 109. and 110.

Answ. 1. That all Church-members ought to receive we deny not, if rightly understood, as above, that is, they ought to examine and pre­pare themselves, and so to receive, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Secondly, that in order hereunto all must make conscience to fit themselves, M ^r. Humphrey con­fesseth, page 110. Thirdly, that any ought to receive hic & nunc, when unprepared Mr. Hum­phrey cannot prove. Fourthly, that Mr. Perkins is not of Mr. Humphrey his minde herein, to me seems more than probable, because in the third Proposition cited by M. Humphrey he concludes, Every one is to receive according to the laudable custom of his own Church; But it hath been, and still is the laudable custome of the Church of England to try persons at age before they re­ceive. We shall not deny the Sacrament to any that will receive it, according to the laudable custome of the Church of England.

[Page 195] Pag. 110. Note. 1. If M. H. be Judge, his words are oracles, my answers are trifles. Secondly, Poor infants are a mighty rub in his way; they make him complain now the ninth time. God knows how to perfect praise out of the mouths of Babes and sucklings. Thirdly, he frights me with two terrible Thorns, but tells me not what they are, haply to make them more formidable. I guesse they are the Thorns he put in the hand of infants and ideots; which upon tryal I have found to be but painted Thornes; but being turned upon himself, they prove real Thornes; No wonder the man complains more then seven times. Fourthly, he tells the Reader, I say, and say on. Haply the Reader might suspect I said nothing, unlesse Mr. Humphrey had spoke out for me. I thank him he will honour me so far as to be my Cryer. Fifthly, he findes fault I am too fine, yet suspects I am not in good earnest. Truely Sir, I hope I affect not finery but serious­nesse. I part not those actions Christ hath joyned, nor will joyn those which Christ hath parted. As the Covenant, so the Seals are appli­cable to all conditionally and mediately; but the Covenant is not absolutely, and immediately ap­plicable to any that are visibly out of Covenant; and therefore by proportion, neither the Seales of the Covenant. The Covenant is conditio­nally, and mediately, Mark. 16. 15, 16. even to Heathen applicable, yet I hope M. Humphrey will not admit Heathen to the Sacrament: His in­stance of ipso jure excommunicate will not help him as hath been formerly shewed. For 1. if such a person must be suspended before excommuni­cation, [Page 196] then suspension is a distinct ordinance from excommunication by Mr. Humphrey his own grant.

Secondly, if Christs universal (do this) be limited by Pauls exception (put away from you such a person) then its further evident that Christs commanding all Church members to receive is limited by Paul's exception, that a Brother, or Church member, if a raylor, a drunkard, unclean, covetuous, &c. must not be admitted to the Lords Supper, as being ipso jure excommunicate: and withall that any sin in visible Dominion makes a person ipso jure excommunicate, as covetousnesse, railing, forni­cation, &c. though not capital; and then I pray why may not ignorance in dominion suspend as well as scandal.

His amplification from Math. 5. 23, 25. makes rather against than for him. Since its evident by that Text. First, that moral pollution, as malice (till removed) suspended a man from Sacrifice. Secondly, that moral (as well as Levitical) pol­lution may suspend a man from instituted, but not from natural worship. Sacrifices and Sa­craments are instituted worship, prayer, and hearing are natural worship. A Zimri is bound to hear & pray, be he never so bad, not to so offer Sacrifice, or receive the Sacrament in statu quo. The law of Creation bindes to natural worship, which no unworthinesse of the Creature can dis­solve. Hence the Lord dispenseth much in, and about instituted worship, not so in natural worship, 1 Sam. 15. 22. Jer. 7. 22, 23. Hosea 6. 6. Math. 12. 4, 5.

[Page 197]Thirdly, what if the Sacrificer will never be reconciled, must he notwithstanding be admit­ted to offer? Our Saviour sayes he must first be reconciled & then offer; Paul sayes, he must first be prepared and so eat; surely then he must not offer till reconciled, nor receive till prepared; And, if his malice and unpreparednesse be vi­sible, he may and must be suspended. Fourthly, from Mr. Humphrey his own grant, If there be many occasions of forbearing a duty, and unpre­parednesse be a just occasion and a grand occa­sion; then, as this unpreparednesse should oc­casion my forbearing; so, if visible, it should occasion the Churches suspending of me; and such is visible ignorance or prophaenness in any Church-member. If he may forbear upon just occasion, why may not the Church or any particular member advise him to that which is lawfull; If he must forbear, why may not the Church, or any particular member advise him to his duty; and in case he will act against his duty, why may not the Church use her power to su­spend him from that unlawfull act? I make my self no more Lord over Gods comand by telling my Brother this is not his duty, than by telling him, this is his duty. In both I make my self Lord of Gods command if my advice be contrary to the affirmative and negative precept; in nei­ther, if my advice be consonant to the rule.

Mr. Humphrey, pag. 112. To hold it is not a mans duty to receive while unregenrat; this reaches the semper & looses the bands of Gods commands.

Ans. 1. It reaches the semper onely conditio­nally, as legal uncleannesse might haply reach the [Page 198] semper in order to the passe-over, and as excom­munication may reach the semper in case the person excommunicated continue obstinate. Secondly, How doth it loose the bands of Gods command, when Gods command is none shall receive till rightly prepared. If the truth of the promise offering Christ to all conditionally be not loosed though no unregenerate person par­take of Christ, then the bands of the precept commanding all conditionally to receive are not loosed, though no unqualified person receive till Doomes day. The reason is clear, because neither command nor promise are absolute, but conditionall till the condition be performed. Thirdly, As to particular persons, the command of suspension is a spur to conversion and practi­cal holinesse; And since none continue in im­penitency but by their own desault, they may thanke themselves who thereby make the com­mand of abstention or detention perpetual. Fourthly, Yet by presence at the Sacrament the Christ-murtherer may behold the Corps bleed­ing, see his own condemnation sealed and both hear & see Christ offered conditionally, though he neither receive nor touch the Sacramentall Elements. But to presse an impenitent and scandalous person to receive in order to the sealing of his own condemnation as Mr. Hum­phrey asserts, pag. 113. to me seems a very un­couth opinion and contradictory to Mr. Hums phrey his doctrine for suspending of persons ipso jure excommunicate, who (upon such an ac­count) ought of all persons to receive, in order to the sealing of their own comdemnation, and [Page 199] the more effectual promotion of their own conversion.

‘Dr. Drake, an unregenerate man sins in all his duties, yet he must do them; but there is not par ratio in order to a receiving. 1 Because it is not his duty.’

Mr. Humphrey, pag. 113. If receiving be not the duty of an unregenerate man, then must rege­neration be an essential antecedent to the Sacra­ment; But so it is not: For 1. Then baptisme was not administred validly to many by the Apostles, Acts 8. 13. &c.

Ans. 1. I might note the impropriety of that expression essentially antecedent. Nothing is essentially antecedent to any thing, but it's con­stitutive principles; and we do not make rege­neration a constitutive principle of receiving the Sacrament. Secondly, if by essential here he mean necessary, we grant regeneration a neces­sary antecedent in order to the person recei­ving, and that by virtue of the precept; as purity was a necessary antecedent of receiving the Passe over. Thirdly, where as he infers, That then the baptisme of many was not valid, I deny his consequence, since in many things, Quod fieri non debuit factum valet. Secondly, because how­ever, the person to be baptised, being unregene­rate ought not to offer himself to baptisme, yet this reaches not the Minister that is to baptize him, unlesse his unregeneration be visible. I may not offer my self to partake if unregenerate; but the Minister may admit me coming, if he have charitative grounds to judge me regene­rate. The same answer will satisfie his second [Page 200] objection, for baptisme is valid where there is no essential faylure; if the person baptized be a visible Saint, the person baptising be authorized by Christ, and the Element be rightly applied according to Christs institution; in a word, if Christs form of baptisme be observed Math. 28. 19. but this may be done to a person unregene­rare, and is valid being done, though the Cate­chumenus sin in offering himself, if unregene­rate; but need not be baptised again when once regenerate. Acts 8. 37.

It will also satisfie his third objection: A Mi­nister may in faith administer, either of the Sa­craments to others besides himself, since the rule he is to proceed by is not holinesse as real, but as visible; & where he hath a charitative ground to judge any to be regenerate, he both may and ought to baptise such a person, in case he offer himself to be baptised regularly.

For his fifth objection, that then no doubting Christian can himself receive, for he cannot act in faith so long as he is not fully perswaded of his own regeneration.

Ans. 1. It's a fallacy to argue from the necessi­ty of regeneration to the necessity of the clear & full evidence of regeneration. He that hath truth of grace, sins neither materially nor formally in receiving; provided he be not wanting to himself in due examination and preparation. Secondly, if a doubting Christian cannot act in faith, then no man in the world can act in faith, since the best of Saints are more, or lesse pestred with doubting, and that both in the faith of assent, of adherence and of evidence. Thirdly, he may as well doubt whither he sin in abstaining as in [Page 201] receiving, since some comfortable hopes of grace incourage him to receive, as some dark fears on the other hand discourage him. Fourthly, if evidences for grace be praedominant, the con­trary fears should not discourage him. Fifthly, if hopes be ballanced with equal fears, or over­ballanced with Symptomes of unregeneracy, his surest way is to apply himself to some faithfull and experienced friend, or Minister, upon whose advice he may comfortably approach, or forbear the Sacrament for that time. Yea, this advice is very safe and usefull, where any one doubt about my spiritual Estate ariseth, which by a diligent self-scrutiny cannot be resolved; It being dangerous in point of doubts (as well as in other cases) to keep the Devils counsel. For a brief, yet full resolution of the case about persons to be suspended, I referre the Reader to the larger Cathechisme of the Assembly of Divines, where they handle the Doctrine of the Lords Supper: where also they do positively affirm, That such as are found to be ignorant and scandalous, notwithstanding their professions of the faith, and desire to come to the Lords Supper, may, and ought to be kept from that Sacrament by the power which Christ hath left in his Church, untill they receive instruction and manifest their reformation. I hope its no presumption to say, That such a Testimony for suspension from so many Reve­rend, Learned, and pious Divines will ballance, if not preponderate the opposite Testimonies produced by Mr. Humphrey, were they as full to his purpose as his heart could desire. But I trust to make it appear (which in part is done already) [Page 202] that those eminent persons by him quoted are rather friends to our suspension than to his free Admission.

If yet it be objected; I, but will not this Do­ctrine of doubting Christians admission to the Sacrament, be a precipice to unregenerate per­sons, who upon sleight and trivial evidences will conclude themselves in the state of grace, and so rush upon the Sacrament unworthily?

Ans. 1. Its no more a precipice to them than all other parts of the Gospel are: Offer pro­mises, Hypocrites are forwardest to catch pre­sumptuously at them; thunder out threatnings, Hypocrites will put them off with a wet finger; binde them with precepts, Hypocrites have an hellish art to cut, or break this Gordian knot which they cannot untye fairly, Psal. 2. 3.

Secondly, This is a precipice not of Gods, but of their own, and the Devils making, who are willingly thereby deceived, and so catch both at promises and Sacraments, writing and feal, to their own destruction. To prevent which mis­chief (as much as lies in man) cautions are an usefull boundary in order to the promises, and suspension in order to the Sacrament; which though it cannot keep away all Hypocrites, yet it serves to uncase divers, and to make all Church-members studious of competent know­ledge and outward reformation, a blessing highly to be prized in every reformed and re­forming Church.

Mr. Humphrey in his vindication, page 24. ‘Let our Independents answer, why do you allow a Syntax in the whole service of God [Page 203] besides; and being in a quae genus of Anoma­laes and Heteroclites, onely at this Ordi­nance.’

Dr. D. My answer hereunto, see pag. 79. and 80. of my Barre. Indeed I looked at those words of his as a challenge to both parties. To which the first part of his answer in his rejoyn­der, pag. 116. is so modest, that I think my self bound to note it with approbation.

Mr. Humphrey. For the Later branch, that the Independents scruple not a free admission of their own Members, &c. lb.

Ans. 1. Note his own words, whither they turn away any before excommunication, I cannot say, but guesse so. The expressions are ingenuous, but do a little thwart his former assertion. He that speaks onely by guesse cannot assert that which he speaks to be a truth. Secondly, though some separated assemblies own divers of our Congregations as true Churches, yet will they not admit divers (not onely of our Church-members, but also) of our Communicants, upon this very account, because they apprehend them not so visibly worthy; An apparent Testimony to me, that they with us measure the subject of Sacramental Admission, rather by visibility than by Church-membership. Especially, considering withall, that one main ground of their first se­paration from us was offence taken at the pro­miscuous Admission of Church-members to the Lords Supper: Upon which account those who feared God among the Presbyterians were the more zealous for Sacramental tryal, that by re­formation in this particular they might prevent [Page 204] further separation; and if it might be, reduce our brethren of the Congregational way by remo­ving that unhappy stumbling-block.

‘Mr. Humphrey, ibid: Mr. Drake tells them, They are beholding to me for my too favour­able opinion of you.’

Ans. Mr. D. says, The Independents are much beholding to him for his favourable opinion of them. He doth not say, they are beholding to him for his too favourable opinion of them. I will not utter what I guesse to be Mr. Humphrey his designe in crowding in the adverbe too, but I apprehend by that addition he was not too favourable unto me.

The next question in debate is, how we can baptise the Children of Church members, & at the same time turn away their parents from the Sacrament of the Lords supper?

‘Mr. Humphrey, pag. 117. I will not in­fringe what Mr. Drake hath said pag. 82, 83, 84. I wish it may be maintained. But as for those who never tooke notice, or not approved of any other ground of their baptisme, but as they are immediately born Christians of such as visibly professe Christ according to my terms the right which the Parents derive upon their Children unto baptisme must be acknow­ledged to be in themselves unto the Sacrament, unlesse there be a manifest impediment to re­trench that right, or the present injoyment of it by excommunication, distraction or infe­ction.’

Dr. Drake. Ans. 1. He granting my conclu­sion, that the Children of all Church-members [Page 205] (be they suspended or not) may be baptised, his exeption is impertinent as to us, who hold and approve other grounds of admitting Children to baptisme than the right they have to it by their immediate Parents either as Professours or as Church-members: Nay, were both the imme­diate Parents excommunicated we shall not refuse to baptise their Children, provided any person of trust will undertake for their educati­on in the Christian faith into which they are ba­ptised. The right a Childe hath to baptisme by his immediate Parents is a good right, but not the sole right. See more in my barrel, pag. 81. 87.

Secondly, should I retort the question upon Mr. Humphrey, how can he allow baptising the Children of divers Church members, and yet discourage those very Church-members from the Sacrament? He that discourages from the means discourages from the end, Mr. Humphrey discourages from Sacramental trial, the means, Ergo. Here indeed we come to the very hinge of the controversy which Mr. Humphrey, pag. 117. and 118. states bewtixt us thus.

‘Mr. Humphrey, the substance of the whole comes unto thus, that the Parents must have a further right to shew than what they have common with their Childe to this ordinance. And here indeed lies the very point of our difference: I hold it is Church-membership (where there is none of our former yielded impediments) that gives an immediate out­ward right to the Sacrament. He holds a man must be first tried if he be visibly wor­thy, [Page 206] and it is that alone can give him admis­sion.’

Ans. In my Barre, pag. 81. I proved, that Church-membership is not the adequate foun­dation of receiving, because the all Church-mem­bers should be admitted to the Lords supper: But all Church-members ought not to be admitted, Mr. Humphrey himself being Judge, to wit In­fants & Idiots; to which I may now add out of Mr. Humphrey persons ipso jure excommuni­cate, all which he grants to be Church-members, yet is pleased to suspend them from the Lords supper. If the Lord hath excluded them let Mr. Humphrey shew the Decree of Heaven by some expresse place of Scripture. Where hath God said in termes, Infants, Idiots and persons jure excommunicate shall not receive. If it be, because they cannot prepare themselves right­ly, nor discern the Lords body, no more can ignorant, and scandalous persons in statu quo: therefore say we, either exclude all or none. If he say, the inability of Infants and Idiots is natural, but that of intelligent Church-members is moral.

Ans. 1. Natural inability doth not exclude from all ordinances, instance in Circumcision then, baptisme now, the word preached, &c. Secondly, that natural inability excludes from the Lords Supper is more than Mr. Humphrey can prove, unlesse he make it out by conse­quence. Thirdly, the inabiliby of persons jure excommunicate is moral, yet their suspension Mr. Humphrey allowes; and why not the suspen­sion of other intelligent Church-members also, [Page 207] who are morally unable as well as they. If yet he say, Persons jure excommunicate are suspend­ed to avoid scandal, upon the very same account say we, must ignorant and scandalous persons be suspended. Object. Persons jure excommunicate are suspended in order to excommunication. Ans. So may ignorant and scandalous persons be also, if they shall wilfully persist in grosse ignorance, or scandal, though of an inferiour allay; yet we had rather use suspension to prevent, than to prepare for excommunication. The issue of all is this: That either Mr. Humphrey must shew expresse Scripture for his Limitati­ons, or else admit our Limitations also, which have as good vvarrant from Scripture as his: were I of Master Humphrey his minde, that Church-member-ship gives an immediate right to the Lords Supper (see pag. 118. of his Re­joynder) I should rather undertake to maintain the Admission of Infants, Idiots; yea, persons jure excommunicate, and with more probability of argument, than he doth his free Admission, which yet excludes a great part, if not the greater part of Church-members. If he be for free Admission, why doth he limit it; if he will needs limit it, how is it free; yea, why doth he con­demne us for that of which himself is guilty, if it be an errour? We grant, all Church members ought to receive, if there be no impediment, na­tural, or moral; this Mr. Humphrey grants also, yet in one and the same breath as it were blames us, for doing that which himself allows; you see how the stating of the question for himself over­throws his conclusion for free Admission. Now [Page 208] let us see how he states it for us, in the latter branch.

‘ Pag. 118. of his Rejoynder Mr. Drake holds a man must first be tried, if he be visibly wor­thy; and it is that alone can give him Admis­sion.’

Ans. We hold: 1. That it's the duty of every Christian, or Church-member, to be willing, and ready to be tried by any, upon just occasion; yea, though it may prove prejudicial to their outward man, 1 Pet. 3. 15. Be ready alwayes to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. Secondly, That they are more bound to submit to tryal by those, who are over them in the Lord, who must give, and therefore take an account of their Souls, Heb. 13. 17. Such are Superiours in Family, Church, and State. 3 ly. The Time, Frequency and Man­ner of tryal, as to Persons, Method, &c. (as in sundry other parts of vvorship) is not expresly determinded in Scripture, no more than how often the Sacrament shall be received; but is lest to Christian prudence. Fourthly, That as this tryal doth, especially respect the Sacrament an Universal, Spiritual, and effectual Ordinance, containing the Letter and Spirit of all other Or­dinances, so the fittest time for this trial in Christian prudence is judged (by wiser and bet­ter persons than Mr. Humphrey and my self) to be before the Sacrament, or between the past and succeeding Sacrament; which as an help to self-examination may very much through grace promote our Sacramentall prepara­tion.

[Page 209]These things premised, we say: 1. That every Church-member is bound to submit to Church-tryal, by virtue of the fifth Commandment; by virtue of the general precept aforementioned, 1 Pet. 3. 15. and by virtue of that principle of spiritual self-love, which either is, or should be in him. Secondly, That real worthinesse gives a person a right before God to either of the Sacraments, and that abstractedly from Church-member-ship, or Church-tryal; upon which account he may desire and demand them, or either of them as his due orderly; first baptisme, and afterwards the Lords Supper: there being in a right sense (as Mr. Humphrey notes) par ratio utriusque Sacramenti. That intelligent person whom I will admit to baptisme, I will also ad­mit to the Lords Supper, Acts 8. 36, 37. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. Believing with all the heart (which is real worthinesse) gave the Eunuch a right to baptisme; who yet thereby was not admitted a Member of any par­ticular Congregation, (as Children, or grown persons are with us) and whither be joyned himself to any, or no, is questionable. Thirdly, That visible worthinesse is necessary as the fruit and signe of real worthinesse; just as profession and confession is a necessary companion, or consequent of faith and grace within, Rom. 10. 9. both being in effect one and the same thing. Such was the Eunuch's deportment and profes­sion of his faith before Philip baptised him. It's agreed on all hands, that no person really (that is habitually and actually) worthy must be de­nied the Sacrament; as all Jews, if clean, were to [Page 210] eat the Passeover. The question is how the Priests then, and how Church-Officers now should put a difference between clean and un­clean, between worthy and unworthy: That both were to do it doctrinally is agreed: That both were to do it practically is evident by the rule, Numb. 9. Secondly, by practice approved in Scripture, 2 Chro. 23. 29. Acts 9. 26, 27. and by theirs, and our Church-Discipline, together with their lesser degrees of excommunication, answering ours of suspension; Demonstrative proofs of cleannesse and worthinesse, were, and are very difficult (if not impossible) to them and us. As therefore they did, 1 Sam. 21. 4, 5. so must we rest in topical and probable evidences; such are with us competent knowledge, verbal and real profession confirmed by our own ob­servation, or by sufficient Testimony. Propor­tionably, grosse ignorance, or scandal appear­ing by due tryal, observation, or Testimony, as above, are topical arguments of real unworthi­nesse, and in our Saviours judgement amount to knowledge, Math. 7. 26. Church-Officers then must put a difference, not onely Doctrinally, but also practically between clean and unclean, wor­thy and unworthy, denying those priviledges at present, to persons visibly unclean and unwor­thy, which otherwise were their due to injoy. An Executor, or Administrator is not bound im­mediately upon demand to give Legacies be­queathed to any Legatee, till he have at least probable evidence that the party demanding is a Legatee, and qualified according to the condi­tions annexed to the Legacy by the will of the [Page 211] Testator. In like manner Church-Officers, who are Christs Administrators, and Over-seers must not look at every one as a Legatee, who sayes he is so, yea, though he be a Member of the hous­hold; nor can look at those, who are grosly ignorant, or scandalous as Legatees in statu quo, since they can neither examine themselves, nor discern the Lords body in the Apostles sense. Let the Reader here take notice. 1. That we hold not that tryal is absolutely necessary for every Church-member: where persons are well known to be men of knowledge and piety, there tryal is requisite onely in a prudential way, least su­spected persons should presume, upon their Ad­mission in this manner, to challenge the like favour. The end of Trial being discovery, what need we try that which is well known? Onely such do well to submit to tryal (among other grounds) for good examples sake, & to prevent exceptions that otherwise will be taken. Se­condly, That we hold not that tryal gives admission (it being indifferent to Admission, or Suspension) but discovery of Sacramental wor­thinesse in order to Receiving, to which he had a right by real worthinesse: As discovery by tryal, or otherwise gives a Legatee, the injoyment of that Legacy to which he had a right by the will of the Testator. Mr. Humphrey therefore is not so accurate in the stating of our opinion as he would make the vvorld believe: Since. 1. Our rule of trying, who are worthy is not (in our judgement) universally obligatory, but may ad­mit a dispensation. Secondly, Because we hold not that tryal alone can give a Church-member [Page 212] Admission to the Lords Supper, but approbati­on upon tryal, or otherwise. All which laid together, discovers the vanity of his insulting in the following words, pag. 118. For the one now, look over Mr. Drake, and you shall finde still whensoever he falls upon this thing, he has nothing against it, but that silly reason (from the unintel­ligent) so often repeated. Had he any thing else would it not be alleadged? and has he nothing else and will now be captivated? For the other, look over the Scripture, and see if he can produce you any precept of God for it. If he has none, will his own word go? while he has so little against us, and no Text for himself, his skirts are discovered and heels made bare.

Ans. 1. Mr. Humphrey is no Oracle; nor is a reason silly, because he sayes so; nor is that reason (from the unintelligent) silly (however he looking through the Spectacles of prejudice apprehend it so) as hath been else where proved. Secondly, Is nothing alleadged to confute his free Admission, but the reason drawn from the unintelligent? Let the Reader peruse my Barre from pag. 81. to 87. (besides other places) & then judge how much Mr. Humphrey his passionate assertions are to be credited? Thirdly, Will he have us produce Scripture to prove his fancies? We hold not its tryal alone will give Admis­sion, will he blame us for not proving that which we hold not? Fourthly, It hath been proved. First, That unworthy Church-members (though intelligent) ought hot to receive. Se­condly, That all must submit to tryal upon just occasion. Thirdly, That they who upon tryal [Page 213] are found unworthy are to be suspended. Fourthly, We believe that they who refuse tryal without any sufficient ground given for that their refusal, ought also to be suspended. Our reason is, because by such an Act they appear to Church-Officers as sinners against light, which makes a person as to them actually unworthy, how ever he, or she may be habitually worthy. Fifthly, We can produce as good Scripture for our Limitation, as M ^r. Humphrey can for his Limitation. Here may I not speak to the Reader in M ^r. Humphrey his own words by way of re­torsion? Look over all the Scripture, and see if M ^r. Humphrey can produce you any precept of God for suspending the unintelligent, and per­sons jure excommunicate (understand me of expresse Texts, for if he fly to consequences, let him not blame us for using the same mediums, which we judge valid as well as an expresse Text) if he has none, will his own word go, &c.

M ^r. Humphrey, page 119. I do willingly yield to all our known bars (under the unintelligent and excommunicate) the Church has allowed; but am fully perswaded that this Bar, Mr. Drake would not set up otherwise, has no foundation in the Scri­pture, &c.

Answ. Mr. Humphrey his preswasion is no Demonstration; or if it were, certainly in all equity, the same priviledge should be granted to our perswasion: what follows thence but an absurdity and impossibility, that there are, or may be two contrary Demonstrations in order to that which is every way one and the same, as if there could be one Demonstration to prove [Page 214] Sun hath light, and another Demonstration to prove the Sun hath not light.

Secondly, He yields to all our known bars, &c. Why so? 1. Because the Church allowes them: And hath not the Church, both in former ages, and doth it not in this age allow also the Bar of of visible unworthinesse. Secondly, Because his allowed Bars have a foundation in the Scri­pture, not to my Bar as he is pleased to phrase it. 1 Cor. 11. 28. Ans. The same, or like foundation, that his Bars have, our Bars have; his Bars are founded, ei­ther upon inability to examine ownes self, as in the unintellent, or in visible unworthinesse, as in persons jure excommunicate; our Bar hath the same foundation, to wit, 1. Inability to examine ownes self, 2 ly.scandallous living.

Here, to Evade, Mr. Humphrey is fine, and subtil, pag. 120. making a distinction where God makes none. He distinguisheth between unintelligent persons that are bound to get knowledge, and unintelligent persons that are not bound to get knowledge; and then tells us the former may be suspended, the latter not. A stout affirmation, but where is his proof, or Demonstration? Where hath God said, that persons naturally unintelligent shall be su­spended, but persons morally unintelligent shall not be suspended? Let him produce a Text of Scripture for it, if he can; if he cannot, will you believe Mr. Humphrey upon his bare word? We easily grant its the duty of all visibly unworthy to get knowledge, &c. not so of Children and fools: but doth it follow thence, that the former, though grosly ignorant, must be admitted, be­cause [Page 215] its their duty to get knowledge, the latter must be suspended, because its not their duty to get knowledge. M ^r. Humphrey his foun­dation is the precept of actual examination, 1 Cor. 11. 28. in order to receiving. Infants do not, cannot examine themselves, and therefore must be kept away sayes M ^r. Humphrey. On the other hand: 1. Ignorant persons do not, cannot examine themselves, and therefore must be kept away, say we. Here to evade, M ^r. Humphrey, tells, us, the former are not bound to examine them­selves, and therefore must be suspended, the lat­ter are bound to examine themselves, and there­fore must not be suspended. Here we call for a proof, and for lack of a better must accept of M [...]. Humphrey his assertion, a sufficient proof in­deed to fancy & affection; but if weighed in the ballance of Scripture and solid reason, it will be found lighter than vanity. If actual examinati­on be required, as is evident by the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine him­self, and so let him eat, &c. then defect of actual examination is an Apostolick Bar. This is Mr. Humphrey his foundation to exclude Children. Examination is required, Children cannot per­form this duty, therefore they must be suspend­ed. We infer, ignorant persons cannot examine themselves, therefore they also must be suspend­ed. There's not one tittle in this Text, or else­where, to exclude those who are naturally un­able, and to admit those who are morally una­ble: Nay, if any, the latter are rather to be ex­cluded than the former: we believe that both are to be excluded, the former as negatively, the [Page 216] as privatively unworthy: And for further con­firmation dare appeal to M ^r. Humphrey, if he will be true to himself. He grants that intelligent Church-members, if jure excommunicate may be suspended. This we grant also: Onely the ground of his grant, if solid, is the same with ours, name­ly, by shame to bring the person suspended to repen­tance, to satisfie the godly, and to be a good example unto others. See pag. 22. of his rejoynder. These are some, though not all of our grounds for su­spending the ignorant and scandalous. Will M ^r. Humphrey allow these grounds of suspen­sion for some intelligent Church-members, and not for all. If this be not strange partiallity, I pray what is?

As for what he adds, pag. 120. As for in­fants and the distracted, we know signes cannot have any real work on them.

Answ. 1. What if they cannot, is this a suf­ficient ground to deny them the signes, then let Mr. Humphrey turn Antipaedobaptist.

Secondly, Though the signe cannot work, cannot God work by the signe as an instituted antecedent, or concomitant of Divine operati­on? Otherwise Children are baptized in vain. There is better ground for applying signes to persons naturally unintelligent, than to persons morally unintelligent. I can baptise a Childe that is naturally unintelligent, not so a person at years of discretion, who is morally unintelli­gent: And if there be par ratio utriusque Sacra­menti; then he, who is not to be baptised (be­cause of his grosse ignorance) at years of discre­tion were here then unbaptised, ought upon the [Page 217] same account to be denied the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though formerly baptised.

Mr. Humphrey, If I should do the Church ser­vice In submitting to this way onely as humane, then I shall do God service, to oppose it as divine, and not let it sit in his Seat, as a necessary antece­dent to this ordinance.

Answ. 1. Where an humane order is prest as a divine ordinance, I may and ought so far forth to oppose it, and shall do God good service therein, so my opposition be regular. Yet se­condly, at the same time in some cases I may sub­mit practically to the same, provided it be in it's own nature indifferent, especially upon de­claration of my dissent from it as a divine or­dinance; thus Paul opposed, yet practited, Cir­cumcision upon occasion, which then was no divine ordinance, yet was by the Jewes prest as a divine ordinance; compare, Gal. 2. 3. and 5. 2, 3. With Acts 16. 3. Had Mr. Humphrey perswaded people to submit to trial, though not as a divine ordinance, he might have done both God and the Church more service than now he doth. Se­veral judgements may unite in the same pra­ctice upon several principles without prejudice to Gods worship or the breach of faith and love. I both wish and hope. Mr. Humphrey may be of this minde, we desire unity of practice and shall pray for unity of principles, Philip. 3. 16.

Thirdly, To submit to trial, or to be ready al­wayes to give an answer to every man that asks us a reason of the hope that is in us is (in a large sense as a thing commanded) a divine ordi­nance; the timing of this trial is humane and [Page 218] prudential, in which I hope we may adhere to the judgement of a Parliament and Assembly of Learned and pious Divines, rather than to the judgement of any private Christian or Minister. Hearing and receiving are divine ordinances; hearing at ten in the morning, & receiving every first Lords day in the month, are humane orders and prudential; yet they who will not hear and receive at times particularly appointed by man, may haply go without word and Sacrament all their dayes, and are guilty of excommunicating and suspending themselves. Will any be so fond hence to conclude that either the State, Church or Minister hold the timing of the Sa­crament to be a divine ordinance, or a necessa­ry concomitant to the Lords Supper by way of special institution? In like manner, that all should submit to trial is a divine ordinance or precept; but that they should be tried before or after a Sacrament, and often or seldom, or but once in all their life, is humane and prudential; and no more a necessary Antecedent of receiving than the timing of the Lords Supper is a neces­sary concomitant of receiving; yet as he who will not come to receive at the time ordered su­spends himself from the Sacramant; so he that will not submit to the time appointed for trial is a self suspender. Submission to trial is a duty, the season of this trial is indifferent; and being agreed upon by a common order or consent ought not to be sleighted or opposed by any private Christian or Minister. Let the trial be when it will, it must be either before or after the Sacrament. And if the terme Antecedent be [Page 219] offensive, we shall onely desire the people to submit to a consequent trial. Pag. 121. Mr. Hum­phrey is pleased to close this section merrily with a Jury of 12. I envy not his mirth, but wish it may do himself and his reader much good. If it hurt not himself more than me, he will have no great cause to repent of it.

Sect. XI.

Mr. Humphrey his sixth Argument is drawn from his innocency in admitting all. And 1. Be­cause he doth but his duty therein. Dr. Drake, ‘This is the main thing to be proved. Mr. Humphrey, The precept of dispensing and receiving is ge­neral.’

Ans. 1. The 12. were not all the Ministers of that time. Secondly, That all the 12. did receive is not evident. Thirdly, The adjective all is seldom used in Scripture to note absolute universallity; and if in the matter of the Sacra­ment it be so universall, then Mr. Humphrey his limitation of that universall is erroneous. But of this formerly.

‘Secondly, Mr. Humphrey I have no power to turn away any. This Mr. D. accounts most true, but makes lamentable use of it.’

Ans. 1. I say not this is most true, but that I take this assertion of Mr. Humphrey for one of the truest passages in all his book. Secondly, He wrongs me in reporting that I do boldly and openly tell the people, that Christ had not so much power to turn away one of his disciples as I and my Elders have over my people. My words are, ‘that Christ as a Minister had no juridi­cal power to turn away Judas or any other.’ [Page 220] What power he had as God or as Mediatour is not imitable. Thirdly, Though haply a Mini­ster have no power of himself to suspend any or turn him away, yet he may have power over his own act; and forbear giving the Sacrament to a visibly unworthy person, and withall may round him in the ear (if occasion serve) and bid him beware least taking the Sacrament unworthily, he do eat and drinke judgement to himself.

‘Thirdly, He hopes the best of all, and there admits all without trial.’

‘Mr. Drake, So did the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, yet could not bear them that were evill,’ and tried the false Apostles, Rev. 2. 2.

‘Mr. H. while the Church hoped well of them, it might bear with them to do them good.’

Ans. 1. How ever the Church might hope well of them &c. till convinced, yet she did not forbear to try them. I may at the same time hope well, and yet out off an holy jealousy fear evill, yea of an whole Church, much more of any particular person, 2 Cor. 11. 2, 3. May pri­vate persons passe a judgement of discretion upon things or persons, and may not publicke persons passe a judgement of decision? May I upon just occasion try all things, and may I not try all persons? 1 Thess. 5. 21. and 1 John. 4. v. 1, 3. Or can either of these judgements passe without trial?

Object. I, but then admit them till they be tried.

Ans. 1. That is, passe them for currant be­fore tried. I may passe some pieces for currant [Page 221] (before tried) upon an honest mans word; but if I have the least suspition of them, he must not be angry if I try his gold; or should he be an­gry, might not this anger of his be looked upon as a further ground of suspition? Secondly, What if they will not submit to trial at all? Must I passe them for currant upon their own word? Doth not their opposing of trial make them the more suspitious? My other answers he passeth as answered elswhere. Ans. Then I hope those answers of mine are vindicated elswhere. My instance of the Magistrates trying all, though he also hope the best of all, Mr. Humphrey passeth over with a sleight in these words, pag. 124. And for the Magistrate what followes? Ans. It fol­lowes strongly; that hoping the best of all is no bar to the triall of any. This Mr. Humphrey did well to slubber over, because too strong an evidence for us and against himself.

Fourthly Mr. Humphrey pag. 124. I know God can turn even the worst at this ordinance if he please: This Mr. Drake counts true, but que­stions his will, and requires of me some promise or president for it. For promises we have sufficient, Amos 5. 4. and 2 Chron. 15. 2. Math. 7. 7. Let any shew me an exception in particular against this Sacrament, or else these particulars stand good.

Ans. 1. For that promise Amos 5. 4. The thing promised here is life; this life is initiall or graduall: That life initall, or the first infusion of saving is grace premised to every ordinance, as it is to the word preached, doth not appear by this place; and were it true, Mr. Humphrey doth [Page 222] ill to allow the suspension or excommunication of any from any ordinance: The Lord forbid we should deny the means of initiall conver­sion to any without expresse warrant from Heaven: therefore we pray for all, that ordi­nance being a means of conversion by way of impetration, be the persons prayed for present or no. Therefore we preach to all, the word being an instrument of conversion, an immortal seed, &c. Acts 17. 30. Rom. 10. v. 14, 17. and 1 Petr. 1. v. 23, 24. But where is the Sacrament so stiled? The Sacraments suppose, but do not worke conversion. For the other branch of the text, namely the condition or precept of see­king God. That every one is bound to use every ordinance in order to the seeking of God thereby for imitiall conversion is not proved by that place, which onely requires the seeking of God in generall, but layes no command upon every person to partake of every ordinance, but onely to seek God in those ordinances he is capable of: we must here again distinguish be­tween natural and instituted worship; Those ordinances which are parts of natural worship lie upon all, and are beneficial to many in order to conversion, not so those ordinances which are parts of instituted worship. This is evident in hearing, prayer, Sacrifices and Sacraments, the two former being incumbent upon all at years of discretion, not so the two latter. All are bound to seek God in all estates, as well as in all ordinances, but all I hope are not therefore to get into all estates or to partake of all ordinan­ces. Instance, I am bound to seek God in the [Page 223] Ministry, or in a married condition, if I be in either of these estates, but I hope every man is not therefore bound to be a Minister or to mar­ry. In like manner, I am bound to seek God in all ordinances, if or when I do partake of all, but it followes not thence that I am bound to partake of all ordinances, no more than I am bound to marry or to be a Minister; but if I be in either of these estates I am bound to seek God in them. Here that precept or permission of our Saviour is pertinent though with a little variation of his scope. Math. 19. 12. [...].

The like may be said of the other two pro­mises Mr. Humphrey quotes; yea, of all general promises about Ordinances. 1. I must seek God by partaking of all Ordinances that I am capable of. Secondly, My great designe must be to seek God in all those Ordinances I do actually par­take of: But it follows not thence that I must partake of every Ordinance whither I be capa­ble of it, or no. Yea, Mr. Humphrey his jure excommunicate proves that all Church-members are not capable of all Church-Ordinances. This is (among others) the exception we make to his alleadging the general promises; and which Mr. Humphrey must own, or contradict both the truth and himself. His whole side of Rhetorick following (at which I must confesse he is good) will not help him where Logick and Divinity fail him. Therefore I let those flourishes passe.

‘Fifthly, I endeavour my utmost de jure that all come prepared. Mr. Drake. This self encomium is unseemly, false, proud, [Page 224] dangerous. M ^r. Humphrey, Upon this he re­viles me two or three pages.’

Ans. 1. How can there here be reviling when I speak. 1. no more than the truth, 2. ground what I say upon his own expresse terms, he professing he endeavours his utmost de jure (and that in a series of actions, if he have administred the Sacrament often) 3 ly. since I say no more of him than I may warrantably say of the God­liest man under Heaven, if he dare make such a boast of himself. Let the pious Reader peruse what I say of this matter, page 92. 94. of my Bar, and judge whither it's a piece of reviling, or a necessary, though sharp reproof. I hope, with­out offence, I may propound one question to M ^r. Humphrey, & leave it upon his conscience. Dare he professe, and stand upon it before Christ at the day of Judgement; That he hath endeavoured his utmost de jure that all come pre­pared: If not, let him acknowledge D ^r. Drake, is his friend, not his reviler, in so seasonable and necessary a reproof; Yet further to clear him­self, pag. 125. Mr. Humphrey hath these words, To exhort men to examine themselves, and to warn them of the danger of neglecting their duty, is all the Minister can do de jure; which Mr. Drake himself grants, where there is no Presby­tery.

Ans. If by that exhortation and warning he mean onely publick exhortation and warning (which to me seems more than probable) this is not all a Ministers duty de jure; what ever a pri­vate Christian, as such is bound to, that much more a Minister is bound to: but private Chri­stians [Page 225] are bound to exhort, and warn each other, Heb. 3. 13. & 1 Thes. 5. 14. besides the example of the Apostle, who like a good Minister, did not onely teach the people publickly, but also from house to house, Acts 20. 20. made conscience to visit his people to see how they did, Acts 15. 36. or in his own necessary absence could not for­bear to visit them by a Deputy (besides his fre­quent writing to them) 1 Thes. 3. v. 1. & 5. sure­ly in all these endeavours the Apostle did no work of supererogation. And if he did thus, upon whom lay the care of all the Churches, 2 Cor. 11. 28. what should not we endeavour, who are burdened onely with the especial care of one Congregation? Let me be bold to ask, Mr. Humphrey. Hath he endeavoured to put all his intelligent Church-members upon the Test. (especially in these apostatizing times) that he might know their faith? as 1 Thes. 3. 5. hath he visited them, or exhorted & warned each of them personally, hath he offered to assist them in order to self and Christ discovery? Doth he Catechise the ignorant, either in publick, or in private, that thereby they might both get, and grow in knowledge, &c. or doth he offer him­self to each of them to do for their Souls these, or the like Offices of Pastoural love? If he say, he doth not think himself bound to this, let him take heed he be not mistaken, since such a mi­stake (especially if avowed) may prove very dangerous, both to himself and to his people. Besides, then his profession might have run in these terms with far lesse offence. I endeavour what I apprehend to be my uttermost, de jure. [Page 226] that all may come prepared. But to say, I en­deavour my utmost de jure, is (in my poor ap­prehension) to say I indeavour as much as Gods command in its rigour requires of me; which expression seems to me very haughty and arro­gant, though it fell from the mouth of a Paul, or Timothy. Doth M ^r. Humphrey know (or the learnedst Clerk in the vvorld) the utmost bounds of any command de jure, I mean as to the matter required in it, besides the degree and circumstances injoyned? See Psal. 119. 96. And can he indeavour what he doth not know? If he could, that were but blinde obedience. I do not charge him to say, He doth his utmost; but for him to say, He indeavours his utmost, and yet in the same particular to confesse his Omis­sions, is as much as to say, He endeavours his utmost, and yet endeavours not his utmost. Is Mr. Humphrey guilty of omitting no endeavour? Or are not endeavours actions as well, though not as much, as compleat Acts? He wrongs me in reporting, pag. 125. That I say, ‘that all the Mi­nister can do (where there is no Presbytery) is exhortation and warning.’ I believe, a Mini­ster unpresbyterated, ought to try his people himself, and where he findes any ignorant, scan­dalous, or wilfull refusers, he may suspend his own act of giving such the Sacrament, though he cannot suspend them juridically. I believe fur­ther, That every Minister ought to endeavour much more then he knows, and therefore by consequence much more then he doth actually endeavour. Indeed, pag. 47. of my Bar I say, ‘That I humbly conceive, that where no Pres­bytery [Page 227] is setled, that Minister may clear his own Soul, if he do particularly perswade and warne an unworthy Church-member. Se­condly, That he cannot juridically, either ad­mit, or suspend such a person;’ and I hope I am not mistaken in holding, That no Minister unpresbyterated can admit, or suspend any per­son juridically. But I never said, That such a Minister might not suspend his own Act of gi­ving the Sacrament to such a person; which else­where I call Pastoral suspension. This I am for­ced to add, because I perceive Mr. Humphrey is so prone to mistake, both me and himself: and that through Gods assistance I might be a poor instrument to discover to him more pride in these expressions then haply he was aware of. If this be malicious reviling, the Lord send me store of such malicious Revilers.

Sixthly, Mr. Humphrey, pag. 126. I humbly ‘confesse all our sins, desiring true repentance, and a pardon for all our Omissions. This M ^r. Drake cannot but approve in me, but would have you note here a contradiction. If Mr. Humphrey have done his utmost de jure, what need he desire pardon for his Omissi­ons?’ Mr. Humphrey, I answer for my failings, de facto in particular, though I should have done in general what de jure I ought to do; which yet I dare not assume to my self without flying to Gods mercie.

Answ. 1. Note here, Mr. Humphrey confes­ses he fails de facto, both in general and particu­lar. Secondly, This granted, evidenceth that Mr. Humphrey doth not endeavour his utmost [Page 228] de jure, since he fails particularly in that en­deavour de facto, to which by vertue of the pre­cept he was bound de jure, the precept binding not onely to all compleat acts, but also to all possible endeavours. Is it not a contradiction to say, I endeavour my utmost de jure, yet fail in my endeavour de facto? Dares Mr. H. say and stand by it, That he hath endeavoured his ut­most de jure, in that very particular wherein (by his own confession) he fail'd of doing his duty de facto? If he can say so truely, I dare say he is the best man that ever trod upon Gods ground, excepting our blessed Saviour, and our first Pa­rents in innocency. I beseech you, Sir, as you love your own Soul, take heed of pleading innocency where conscience cannot but cry guilty: We acknowledge your charge, That when we have done all we can, we are but un­profitable servants; yea, though we had done (which is impossible in statu quo) the uttermost de jure, both as to endeavour & compleat Act. But is not he unprofitable also (if not much more) who sayes he hath endeavoured all, or his utter­most de jure, and yet at the same time falls short of endeavouring that which they perform de facto, who confesse they fall short even of en­deavouring in any one particular of all their lives, their utmost de jure? Are not righteous endeavours part of righteousnesse, and doth not the Prophet expresly say, Isai 64. 6. That our righteousnesse; yea, our righteousnesses; yea, all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and can Mr. Humphrey say he hath endeavoured his ut­most de jure in any one particular? If so, then [Page 229] that endeavour is perfect, and so not an unclean rag: and Mr. Humphrey can bring somewhat that is perfectly clean (namely an endeavour that is perfect de jure) out of that which is un­clean, an extraction, I believe, too high for any mortal. Sure I am, Job was of another minde, Job 14. 4. and the Apostle, Rom. 7. 21. Doth not sin dwelling in me, oppose and refract my pious endeavours as well as my compleat actions? then sin hinders in every thing, (not as to the doing of my endeavour in sincerity, but) evermore as to the doing of my utmost endeavour de jure. I shall close with this friendly Item, That Mr. Humphrey will gain neither comfort nor honour, either with God, or man, in persisting to avow, that he endeavours his utmost de jure in any one particular. He may fancie what he please of me; but, if I know my own heart, it is not malice, but love to his Soul makes me herin so plain with him. To what he adds, pag. 127. by way of vindication, I answer briefly. 1. There is no necessity to admit all. Secondly, There are other wayes to do them good by be­sides receiving. Thirdly, Hope depends upon faith, and faith upon a promise of doing good. St. Paul sayes, He that eats and drinks unwor­thily, eats and drinks judgement to himself, Mr. Humphrey hopes the contrary. Whom shall we believe, St. Paul, or Mr. Humphrey?

In the close, pag. 128. He reflects upon me as boasting, because I say of the Godly Presbyte­rians (of which number I hope I am, though most unworthy) ‘That they go beyond him in their care and endeavour to fit all sorts for [Page 230] the Sacrament.’ And to make this expression the more odious. 1. He brings me in (against the very Letter of my Text) speaking so of my self in the first person singular. Secondly, As saying, that I far exceed him in fitting all sorts for the Sacrament. Whereas 1. I expresse it in the first person plural. 2. Say that we go be­yond him in our actual care and indeavour to fit all sorts. Is there no difference between fit­ting all sorts and endeavour to fit them? Yet withall I add. 1. That we fall exceeding short in the very point of endeavour de jure. I hope my Preesbyterian brethren will not think I lay vile expressions upon them in so saying, how­ever Mr. Humphrey charge me so for averring, and proving that he hath not endeavoured his utmost de jure to prepare his people, &c.

M ^r. Humphrey, Ibid. Let our consciences bo free, our scruples, &c. healed, and I have done. Ans. I beseech you Sir, what scruple is there in making a profession of your faith before any? What snare of conscience when we presse you to nothing that is against conscience? Did we indeed urge you to acknowledge, that Presby­terian Governement is of divine right, or 2. That trial before the Presbyterie is built upon jus divinum, or else would not admit you; then might you well complain we lay snares for your consciences, &c. We indeed professe our judge­ment for both in the affirmative; but we binde not any person under trial to be of our judge­ment herein. Yea, before trial (if he please) let him professe his judgement in the negative; that shall be no bar to our admitting him, provided [Page 231] be not ignorant or scandalous. Nor shall pro­fession of assent with us about the jus divinum of Presbyterian Governement and Sacramental tryal open the door for any, that upon tryal or otherwise are found ignorant or scandalous. We enquire not whither men submit to tryal in point of prudence or of conscience: Our great enquiry is, whither they be Evangelically wor­thy; or have that competency of knowledge and vacancy from scandal which makes them vi­sibly so: and we think it our duty to bid such, and onely such, wellcome in the name of Christ.

Sect. XII.

M ^r. Humphrey in his free admission propounds the command as an argument to prove that all must receive. In my Bar I answer, Christ did not command all to receive, and instance in Marke, Luke, Nathaniel, &c. What sayes Mr. Humphrey to this pag. 124. of his rejonder.

‘M ^r. Humphrey. Christ did not command all to receive, because Marke, Luke and Na­thaniel were not there; Is not this pretty?’ Ans. I leave prettines to Mr. Humphrey, which appears (as else where) so in this pretty answer. But I pray, Sir, Had Christ intended (as you pretend) to make this first administration a president for universall receiving, had it not bin easy for him to have commanded all his Disciples (whithet sincere or hypocriticall) either to re­ceive with himself or in their particular meetings and families, as himself, did immediatly after the Passe-over? This Christ did not: nay he did not so much as invite those Jewes who were in the house to receive with him, who yet were [Page 232] Church-members as well as the Apostles. Hence we conclude; that Christs commanding his A­postles to receive is no warrant for all Disciples to receive pel-mell. He that commanded them before hand to meet him at Galilee, Math. 26. 32. compare Math. 28. 7.10. and 1 Cor. 15. 6. could have commanded them before hand to celebrate this Sacrament immediately after the Passe­over, had he pleased.

Pag. 25. Of his vindication M ^r. Humphrey uses an argument for free Admission drawn ‘from the good of comming namely conver­sion of the unregenerate.’ In my Bar pag. 98. I deny the Sacrament to be a means of initiall conversion. M ^r. Humphrey in his Rejoinde [...] pag. 125. returns. This arguing is palbably weak, (besides the matter untrue) Is it not the unre­generate mans duty because it will not convert him? As though it were mans benefit were the ground of duty, and not Gods precept.

Ans. 1. Here M. Humphrey failes a little in his Logicke, mistaking an answer for an argu­ment. Mr. Humphrey himself argued affirma­tively from mans benefit to his duty, thus, the Sacrament is a means of conversion, ergo, The unregenerate must receive. I deny the minor, which being not proved by M ^r. Humphrey the conclusion falls as to that bottom. Who sees not that here I am not the opponent but the re­spondent, and that it lies upon M ^r. Humphrey to prove the Sacrament (as to it's receiving, for otherwise we hinde [...] none from comming) to be a converting ordinance. But because he re­ferres that to an other place, I shall also referre my answer.

[Page 233]Secondly, Had I argued on the negative, Theres no Spirituall benefit in such an act, Ergo it's no duty, the argument had bin firme enough being founded upon divine grace which hath inseparably united divine glory and mans Spi­rituall good in every duty; whence it followes strongly, that if no Spirituall good can accrew by such an act to such a person, then that act is not the duty of that person. Understand me here of persons under Spirituall cure; and withall that this Argument reaches not the [...] but onely the [...].

For the instance of Judas; It seems I cannot satisfy, M ^r. Humpbrey, nor he me; nor is it much material whither Judas did eat or not. There­fore I passe it. But where he adds in the same page, For 1 Corint. 11. It's manifest, after St. Paul had convinced the Corinths of their un­worthines, yet their comming together he approves, and that not to look on, but to eat. v. 33.

Ans. 1. That the Apostle reproved their un­worthy receiving is evident: that he allowed none to look on but receivets, or any to receive but persons Evangelically worthy is not evi­dent; the verse quoted proves no such matter, but shewes that when persons come to eat they must observe order. Is it probable the Apostle should condemne receiving unworthily and yet allow receiving though unworthily? If receiving, though unworthily, be allowable, then let per­sons jure excommunicate receive, for they can but receive unworthily.

Pag. 130. M ^r. Humphrey charges me with two Schisms. and 1. For saying that an unre­generate [Page 234] man must examine himself and so ab­stein. Ans. I say no such thing, if examination be taken in the Apostles sence for the whole worke of preparation and as oppsed to unwor­thynes in the next vers. 1 Cor. 12. 28, 29 The end of examination being self discovery and refor­mation, these two last must needs be included in it. Let an unregenerate man thus examine himself and I am confident he is bound to re­ceive; so far am I from seperating between such examination and receiving. Mr. Humphrey. Nay Mr. D. sayes, he most be present too, but not eat; which is an other Schisme in the Actions. Ans. I believe all may be present without sin, 1. Be­cause I finde no prohibition to the contrary, Secondly, because they may receive good by presence, which inclimes me to believe presence is a duty here, as at Baptisme. Yet herein I dare not be so peremptory as in the other branch, that all must not eat. When Mr. Humphrey can make out an inseparable union between presence and receiving then I shall be ready both to con­fesse and reforme the Schisme he charges me withall: till then he must excuse me. But whereas Mr. Humphrey charges me with slander as af­firming I say, Let a man eat though he do not examine himself. Ans. I do not remember nor can finde this passage in this paragraph, yet haply elswhere I may have expressed as much and believe it's far from slander, yea should be very glad were I mistaken therein. I shall there­fore put it to this issue. Either Mr. Humphrey is of the minde the a man must eat though be do not examine himself: or he is of the contrary [Page 235] minde, for between two contradictions there is no middle. If he be of the former minde then I have not slandered him. If he be of the contra­ry mind then he is of our judgement, That self-examination abstractedly taken is not enough to vvarrant receiving. To evidence this, let us compare the two propositions. 1. Prop. Let a man eat, though he do not examine him­self. 2. Prop. Let not a man eat unlesse he do examine himself. If the former be not his judgement, then the latter must needs be his judgement, it being contradictory to the for­mer, and so Master Humphrey is of judge­ment that a man must not eat unlesse he do examine himself; namely when he either doth not examine himself at all, or upon examina­tion he findes himself Evangelically unwor­thy; the end of examination being not one­ly, or principally, discovery, but reformati­on which therefore must needs be included in Apostolick examination. He that tryes one­ly in order to discovery had as good not try at all; yea, such tryal will aggravate his judge­ment, and make him more inexcusable as sin­ning against conviction, James 4. 17. If now I have slandered Mr. Humphrey, as I am sor­ry for the material slander, though unwitting­ly done; so I am not a little glad he is more of our judgement in this particular then I for­merly took him to be. But be it what it will, he must either clear me of slander, or accuse him­self of errour. Yet withall, let me be bold to tell Mr. Humphrey, That he, who sayes, let all re­ceive, must by necessary consequence say, let [Page 236] those Church-members receive, who do not ex­amine themselves, unlesse he can make it out that all Church-members do make conscience of examining themselves.

‘Dr. Drake, The Sacrament must not be attended on as the word (understand it as to actual receiving) in order to conversion but to edification.’

Mr. Humphrey, pag. 131. we must not receive this doctrine without Scripture, which will wholly dispeople this Ordinance.

Ans. 1. I hope, in due place Mr. Humphrey wants not for Scripture proof.

Secondly, In the mean time, is not Mr. Hum­phrey too uncharitable (as to many other so par­ticularly) to his own Congregation in his sad Prophecy? If the Sacrament must be quite dis­peopled, unlesse it be a means of conversion, them belike Mr. Humphrey, hath no communi­cants, but such as receive in order to initial con­version. If so then there is not one Godly person in all Mr. Humphrey his Parish, or a­mongst all his receivers: A censure so unchari­table that I dare not passe it for a world: but hope that among his Communicants there are some who partake in order to edification, I mean that are truely Godly, and receive for growth in grace and comfort.

Mr. Humphrey, Pag. 131. The Sacrament is not insti­tuted to convert Heathen, for the word is not a sealed word unto them.

Answ. 1. By way of Concession. Truely if it be not instituted to convert any. 1. Neither is it instituted to convert Heathen; Yet second­ly, [Page 237] Prayer and preaching two necessary atten­dants upon the Sacrament are instituted to con­vert Heathen as well as any. Thirdly, That a means of conversion should universally be denyed to any, who need conversion, is a Do­ctrine we cannot receive without Scripture. Fourthly, That the word is not a sealed word unto Heathen is soon said, but not so easily proved; cannot a priviledge be sealed to me Is not this pro­position (whoso­ever be­lieves shall be saved) a branch of the revealed Covenant? Secondly, It is not sealed at the Sacra­ment? Suppose now an Heathen stand by at the the Lords Supper, Is the forementioned propositioned sealed to him conditionally, or not? If it be, we have enough. If not, then the Sacrament doth not seal, that the aforesaid proposition is true [...]; and so the seal is not as extensive as the writing: for the Covenant sayes, all that believe shall be saved, but the seal, belike, assures onely, that all Church members that believe shall be saved. unlesse I eat the seals? Indeed onely some few are fit to eat and drink the seals; but who may not hear the Covenant proclaimed, and see it sealed at the Sacrament, yea, to himself in particular conditionally, whither he be a Chri­stian, or an Heathen, whither he receive, or not?

Mr. Humphrey, Pag. 132. Forbearance of the Passe over was allowed to none but for a moneth.

Answ. 1. This is grat is dictum; what if a person were unclean not onely at the first, but also at the second Passe-over, was he bound to receive the second Passe-over, though never so unclean? Indeed, if a man were clean, and brought not the Lords offering he ran a great hazzard; but where is he threatned that forbore, because he was unclean at the second Passe-over? [Page 238] Then belike even Lepers ought to eat the Passe­over in the second month. Yet secondly, our case is far better, we having eight or twelve Sa­craments every year; and he who is unclean at this Sacrament may receive the next month, or six weeks, if the fault be not his own.

‘Mr. Humphrey, ib. His exceptions against the parable, Math. 22. are vain things. Those that murdered the servants were part of them that were invited, and not to be opposed; for the contempt of the feast is the main businesse intended, as appears by Luke 14. where no­thing else is mentioned.’

Ans. 1. I make no exception against the Parable, but against Mr. Humphrey his wresting of it.

Secondly, True, all those who murdered the Servants were invited to the wedding feast, but were they invited to the Sacrament? Then Heathen were invited as well as any. Herod murdered one of the servants, Acts 12. 1.2. Was he invited to the Sacrament?

Thirdly, If the contempt of the feast be the main business intended, then the higher the contempt the greater the unworthynes; but such was the contempt of those Murderers who therefore were excluded by the command of the Master, Luke 14. 24. My exceptions then were not so vain as Mr. Humphrey makes them.

To his two questions I answer; to the first, All refusers are unworthy of Gods Ordinances, but I hope he will not count all absteyners re­fusers.

[Page 239]To the second, 1. No ungenerate person comes to the Sacrament as preparedly as he can, yea too many make little conscience even of naturall preparation.

Secondly, There is no totall omission on the Christians part if he prepare for and attend upon the Sacrament, but is denied actuall re­ceiving (whither justly or unjustly) by Church-Officers: See Mr. H. his Rejoyn­der 131. or if he forbear at present out of an holy jealousy of self unworthines, so he resolve through grace on better preparation against the next Sacrament.

Thirdly, in divers cases better leave the mat­ter undone than to fail in the manner.

‘Dr. Drake, pag. 102. In opposition to Mr. Humphrey, It is neither a certain duty on the Ministers part to admit all, nor on the peoples part for all to receive, &c.’

Mr. Humphrey, pag. 132. Let Mr. Drake take heed how he is carried through opposition, least in opposing M ^r. Humphrey he directly op­pose the command of Christ. He grants pag. 47. That, where there is no Governement settled, the Minister by a due forewarning may clear his soul, but how sadly doth he revers this here, and weap himself again in a fatall cloud? for if it be not his duty it must be his sin, there is no medium for his excuse.

Ans. 1. I pray Sir, next time be more care­full in transcribing my words right, and do not wrong first my text and then my self. I bear no Spirit of opposition to your person, but desire to hate errour and love truth in you, in my self and in every one else.

[Page 240]Secondly, It smells strongly of perversnesse that he charges me as directly opposing the command of Christ, when at the same time (if it be an opposition) him self takes the same li­berty. Christ sayes drink ye all of it. Mr. Hum­phrey sayes all here must be limited to intelli­gent Church-members and to persons not jure excommunicate; we say it must be limited to Church-members that are Evangelically wor­thy. Mr. Humphrey in the same breath (as it were) cryes up his own limitation and cryes down ours. Hath Mr. Humphrey an especial priviledge from heaven to limit Christs uni­versalls? If he have, let us see his Commis­sion.

Thirdly, should I revers what he charges me to say pag. 47. Supposing it erroneous, Mr. Humphrey should rather be glad than sad at such a reversment.

Fourthly, I see more need of a candid inter­pretation on Mr. Humphrey his part, than of a reversment on my part. ‘True, I say there, that I humbly conceive that the Minister may clear his own soul (where there is no Church-governement settled) if he perswade or fore­warn one that is visibly unworthy not to receive, but hath no juridicall power either to admit or keep him back.’ But did I there say, the Minister had no Pastourall power, or that he had no power to suspend his own Act? If a drunkard, &c. after admonition will rush upon the Sacrament, let him take it at his own perill; I do not think the Minister is bound either on the one hand to drive him from the Table or on the [Page 241] other hand to deliver him the Sacrament. The Minister then doth neither admit nor suspend him juridically; but suspends onely his own Act. If a Minister by his Pastourall power (where no Governement is settled) may admit all that are visibly worthy, then he may be the same power suspend those who are visibly unworthy; that is, he may deny to give them the Elements. The Logicians tell us that Contrariorum est ea­dem [...]. He that hath power to admit hath so far power to suspend. Here then, by M ^r. Hum­phrey his leave is a medium. It's neither my du­ty to admit a drunkard, that is to give him the Elements, nor is it my sin to permit him to re­ceive; that is to let him take the Elements him­self. Is not permission a medium between ad­mission and suspension. A Minister unpresby­terated can neither admit nor suspend, but may permit. He can neither admit nor suspend ju­ridically, but may do both Pastourally. Worthy Church-members he must both admit and in­courage, unworthy ones he may permit to re­ceive, but must discourage from receiving in statu quo. He hath no juridicall and coactive power, but hath a Pastourall and disswasive power.

Mr. Humphrey, pag. 133. For his distin­ction of mediately and immediatly; he should have forborn the wound and saved his Salve; for there is none that denies but that every man is to exa­mine himself and prepare as well as come.

Answ. I perceive M. Humphrey is resolved to cut me out work enough; otherwise he would not have inserted such trivial exceptions. [Page 242] Yet, he is so charitable towards me as to think I make conscience of being at the cost of a Salve where I have wounded any.

But, I pray, where is the wound? My words pag. 102. Of my bar are these, ‘It's neither a certain duty on the Ministers part to admit all, nor on the peoples part for all to receive; unles you understand it mediately; as the get­ting of assurance is a duty lies upon all; yet not immediately, but first they must get true grace the ground of assurance. So all must come to the Sacrament, but first they must be pre­pared, All must be admitted to receive, but first they must he visibly worthy.’

Will Mr. Humphrey say, it's the Ministers du­ty to admit all Church-members without limi­tation, or that it's the duty of all to receive immediately? Do not his own limitations per­claim the contrary? If therefore any wound be given, Mr. Humphrey is as truely guilty thereof as my self; But it seems, by his own coufession, I am more carefull to being a Salve to cure it than he is.

Mr. Humphrey, Ibid. But whereas he holds a man should examine and prepare himself (sup­pose as well as he can) yet if they judge him not visibly worthy he must not be admitted: And if he judges not himself really worthy, for his own part, he must not eat; he has stretched a line of di­vision over the Church, a plummet of lead on weak consciences, and wiped the Sacrament as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it and turning it up side down in wiping.

Answ. Some are notable at Cyclopick Divi­nity, [Page 243] let the Reader judge whither M. Humphrey be not excellent at Cyclopick Rhetorick, which in stead of illustrating doth obscure his sense and make it ambiguous could we not guesse at his meaning by his mewing. Grammer and Lo­gicke had bin here more usefull than Rbeto­ricke. Doth not the word stretch a linse of di­vision over the Church? See Jerem. 15. 19. Doth it not stretch a plummet on weak consciences? but to regulate them, not to crush them. The Sacrameut indeed is the Dish, Christ the meat in that dish; should not the handmaids of wis­dom wipe her dishes clean on all sides so far as lies in their power, that is, purge and keep pure this and other Ordinances? If his meaning be, that by Sacramentall triall we cause sinfull division, wound the consciences of the weak or grieve them, and make the Sacrament a nullity; this, first is false: Secondly a new dressing of what is elsewhere answered. I pray Sir, be not offended, that we dare not make the Table of the Lord contemptible, that we dare bring no bread to the Lords Table but such, as, upon grounds of charity, we apprehend to be Shew-Bread, Malach 1. v. 7. and 12.

I wonder therefore Mr. Humphrey so forgets himself, pag. 133. as to charge me bitterly with censoriousnesse, but for noting his censorious­nesse. To which I briefly answer:

1. What need I quote Chapter and verse in a place so well known, and quoted by him­self?

Secondly, That I charge him with censuring us in a Rhetorical way, did I not therein say the [Page 244] very truth, unlesse Interrogation be no part of Rhetorick? Doth not M. Humphrey turn the Apostles assertion into an Interrogation, and is that no part of Rhetorick?

Thirdly, Did I frame any interpretation, but what his words must of necessity carry, unless he will have them speak non sense? He findes fault with us for doing evil that good may come; what is that evil, but want of free Admission, the very same with Suspension in a negative sense? That this is the evil Mr. Humphrey charges us withall is evident, both by the context, and by the whole scope of his book. Let the Reader now judge whither I frame an interpretation, or speak Mr. Humphrey his genuine sense. That Suspension is not a sin, but a duty hath been elsewhere proved; nor are we ashamed, Sir, that you charge us with Suspension as our Act and practice, but think you do us wrong by charging us with this practice as a sin. The Act we confesse concerns us, but the guilt must rest upon him, who charges guilt wrongfully. Is not he censorious, who charges me with a sin I am not guilty of? Yet that nothing may be want­ing in point of censoriousnesse, Mr. Humphrey, pag. 134. charges me with spight for forgiving him and praying for him. Lord, how doth pas­sion, and prejudice blinde a man to interpret the preatest acts of charity a plece of spight and malice?

Sir, I finde not fault with the terms of giving, or humbly committing your reasons; but that you mistake weight for number, and think you give them by weight, when you give or humbly [Page 245] commit them onely by number. For a farewell, Mr. Humphrey, 1. Tells me, I rail at his Argu­ments, Secondly, Takes his leave with a scoff. Thirdly, To sharpen his Sarcasme abuses Scri­pture, and so concludes the first part of his Re­joynder, whither with that piety and charity be­comes a Brother and a Minister, I leave it to in­different judgements.

Sect. I.

IN the beginning of his second Part, though Mr. H. hesitate about the ac­count of our practice in the matter of Excommu­nication, yet since he is so charitable as to acknow­ledge it may be fair, I can­not but look at it as a good beginning in order to a right understanding, and hopes of an happy close. I shall therefore proceed to that wherein we more palpably differ.

‘D ^r. D. p. 107. of his Bar. In his description [Page 274] of Church-censures Mr. H. omits their main end, which is, the amendment of the party cen­sured.’

Mr. H. p. 146. of his Rejoynder. I express it just over the leaf as soon as it is to purpose. Ans. In dispute, and only by the way, I note your description of Church-censures as defective. Lo­gicians tell us that Finis is a necessary ingredient in our description of an action, the end being essential to the moral goodness of actions. This end, Sir, you omit in your description of Church-censures, which your mentioning in the next leaf will not salve. Therefore, by your leave, I was neither blind nor cruel in censuring, unless the Respondents discovery of the faylures of his Opponent against the rules of Logick be malice and blindness; and if so, then a Disputant, because he acts rationally in order to the conviction of his Adversary, is blind and malicious. In this I allude on­ly to his own story. Such Logick is fitter for St. Albans executioner, than for a Scholar or a Divine.

Next, he blames me for extending Church­censures to ignorant persons, or to any other wilful sinners; Yet in the same place grants some Church-censures belong to such, but not suspension or excommunication. Ans. Sir, I extend not Church-censures to ignorant persons simply, but to persons wilfully ignorant: And till Mr. H. can prove such ignorance and wilfulness is not a great and scandalous sin, he doth ill to censure me for saying they deserve a Church­censure, yea some degrees of excommunication if persisted in. If this doctrine would soon leave him destitute of Church-members, as himself confesses, p. 147. Surely his Church is in a very [Page 275] lamentable condition, whose members are (it seems) not only grosly ignorant, but also wilfully ignorant. I do not charge them to be so, but only shew them what a slur their own Ministers argument casts upon them.

Mr. H. ib. Dr. D. challenges all the world to shew him proof that persons excommunicated may not be present at any publick Ordi­nance, &c. If he think so learnedly of himself, let him send his challenge to Dr. Hammond, &c.

Ans. I know far better than Mr. H. or any other, that I have great reason to think very meanly of my self, nor will I stand to justifie the manner of expression, which yet had its mitiga­tion or allay, would Mr. H. have pleased to take notice thereof, my challenge being only in order to Scripture-proof. by which I still beleeve it cannot be made out, that an excommunicated per­son ought to be kept from all publick Ordinan­ces; yea, the Scripture seems to favour the con­trary. I dare not compare with that learned Clerk he mentions, or with any other that bears the name of a Scholar or Divine, nor desire to expa­tiate in controversies, which I look at as the shell, not the kernel of Divinity: Nor was I, or am I acted with malice in coping with Mr. H. in this unhappy controversie which himself (among others whom I honour in the Lord) started against the votes and judgement of a Parliament, assisted by an Assembly of very pious, orthodox, and learned Divines, to the general sadning of eminently godly persons in the Nations, who looked at the Presbyterian Government, and the exercise of it in this particular, for the substance thereof, as [Page 276] most consonant to the rule, as the fruit of many prayers that have long hung upon the file in hea­ven; and as the great Instrument under Christ to extirpate Ignorance, Errour, Prophaneness, Schism, &c. and therefore opposed by some ma­liciously, by others through weakness and pre­judice, in which last rank I place Mr. H. however he look at me as malicious. If the Lord shall bless my poor endeavours to convince him, I shall think it abundantly worth my pains, though it bee to me a troublesome work in the midst of other weighty avocations. However, I shall submit the issue to God, and sit down in peace, that I have sin­cerely, though weakly endeavoured to do my duty; and hope some body will be the better by this poor peece, though it must expect to meet with much contempt and opposition.

Mr. H.p. 147. I shall propose him only that one Text, Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs: Excommunicated persons are generally interpreted to be dogs and swine; the word and prayer are holy things as well as the Sacrament (which yet was not instituted when this precept was first given, and so cannot hee primarily intended here) Ergo.

Ans. 1. All excommunicated persons are not dogs. Even godly men upon just ground may be excommunicated; and I hope children are not dogs.

2 All dogs are not to be denied holy things. Heathen are dogs, Matth. 15. v. 22. 26, 27. yet may be admitted to the word preached, 1 Cor. 14. 24.

3 Some persons within the Church are dogs, yet must not be denied the Sacrament, if upon trial [Page 277] it appear they have competent knowledge, and no scandal be objected or proved against them; the Church in censures being bound to proceed, Secundum allegata & probata.

4 Therefore we must distinguish of dogs: Some are dogs really, but not visibly; such are na­tural persons undiscovered, (these with due pro­visions) can be denied no Ordinance. Others are dogs both really and visibly; Such are Heathen, who must not be denied the Crums, though they may not sit with Children at the Table. Others are scornful, and malicious dogs, and therefore are in an especial manner unworthy of any Ordi­nance, and so far as they are visible must be de­nied

1 The pearl of private reproof more parti­cularly there intended by our Saviour, who for­bids private judging of any, and private reproof of some, unless it be for others sake.

2 They must be denied that holy thing the Sacrament, which (as the Cabinet of that pearl of price) they sleight visibly. But as for publick prayers and preaching (unless they be publick Affronters and disturbers of the very exercises of these Ordinances, which are means of their con­version, and which do not so much irritate their spleen, as being not particularly and personally applied against them) I see no warrant of Scrip­ture to thrust any dog from them, unless it bee known he have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. In this sense Mr. Perkins his Com­ment upon Matth. 7. 6. I cordially subscribe to, That such dogs as do publickly blaspheme and vent their heresies against the truth, at the very time when it is delivered, are to be forced away [Page 278] from the publick Ordinances, or separated from, if the Church want co-active power ( Act. 13. v. 45, 46, 50, 51. where you have both the bark­ing, and the tearing dog) as well as they must bee denied private reproof (at least for their own sakes) where they scoff at, and oppose it private­ly. This rule our Saviour seems to explain Matth. 18. v. 15-17. where the remedy rises up gradually with the malady, and neglecting to hear is a degree of Swinish-trampling. But little doth Mr. H. think how he hath prejudiced his own cause by this quotation of Reverend Mr. Perkins, pag. 148. especially where in a Paren­thesis, he bids the Reader (Mark that) Mr. Perkins his words quoted there by Mr. H. are these:

‘Indeed, if the party be excommunicated for some particular crime, &c. then although he be excluded from communion in the Sacrament and Prayer (Mark that) yet may he be ad­mitted to hear the word to help him to repent, which is the end of all Church-censures.’

Is not Mr. Perkins here clear that some per­sons excommunicated, yet may be admitted to the word preached, and that in order to their con­version? And what is our suspension in the rigor of it, but an excommunication from the Sacra­ment, with an admission at the same time to the word preached? Mr. Perkins then is a profest friend to suspension, which is also beholding to Mr. H. for affording it so honourable a testimony. You will say, I but Mr. Perkins excludes such from prayer also. Ans. True, and probably be­cause he looked not at prayer as a converting Or­dinance, which had he done, its not likely he [Page 279] would have been against presence either at Word, Prayer, or Sacrament, by which all that are cure­able, may receive good, although they do not actually receive the elements.

5 If the Sacrament be not primarily in­tended here, because this precept was given be­fore the Lords Supper was instituted; no more was it primarily intended in the wedding feast, Matth. 22. upon the same account; which yet Mr. H. builds upon as a bottome for free ad­mission. Its enough for our purpose, First, That the Sacrament is an holy thing.

Secondly, That by Mr. H. his own grant, its to be denied to some dogs, to whom other holy things are not to be denied, namely, hea­then, and persons jure excommunicated, to which last at least he yeelds it may be denied.

Thirdly, That upon Scripture-ground it is to be denied to some dogs within the Church, yea to real children. But neither must holy things, nor dogs be understood universally, which both the manner of expression, and our Saviours reason hint sufficiently, where a pearl is, First, cast away; Secondly, exposed to contempt; Thirdly, exposes the giver to danger, there its not to be tendered caeteris paribus. An indefinite Proposition is not equivalent to an universal, unless in materiâ ne­cessariâ. He that sayes absolutely, No holy thing must be given to any dog, doth not only sin against faith, as corrupting the Text, but also against charity, as cutting off innumerable persons from all means of conversion.

His distinction p. 148. of real & relative exclusion is pithy, pertinent, and well express'd, and may do very much to compound our controversie, if passion [Page 280] and prejudice were on both hands laid aside. We grant;

First, That an heathen, or excommunicated person, hath no relative interest in any publick Or­dinance, the former being no Church-member, the latter being cut off from Church-member­ship.

Secondly, That all Church-members have both a real and relative interest in all Ordinances in actu primo, or signato, but not in actu secun­do or exercito, as a Jew, or a Priest, had right to holy things, but might not at all times act that right, namely, if he were unclean, &c. And if their uncleanness were perpetual, they might for ever be secluded from holy things, as in the case of leprosie, &c. 2 Chr. 26. 21. Proportionably sus­pension is no bar either to real or relative interest, but only with-holds the actual injoyment of that interest till the party interested be actually fit for that injoyment (at least visibly) which otherwise would prejudice, but not benefit him. The point of difference between us, and Mr. H. is not real or relative interest, but actual injoyment of that interest, and that only too as to actual re­ceiving in the Sacrament.

Mr. H. pag. 149. I hold a man is to be de­barred actual receiving by excommunication. Mr. Drake will have him to be debarred with­out it.

Ans. I pray Sir, forget not your self, Do not you hold persons jure excommunicated, may be debarred actual receiving? Consult page 21. of your Rejoynder. I hope persons jure excom­municated are not actually excommunicated; therefore Mr. H. will have some intelligent [Page 281] Church-members debarred actual receiving, be­fore actual excommunication, and what is this but suspension? May Mr. H. distinguish between excommunication ipso jure & de facto, and may not I distinguish between receiving ipso jure, & de facto. Grant all Church-members as such, may be receivers ipso jure so they be not receivers de facto, we shall soon put an issue to this controversie with Mr. H. Is there not an admission de jure & de facto, as well as an excommunication de jure & de facto? A person excommunicated de jure, but not de facto, is as truly a Church-member as a person admitted de jure, but not de facto; and if the former may be suspended, notwithstanding his Church-membership, I pray why not the latter?

By this collation it further appears, That Church-membership even in intelligent persons, is not the adequate reason of actual receiving. A person ipso jure excommunicate, is still externally in Covenant (in Mr. H. his sense) as being a Church-member, and yet may be debarred the external seal thereof; witness Mr. H. pag. 21, 22. of his Rejoynder; when Mr. H. can untie this Riddle of his own making, he will teach us to untie the Riddle he puts upon us page 150. where likewise he sayes, but proves not, That excluding men from the Sacrament doth not bind or retain their sins. This is false, if ap­plied to Juridical suspension, or Pastoral suspension, in some cases.

Somewhat he would bring there like an ar­gument from a mis-understanding of Matth. 1619 as if there were no censure of the Keyes without exclusion from the Church; for­getting in the mean time, his own distinction be­tween [Page 282] the Church and the Chancel. Hath the house of God but one room, one door? or can­not a man be shut out of the Chancel, but he must needs be thereby shut out of the Church? Cannot a Father shut his childe out of the Parlor, but he must needs shut him quite out of doors? True, some persons censured must be to thee as heathen, Matth. 18. 17. but must all persons cen­sured be so? Surely the Apostle is more charitable, 2 Thess 3. v. 14 15.

Page 151. Mr. H. sayes, That the second de­gree of excommunication among the Jews called Cherem, may put Mr. Drake to shame, that so blindly asserts the parallel, p. 21. and yet every where denies the matter.

Ans. Good words, I pray Sir; page 21. and 22. of my Bar, I prove the Antiquity of sus­pension from the practice of the Jews, and of the ancient Greek Church; as also that with them it was a degree of excommunication, as juridical sus­pension is with us. I neither assert, nor justifie their practice universally, much less their exclu­ding of persons excommunicated from all pub­lick Ordinances. Cannot I quote their practice in favour of suspension, but I must needs justifie what ever was in use among them in point of excommunication? Such blind imputations, I am sure should shame Mr. H. who it seems can­not distinguish between the improving of an in­stance or practice, and the owning of all the aberrations that attend upon that practice.

Mr. H. ib. Its a very fond conceit of Mr. D. to make two degrees of excommunication beneath dismembership, that is, two degrees of putting men out of the Church before [Page 283] they be put out of the Church.

Ans. 1. Mr. H. should do well to tell the Ancient Church of the Jews, and of the Greeks, &c. that their conceit is fond in making two or three degrees of excommunication before dismember­ship. It was their conceit before it was mine, nor am I of their conceit in every particular about excommunication, or its degrees, though I will not say their conceit was fond: I leave that work to Mr. H.

Secondly, What is excommunication (in the very notion of it) but a turning or keeping out of communion: And because turning out of com­munion is gradual, therefore excommunication must needs be gradual. He that is turned out of any part of communion, is as truly, though not as much, turned out of communion, as he that is turned out of all communion: Sacramental communion is part of communion, from which he that is turned away, is truly turned out of com­munion as to that particular, and therefore is truly excommunicated, though not dismembred. What ever therefore himself, or others may think of those Texts, 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 2 Thess. 3. 14. is not the Question, but what those Texts do really hold forth, which because they have been former­ly handled, I here forbear.

‘Dr. D. p. 107. I grant that by excommunication, they are made as Heathen and Publicans, and are in statu quo, no members.’ Mr. H. page 153. Now how strange is this, That while he cannot deny the excommunicate are dismem­bred, he should keep such ado to set up a censure which is no dismembership, and make it a de­gree too of excommunication, which he confesses it is not?

[Page 284] Ans. Here Mr. H. discovers either gross igno­rance, or want of ingenuity. I cannot think him so grosly ignorant of my meaning, as here he seems to be. He cannot but know, that in the former place (which he only carps at) by excom­munication, I mean the last degree of excommu­nication which reaches unto dismembring, not so the two former degrees, which yet are truly called Excommunication, though not in the more fa­mous and rigorous sense. Sir, I deny the excom­municated are dismembred, if excommunication be taken for the lower degrees of that censure; I grant they are dismembred, if excommunication be took for the highest degree thereof. I hope here is no inconsistency or contradiction.

Mr. H. ib. And p. 154. Excommunication refers directly to Church membership, and consequentially only to the Ordinances; so that a man must be put out of the Church, or else he cannot legally be put from the Communion. Even as the Le­per was not kept from the Camp, that he might be kept from publick worship, but was kept from communion in worship, because he was kept from the Camp.

Ans. This is gratis dictum, two degrees of excommunication, at least referring directly to some Ordinance, namely the Lords Supper; from which the party suspended is separated really; the party dismembred is separated both really and relatively. His illustration is as weak as his con­clusion, the Leper being kept from the Camp (though not solely, yet) principally that he might be kept from some parts of worship. Take Ʋzziah for instance, 2 Chron. 26. 21. his le­prosie cu: him off not only from Civil, but also [Page 285] from Sacred imployments. This is further evi­dent by the practice of Moses, who pitched a Tabernacle without the Camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the Congregation, Exod 33. 7. Doth Mr. H. think a Leper without the Camp might come to that Tabernacle to seek the Lord, as other Israelites that were clean did and might? If his presence would defile the Camp, Num. 5. 3. would it not much more defile the Tabernacle; or was not Gods presence more eminently in the Tabernacle than in the Camp? He was there­fore kept from the Camp, that he might be kept from communion in some part of worship; not simply from communion in worship, because he was kept from the Camp; for then he might have been admitted to worship in the Tabernacle when it was without the Camp, which is evidently false.

What Mr. H. notes page 154. of the practice of gathered Churches, it hath been spoke too formerly. For his exception against my reason, à majori, illustrated by the similitude of a Judge: He answers himself, page 155. in these words, I think when a man is relatively deprived fel­lowship in general, the Church may use mitiga­tion or severity to a real permission of him to some Ordinances (and so perhaps for civil con­verse) according to prudence, for his edification or destruction. What speak these words, but that the Church may admit an excommunicated person to some Ordinances, who yet by Gods command is debarred all Ordinances, if Mr. H. define excom­munication rightly? Is not this to set the Church above Scripture, and to allow her power of mitiga­tion where God commands severity? Besides if the Church may use mitigation after dismembring, why [Page 286] not also before it? If she may admit a dismem­bred person to some Ordinances, why may she not suspend an undismembred person from some Ordi­nances; yea what in effect is her greater excommu­nication mitigated, but suspension? To keep to his own terms, That Magistrate who may according to Law inflict a greater punishment, may accord­ing to Law inflict the lesser punishment. Pro­portionably, if the Church may dismember a person, she may suspend him, but both according to Christs Law, which is the Gospel. That the Church doth it according to Law hath been for­merly proved, which therefore I shall not repeat.

But, I pray Sir, may a Judge mitigate a severe sentence when passed, and might he not before have pronounced a milder sentence? May a Judge after sentence of Confiscation and Death pronounced, mitigate the execution only to con­fiscation, and might not the same Judge before­hand have passed a milder sentence of confiscation only? In like manner, may the Church after sen­tence of dismembring admit the person dismem­bred to some Ordinances, and may not she sus­spend the same person from some Ordinance without dismembring him? Will Mr. H. miti­gate after the sentence of dismembring, and may not we mitigate before the sentence of dismem­bring? May he break a poor mans head, and then give him a plaister, and may not we prevent both the fraction and plaister by a little scratch? (such is suspension to dismembring, especially as managed by us) If therefore suspension be an of­fence or injury, its an error on the right hand by too much mildness. I pray Sir, forgive us this wrong. I am glad the Presbyterians, who were [Page 287] looked at as a company of rigid fellows, are now at last found guilty (as it seems) of too much lenity and moderation.

Mr. H. p. 155. Suspension is null without dis­membership; insomuch that if a Jew were un­der Niddui (which was their lowest degree) if unabsolved, his children might not be circum­cised: And why not, but that they reckoned him no Church member?

Ans. 1. The assertion is gratis dictum: and, 1. If we look at negative Suspension, that is not null without dismembring, instance in unintelligent Church-members. 2. Nor is positive Suspension null without dismembring; instance in persons jure excommunicate, who (he grants) may be suspended, yet its evident they are not dismem­bred.

2. His confirmation drawn from the practice of the Jews is weak, it being not probable that he who might teach ordinarily in the Church, was dismembred from the Church. 3. In denying Circumcision to the Males of a person under Nid­dui, the Jews were wife above that which was written, supposing the father had been dismem­bred by that degree of Excommunication, and that because the childe might have been circum­cised in the right of his mother or grand-father, &c. To me, it seems probable, the Jews might deny Circumcision in the aforesaid case, out of prudence, the more effectually by that means to humble and bring in the Patent: But I see no Scripture warrant for it, and therefore may here use the words of our Saviour, From the beginning it was not so, Mat. 19. 8. This may be a suffici­ent Therefore for Mr. H. his Wherefore.

[Page 288]Fain would Mr. H. run away with a mistake, That Excommunication by the Scripture is re­ferred still to Church-membership, and not to the Sacrament. But I must crave pardon for my not running along with him in that opinion. Ex­communication is directly opposite (not simply to Church-membership, but) to Communication or Communion, a term given especially to the Sacra­ment. Which Communion, because it is gradual, therfore its opposite Excommunication must needs be gradual also. Cannot a member be deprived communion, unless it be cut off? I had thought a Ligature as well as Excision, might have deprived my finger of communion with my body, and might prove far better physick than Excision or Mutilation. If the Ligature of suspension will cure, its cruelty (in my poor judgement) to cut off a Member. A Brother in Scripture phrase is a Church-member, though under a Church­censure; compare 1 Cor. 5. 11. with 2 Thess. 3. 14, 15. If so, then all Church-censures rise not up to dismembring. This I note the rather, be­cause page 152. Mr. H. confesses, that divers of the learned apply the forequoted Texts to Excom­munication. What is our suspension, but denying a Church-member some part of communion?

Mr. H. p. 156. God forbid but we should put a distinction between sins that stand not with sin­cerity, and that stand not with publike profession. I do not think the detection of a man living in any known sin that contradicts the one, ought to excommunicate him: but the open conviction of such sins which are notoriously scandalous, and obstinate, bringing discredit on the Church, and contradicting the other.

[Page 289] Answ. 1. By concession; a difference must be put between sins that stand not with sincerity, and that stand not with profession caeteris par [...]bus. This we do by suspension and dismembring: But Mr. H. will have no Church-censure applied to them who live in known sins that contradict onely sincerity; whence it follows, that by his doctrine, known hypocrites must enjoy all Church-privi­ledges, as well as persons of known integrity.

2. Note here, Mr. H. grants the Church may know a mans heart, and particularly that he is an hypocrite, which yet flowing from my pen, was by him declaimed against, as a prying into Gods secrets; though we profess to know the heart onely as Mr. H. doth, namely, by the fruits, when a man is known to live in fins that contradict sincerity.

3. To me it is a paradox, how the open con­viction of living in any known sin, should not be notoriously scandalous, bring discredit on the Church, and contradict publike profession espe­cially if continued in obstinately; which I wish were not the case of too many Church-members. The Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 5. 11. That a Church­member who is covetous, a railer, or extortioner, is to be censured as well as he that is a fornicator, an idolater, or a drunkard. Doth it not discre­dit the Church, that any Church-member, con­vinced of gross ignorance, and continuing therein obstinately after the use of means, should still be imbraced and honored as a Church-member? He that will make a profession of he knows not what, doth he not by that act contradict his very profes­sion, before all to whom his ignorance is known? should any profess learning, and be known at the [Page 290] same time to be grosly ignorant of the very Al­phabet, were not such profession ridiculous, and a contradiction of it self, especially if continued in wilfully after sundry means used to put him upon and promote him in learning?

Mr. H. ib. As for the Antiquaerist he quotes here of his side so magnificently, and so often, Mr. Prin tells us, it is himself. Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth, &c.

Answ. These words, as they are impertinent, so they discover too palpably a spirit of Cavilling, Page 105. of my Bar, I have this passage, ‘ Eat­ing, 1 Cor. 5. 11. is extended to Sacramental, as well as domestical eating, as is cleared by the Antiquaerist in his answer to Suspension su­spended; to which therefore I refer.’ Now, I pray, Sir, what do these words import of quoting the Antiquaerist magnificently?

2 How doth it appear the Antiquaerist is my self? I grant Mr. Prins testimony is valuable, where he speaks upon his own knowledge; but may not Mr. Prin be misinformed? And if 1. There be no vaunting expressions. And 2. The Ante­quaerist be not Dr. Drake, is not Mr. H. guilty of a double flander? Nor do I think it expedient to inform him in this particular, who is so apt to make a bad use of his information.

From the same spirit flows that Aspersion, p. 156. There are many precious Christians here­in made weak, which yet are not to be sleighted with Mr. Drake, but tenderly to be satis­fied.

Doth not Mr. H. here reflect upon me; as if I sleighted many precious Christians, and were not tender about their satisfaction? yet forgetting [Page 291] himself, in the very same page he quotes those expressions of mine, which shew I was far from sleighting them. Thus out of the Eater comes meat, and the slander carries its own confutation in its mouth; yea, himself assents to two of my conclusions about that particular: To the first ab­solutely. To the second conditionally: about which, to cut off ambiguity and dispute, I pray Sir, take notice, That in that place, under presence I include receiving, though I did not express it. But how the Assertion is superstitions, as expressed in my own terms, I may haply understand hereaf­ter, if Mr. H. will please to inform me; by which information, I trust he shall soon bring me to re­formation. I would not that my heart, hand or tongue should wittingly be abettors of Supersti­tion.

Mr. H. p. 157. The third is much amiss, and equivocal. They partake of those sins they should have reproved, and do not, but not of any sin in their receiving, any more then in their hear­ing and praying. Such words as these are sub­ject to do hurt, as if it were our duty simply to keep one another from Gods service, and that this were the onely eminent piece of piety; when its certainly our duty to excite, call, provoke them to, as counsel, fit and prepare them for the at­tending all Ordinances.

Answ. The conclusion Mr. H. lays load upon is this, They partake in their sins, who do not their duty to reform them, or keep them from the Sacrament otherwise. Here 1. He doth me wrong in leaving out those expressions which render my sense clear and fair. My words are these, pag. 109, of my Bar, ‘ They partake in the sins of un­worthy [Page 292] receivers, who do not their duty to reform them, or to keep them from receiving, in case they will not be reformed.’ As Mr. H. quotes my words, I grant there is much ambi­guity; to instance in one, and a gross one. The Reader may apprehend, that I am of opinion, that if the Church keep unworthy persons from the Sacrament, she is not bound to do her endea­vors to reform them. A conceit far from my thoughts and expressions, if intirely and candidly represented. Mr. H. makes my sense worse, as ‘ if I were of the minde, that its our duty simply to keep one another from Gods service: yea, that this is the onely eminent piece of piety.’ A flander so gross and absurd, that the very naming of it is sufficient confutation.

2. Those words of Mr. H. ‘( They partake not of any sin in their receiving, more than in their hearing and praying)’ are erroneous. For clearing whereof note, we may sin two ways about our duty: 1. In the matter. 2. In the manner: Proportionably two ways I may partake of other mens sins: 1. If I do not instruct and warn them about their duty, both for matter and manner, where I am called so to do. 2. If I admit them to do that which instatu quo they are bound to forbear, and I am bound in my place to endeavor to keep them from. To apply this, I sin not in the matter by admitting any to prayer or hearing, pro­vided they be not disturbers, &c. but I sin in the very matter, by admitting some to receiving, who ought not to be admitted; else how can persons jure excommunicate, be denyed the Sacrament? we preach to, and pray for, and with, the vilest ma­lefactors that are ready to be sacrificed to Justice, [Page 293] but dare not admit them to the Lords-supper, till they testifie their repentance. Its evident then, I partake more of sin in admitting some to the Sa­crament, than in admitting them to prayer or hear­ing. In the former I may be guilty, both in matter and manner, not so in the latter, but onely in the manner. We acknowledge it our duty, and profess it our practice, to excite, call and provoke all intelligent Church-members to receive; and to counsel, fit, and prepare them for the Sacrament: but too many care not to come, and divers who affect to come, are extreamly unwilling to be coun­selled, fitted and prepared by us as they ought. Hinc, hinc, illae Lachrymae. We wish all Profes­sors were worthy Receivers, we charge all to make conscience to fit themselves, we offer our selves to help to fit them, and cordially admit those who are visibly fit, waiting upon others, till God give them real and visible fitness, but till visibly fit, we dare not admit them.

Page 157. Mr. H. thinks I wrong him, by charging him with self-contradiction. Let the Reader compare my Bar, page 109. with Mr. H. his vindication, page 32. and then judge. I but he spake those words onely secundum quid, not sim­pliciter.

Ans. His peremptory delivery of them both negatively and affirmatively, insinuates strongly that he spake them simpliciter.

Mr. H. ib. But how do any of these ends con­cern them, as to their own act of receiving?

Ans. By them he means either the parties cen­sured, or the Congregation. I think Church-cen­sures, and particularly suspension, do much con­cern them both: the party censured, to bring him [Page 294] to repentance; the best of the Congregation in or­der to their satisfaction, who are much offended by the admission of persons visibly unworthy; and the whole Congregation, who by the suspension of any are warned to take heed of his sins, left they be suspended as well as he: as also to prevent that guilt which would defile them, should they con­sent to his admission, whom they know to be un­worthy. Such consenters are they, who after due admonition in private, do not give notice to the Church of a person they know to be unworthy; as also those Church Officers, who admit him in the like case. As Church-members, we are bound in the use of all lawful means to prevent one the others sins; Receiving is a sin in persons visibly unworthy; therefore Church-members, as such, are bound to prevent it. Some acts are essentially sinful, which never can be done by any; some are accidentally sinful, by the manner of do­ing; some are relatively sinful, when done by a person uncapable, as when a private person takes upon him the office of a Judge: Here judging is not essentially evil, for then none might judge; nor upon the supposition is it accidentally evil, as to the manner of judging, for the private person may pass a right judgement: but its relatively evil, because a private person takes upon him the work of a publike person; and such judging we truly say is evil in fieri, though it be not essential­ly evil. In like manner, a person receiving, who ought not to receive; sins in the fieri, as to the act of receiving, though the act of receiving be not a sin essentially, but onely relatively. I hope all persons must not practice all affirmative precepts: to judge and preach are duties, must all men [Page 295] therefore judge and preach? Are not the very acts of judging and preaching sins in some persons? They are not so essentially, but relatively when men who are not called undertake these works.

Mr. H. p. 158. It is indeed the great fallacy here that misleads many, when they plead our duty of watching over others, &c. they winde it all in still in order to the Sacrament, as if they were to be done meerly in reference unto it, when as they are each of them distinct duties, and the neglect of, or doing one, is no ground or hin­derance of the other.

Ans. The particulars Mr. H. mentions are,

First, Watching over others.

Secondly, Not partaking in their sins.

Thirdly, Getting the scandalous to be censured.

Here first, by way of concession we winde them all in, in order to the Sacrament, but not meer­ly in reference to it; That is Mr. H. his fallacy wherewith he would fain deceive the Reader. Whereas we make use of all three in order to private communion, and in order to dismembring, as well as in order to suspension.

Secondly, True, They are each of them di­stinct duties; but its false, That the neglect of, or doing the one, is no ground or hindrance of the other. For first, Omission of the one (whether it be by neglect, or otherwise) is a ground for the omission of the other.

I must not reprove my neighbour, unless I first watch over him, it being a sin to reprove blindly, which he must needs be guilty of, that observes not;

First, The sin.

Secondly, The person committing that sin. He [Page 296] that watches not, is it any wonder if he mistake either the fact, or person, or both?

Secondly, Its false, That doing the one is no ground of doing the other; for I must watch over others, that I may reprove and admonish (as well as incourage) them, lest I partake of their sins: And I must take heed I partake not of their sins upon this account among others, that I may be the fitter to reprove and admonish them, and more effectually instrumental to get the scanda­lous censured; since fellow delinquents will never be forward to call each other to account. Is it not more probable the intire part of the Church will call the corrupt part thereof to account, rather than the corrupt part will call it self to an account? we grant the three forementioned duties are distinct, but are they not therefore copulative? Distinction I hope is no enemy to union, whether in a way of co-ordination or of subordination. By all it appears, there is a subordination of duties, as well as of sins: And as some sins cannot be commit­teed without other previous sins; so some duties cannot be performed without other foregoing du­ties, of which nature is the act of receiving, in order whereunto self-examination is ever necessary; and Church-examination also where it may regularly be had; or at least in its room Pastoral-examination.

Page 158, 159. Mr. H. falls ironically upon me, as if I took a great deal of pains seemingly to confute him, when I only speak his part for him. The bitter scoffs wherewith he here closes this first Section, instead of returning an answer, discover both the weakness of his cause in that particular, and the impotency of his passion. But to the matter it self. Mr. H. in his second part [Page 297] undertakes to answer several objections against free Admission to the Sacrament. The first Ob­jection you have p. 30. of his Vindication. The Objection is this,

‘ This Doctrine will take away the use of the Keyes, and excommunicate excommunica­tion, &c.’

‘Page 31. Mr. H. tells us, This Objection is grounded upon three false surmises, and parti­cularly page 31. he sayes, This Objection sur­mises a most neer and essential relation be­tween excommunication, and the communion, as if it were a part of it, &c.’

In answer hereunto, page 110. of my Bar, I say and prove, That this objection infers or sur­mises no such mad consequence, as Mr. H. is pleased to fasten upon it. It lay now upon Mr. H. to prove that the objection doth surmise such a mad inference, else his own surmise must needs be false, and absurd. But of this not one word, only being convinced his own surmise was irratio­nal and could not be made good, he smothers the truth, flouts me, and flams the Reader, instead of giving an answer, or confessing his mistake. We both agree the thing surmised is very absurd; yea so absurd as Mr. H. is ashamed to own his own Brat, of which he alone is the Father, but the ob­jection is not the Mother; and thus he is doubly guilty of slandering, 1. The Objection. 2. His Antagonist.

SECT. II.

IN vindicating the second Objection Mr. H. be­gins p. 159 by way of denial and distinction, in these words. It is not visible real worthiness up on trial, but visible relative worthiness, or [Page 298] external Covenant-relation gives a man a right to, and is the ground of Admission.

Ans. Mr. Collins, p. 90. of his vindication an­swers ‘him. Visible relativ worthiness (according to Mr. H.) is mens being within the external Co­venant, baptized, and in the Church, and this gives them a right, &c.’ I alwayes thought this had been the [...], Whether all baptized persons may be admitted to the Lords Table though ignorant and scandalous, if not cast out of the Church; or whether if such, they ought to be suspended?

We say, ‘ They ought to be suspended; and argue from, their real unworthiness and inca­pacity visibly appearing, to our duty in deny­ing the Sacrament to them. What sayes Mr. H. to this? sayes he, They are not unworthy relatively, though they be visibly unworthy really. Strange language say we, what spells it? sayes he, they are baptized, and not ex­communicated. If this be not petere [...], I know not what is; for we brought our argu­ment to prove, That a visibility of real unwor­thiness made a relative unworthiness: So that Mr. H. sayes, this in short, They are not unwor­thy, because they are not unworthy.’ Thus far M. Collins. Nor is it material whether worthiness and unworthiness be visible upon trial, or otherwise upon which account, haply Mr. Collins took no notice of that expression. Its enough to our pur­pose, that visible worthiness is the rule of Admis­sion, & contra. When Mr. H. can shew us a better way of discovering worthiness or unwor­thiness, than by trial of Church-members, he shall have us both thankful and plyable to his di­rection.

[Page 299] Page 160. Mr. H. makes light of that place, 1 Pet. 3. 15. which proves its the duty of Chri­stians to submit to trial.

And first, He sayes its nothing to the Saera­ment.

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

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

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

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

Ans. First, He that professes his hope ob­jectively doth therein profess it also subjectively, since the object, principle, and act of hope are infe­parable, and therefore as they cannot be, so they cannot be professed, the one without the other. The notions indeed are distinct, but the things themselves ever go together. My mean­ing is, That hope can­not be in actu exerci­tu, but it must flow from a principle, and tend to an ob­ject.

Secondly, The very application of this distin­ction is contrary to the Text; The Apostle bid­ding us be ready to give a reason of the hope [Page 300] that is in us, [...], Mr. H. sayes not so, but of the hope that is without us; whom shall we beleeve, St. Peter, or Mr. Humphrey? Hope objective is without us, hope subjective is within us; which last must needs be meant here by the Apostle, yet not excluding the former, they being both inseparable, as the act and object. And what I pray is hope subjective, but the grace of hope, which therefore the Apostle calls us to give a reason of, against Mr. H. his gloss. Its a contradiction to say, I hope objectively in the word of the Gospel, and I do not hope subje­ctively in the word of the Gospel, and all one as to say, I hope in Christ, and yet I do not hope in Christ.

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

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

[Page 301]Mr. H. ib. When Christ sayes, Do this; how dares Mr. D. say, Do it not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, Because Prayer is a means of con­version, not so receiving. Upon this account, e­ven hea­then are bound to pray, not so to re­ceive the Sacrament.

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

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

Mr. H. his second argument is, Mans impo­tency cannot annihilats Christs authority.

[Page 302] Ans. True, but mans malice or wickedness may render him uncapable of some priviledge and duty; Faith of evidence is a duty, as well as a priviledge, but of this duty and priviledge a natural man is uncapable in statu quo.

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

Here Mr. H. calls for Scripture-proof.

Ans. That proof is given him above, there­fore I forbear to repeat.

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

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

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

A perjured person will not be admitted to swear, and shall the same person be admitted to the Sacrament upon the bare account Church membership? which (as a relation to [Page 303] such a Corporation) supposes worthiness in a per­son, or at least, that it should be in him; but is neither his worthiness, nor the efficient cause thereof, unless you refer it to the impulsive cause, since Church-membership is or should be a special motive and spur to habitual and active worthiness, and is an aggravation of the want of either. In­deed if Christ did bid all Church-members re­ceive, then receiving were not morally impossible to any, though never so bad, but this is the que­stion begged, nor can M. H. prove that indefi­nite, [...], to be an universal, if applyed to Church-members, as such. Understand me here rightly, Christ bids all Church-members pre­pare, and so receive: But where doth he bid them receive, be they never so unprepared? It is not then bare Church-membership makes me capable of the Sacrament.

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

Answ. If by the latter worthy receiving, he mean a partaking of the Sacrament upon due exa­mination, with a sense of my own unworthiness, hungring after Christ, and mercy, &c. what is this but a receiving worthily in the Apostles sense? All such, and onely such, as come thus affected in truth, are worthy Receivers, and receive worthily in an Evangelical sense, though haply they may judge themselves unworthy, not onely Legally, but also Evangelically. He may as well say, a person may discourse learnedly, and yet not be learned, as say a person may receive worthily, and yet not be a worthy receiver. If M. H. hath any other [Page 304] sense that is not Apostolick, he must pardon us, if we do not receive it. An unworthy person may do a worthy act, but he cannot act worthily. Re­ceiving is very comfortable to weak Christians, but what comfort can hypocrites or profane persons ex­pect from it?

M. H. ib. That man is to be accounted to re­ceive worthily, that makes an effectual use there­of according to his own condition, whether re­generate or not.

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

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

3. Suppose he were converted by receiving, (which we deny) it follows not thence, that he re­ceived worthily, though it would follow he re­ceived worthiness. As at the word preached, a natural man hears unworthily, at that very Ser­mon which converts him, the very moment be­fore his conversion; so at the Sacrament, the [Page 305] same person receives unworthily the very moment before his conversion, supposed to be wrought by receiving, since worthiness must be wrought in me before I can act worthily.

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

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

First, The trouble of pains must be taken.

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

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

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

2. Suppose the burden were never so intolerable. Acts 15. 10. Its a burden of Christs lay­ing on, and therefore must be born; The difficulty of duty never discourages, where faith eyes the promise; Heb. 11. Be willing to bear the gates of Gaza at Gods command, and he will give thee [Page 306] Sampsons strength. Admirable is that of the Father, Domine, da quod jubes, & jube quod vis. Nothing is difficult to faith and love, Matth. 11. v. 28 29. and 1 Joh. 5. 3.

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

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

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

When we plead for our selves as more favour­able than Mr. H. because we suspend to prevent the greater excommunication, &c. He tells me with a scoff, That our suspension is as severe as [Page 307] the greater excommunication. I pray take speci­al notice of his reason for this assertion, page 165. because M. Drake holds, A man cannot be de­barred any Ordinance, but actuall receiving, in the greatest censure.

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

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

3. His reason to confirm his assertion is weak, since, 1. Suspension (as generally administred by us) is not an act of severity, but of mercy. 2. Yet where it is an act of severity, the greater excom­munication is far severer, as denying not onely an absolute, but also a relative priviledge. To cast a person out of family (though he be permitted to be a retainer) is more severe, than to deny him the use of any one particular dish upon his masters table. His flouting similitude, brought to sup­ply the place of a serious argument, is imperti­nent: Had the man by falling from an house only lost a Limb, or put it out of joynt, the good wo­man might with reason and charity have said, What a mercy is it he had no more harm? But then the similitude had not been to M. H. his purpose. Against next time, let me intreat M. H. to pro­duce [Page 308] a fitter similitude, lest he lose both his labor and credit by the Application.

SECT. 3.

MR. H. comes to the third Objection, Holy things, to holy men.

‘Dr. D. Some outwardly holy thing may be administred to those who are not outwardly holy.’

M. H. p. 166. What then? therefore may it not be administred to those who are outwardly holy?

Ans. In some cases an Ordinance may be deny­ed him who is outwardly holy, and yet at the same time be administred to him who is outwardly unholy. That may be denyed a dog within the Church (till he testifies his repentance) which is not to be denyed a dog without the Church, to wit, reproof, instruction, &c. Acts 13. 46. An Heretick blaspheming, may be denyed presence at the Ordinances, unto which at the same time an Heathen may be admitted, yea, and invited.

To what he addes in the same page, I say, when M. H. can give me an instance of obstinate pro­faneness in any professor, that is not sufficient to excommunicate him, I shall return an answer to his ambiguous and loose question. To his other exception, I answer, its gratis dictum, that ex­communication makes a man no professor, because it makes him no Church-member. He may as well say, that expulsion out of the University makes a man no Scholar, or uncapable to profess learning. Nothing can make a man no professor, but his own voluntary act, renouncing the practice and profes­sion [Page 309] of piety. Here note by the way, that Church-membership and profession are all one with M. H. True, any course of profaneness doth virtually contradict profession, but onely universal renunti­ation contradicts it formally.

In the same page, to slur me, he baffles the Reader with the ambiguity of the term, Visible Saint. For unfolding of which mysterie observe, M. H. his Visible Saint, is a Church-member, though visibly a Devil incarnate; my Visible Saint; is one that doth not contradict his relation and profession by gross ignorance or scandal: to this Visible Saint, visible interest in the Covenant is sealed, not so in our judgement to M. H. his Vi­sible Saint. This at once salves the contradicti­on he would fasten on me, and shews withal, that the same thing is not strength in me, and weakness in Mr. H. The other supposed contradiction, that a man may be a professor, and yet contradict his profession, hath been cleared a little above. M. H. forgot the distinction, [...] and [...], when he charged me here with a contradiction.

Page 167. He says right, all in a Church­state, &c. are to be admitted, unless such as the Scripture gives ground to except. But he rambles wofully in the minor, asserting that the Scripture allows no bar to any, unless the unin­telligent and excommunicate. In the same page he flouts me, as if bare confidence were my funda­mental argument, and all: because I say, page 121. of my Bar, ‘ That I am confident the Oxthodox Interpretation of those places which Mr. H. quotes, p. 40. of his Vindication, will never open the Chancel-door to grosly ignorant, or profane Church-members.’

[Page 310] Answ. Let the Reader but turn to those places where Church-members or professors are said to be in Christ, to be bought by him, to be sanctified with the blood of the Covenant, &c. and observe whether those places do not make rather against, than for their admitting to the Sacrament; since of the same persons it is said, in the same places, that 1. They are taken away, cast forth, and wither­ed. 2. That they deny the Lora that bought them. 3. That they trample upon the blood of the Covenant, &c. And think you its Christs minde, that such should be admitted to the seals of the Covenant?

Page 168. M. H. quarrels with me for deny­ing that a visible historical faith gives a right to the Sacrament (if solicary) yet in his answer closes with me, and acknowledges, that the faith which admits a man to the Sacrament, must be a faith accepting the true God, &c. And what is this but faith of adherence, without which histo­rical faith is but the faith of Devils, and renders a man most unworthy of the Sacrament in an Evan­gelical sense.

‘Dr. D. Then the excommunicated have a right, for they have historical faith.’

Mr. H. How vain is this? who knows not that the state of the question supposes us within the Church?

A. Either Church-membership alone, or histo­rical faith alone, or both together, give a right to the Sacrament. If the first, then Church-members, though destitute of historical faith, have a right to the Sacrament. If the second, then one who is not a Church-member may have a right to it, which Mr. H. confesses to be absurd. If both, then the [Page 311] Church upon just ground may enquire after the one as well as after the other; since I may be a Church-member, and not have historical faith, or may have historical faith, and not be a Church-member: And if the Church may enquire after faith of assent, which is secret, why not also after faith of adherence? I think this is to the purpose, though not to M. H. his purpose, and will soon overthrow his free admission. Besides, its not ex­communication simply takes away my right to the Sacrament, but a just excommunication, otherwise mans wickedness may rob me of my right to Christs Ordinance, which is impossible. My right to the Sacrament depends more upon my faith, than upon my Church-membership; nor do I simply forfeit my right, because the Church excommunicates me, but the Church ought to excommunicate me, because I forfeit my right, which forfeiture the Church takes by excommuni­cation: When therefore visible faith is contradicted by visible profaneness, that man hath visibly for­feited his right to the Sacrament, and the Church by suspension or excommunication, doth but take the forfeiture. True, he may in some sense have jus ad rem, but he hath not jus in re, till he make up the breach by visible faith and repentance; yea, though a man have true justifying faith, yet by gross scandai he may visibly contradict his faith, and so forfeit his jus in re. Withal, it will be very hard for M. H. to prove, that Simon Magus had onely historical faith: The will follows the last dictate of the understanding, and so far forth as I assent to Christs sufficiency and willingness to save me, there is some propension in the will to rest on him for salvation, though in hypocrites [Page 312] usually the assent is but opinionative, and the ad­hesion is but presumptuous, Mich. 3. 11. As the assent is common or saving, so is the adhesion. Onely a Devil, or he that is under the power of Despair, or that hath committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, assents to the Gospel without adhesion: in which case also, though there be an assent about Christs sufficiency, yet there is a dissent about his willingness, which if partial, causes doubting; if perfect, despair. Withal, as profession of faith, not contradicted by ig­norance or scandali, gives a right to Baptism, so doth it to the Lords Supper: And were Baptism to be iterated (as the Lords Supper is) those persons whom we baptized in their infancy, we would not baptize, when at age, if they were then grosly ignorant or scanda­lous.

SECT. 4.

THe fourth Section is spent about that Ob­jection, The Seal is set to a blank, if all be admitted. In the very entrance Mr. H. is pleased to charge me with confusion, and un­grounded confidence, and it must be so because ipse dix it. Were the suffusion, in his eye cured, he would see clearer; confusion is oftner in the eye, than in the object.

Next, page 170. Mr. H. tells us, he holds, No persons within the Church are visible blanks.

Ans. Are there none in the Church visibly [Page 313] destitute of saving grace which is the writing of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3. 3? There were such in the Primitive times, witness the second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle of Jude, &c. I beleeve our Churches will scarce vie with theirs for visible holiness and purity. Nay to come closer to Mr. H. are not many of his jure excommunicati vi­sible blanks?

Mr. H. ib. When I say the Sacrament is not a seal of faith, I mean it still as the thing sealed, (to wit, on Gods part.)

Ans. If the grace of faith be not part of the thing sealed, then God doth not promise in the Covenant degrees of faith to his people; then we cannot pray for degrees of faith, the promise being the foundation of prayer; then the Sacra­ments do not confirm and strengthen faith, for they confirm nothing but what is promised. But all these how absurd?

The weakness of this his assertion will appear further by his reason annexed; The Sacrament is not an appendix to faith, but to the Gospel.

Ans. As if faith promised were not a part of the Gospel as well as other graces promised.

Faith is considerable first, as promised, and so its a branch of the Covenant unto which the Sa­crament is an appendix.

Secondly, As wrought, active and growing in us, and so its the execution, or making good of the Covenant. Faith promised and sealed, or the promise of faith sealed in the Sacrament confirms faith inherent.

First, By way of security as a seal doth the be­leef of any Covenant.

Secondly, By way of exhibition or conveyance, [Page 314] as an Indenture sealed and delivered, doth convey and make over an estate.

In the Sacrament the promise of degrees of faith is signed and sealed to faith of assent, but ex­hibited and conveyed to faith of adherence, the whole Covenant, and every branch thereof being signed, sealed, and delivered in the Sacrament to the worthy receiver. Faith of Assent acknow­ledges the Covenant as true, faith of Adherence receives the Covenant as good.

Page 171. After some distinctions premised, about the conditions, benefit and tender of the Covenant, Mr. H. hath these words, God in­gages not by the Sacrament to give man faith; if he did, every Receiver should have it.

Ans. first, We thank Mr. H. for this principle, which strongly evinces the Sacrament is no con­verting Ordinance. No Ordinance converts, un­less God ingage to convert by it, and if God in­gage not to give faith by the Sacrament, then God ingages not to convert by the Sacrament. The principle is sound, and our inference is evident, and make much for us, and against Mr. H.

Secondly, Mr. H. his Argument to confirm this principle is very weak; and by proportion, we might as well argue, God ingages not to con­vert man by the word preached; If he did, then every hearer should beconverted, doth he not know that though an Ordinance be converting, yet still God reserves to himself his own liberty of conver­ting, when and whom he pleases, the Ordinances being not natural, but arbitrary means of conver­sion in the hands of God.

Page 172. while Mr. H. would seem to be more accurate by way of distinction, he faulters [Page 315] wofully; and tells us, That the Sacrament con­firms not faith formaliter, but onely consecutive and improperly, as putting us upon the exercise of faith, and thereby strengthening the ha­bit.

Answ. 1. By concession, the Sacrament con­firms faith consequentially. Yet,

2. Its true also, that it confirms faith formally, by ratifying those promises which assure the in­crease of faith, as well as of other graces; which promises are a special part of the Covenant. Mat. 13. 12. Our Saviour tells us, He that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more aboun­dance. Is this promise a part of the Covenant, or no? I presume Mr. H. will not deny it: If it be, then increase of faith is formally sealed in the Sa­crament, or else the promise it self is not formally sealed. If by formaliter he mean immediate, as may seem by the opposite branch consequen­ter, we grant the promise in that sense is confirmed formally, that is, immediately by the Sacrament, and faith mediately: the promise of saith is con­firmed immediately, faith inherent is confirmed mediately by the promise ratified by the Sacra­ment; and that not onely by putting us upon the exercise of faith, which may be done by the bare promise, without a seal, but 1. by giving faith greatersecurity by the seal annexed to the pro­mise. 2. by conveying farther degrees of faith to the worthy receiver, upon his acting of faith in the Sacrament, spiritual habits being confirmed not onely naturally, by their acts, but also super­naturally by divine infusion, their growth being suitable to their birth. Initial faith is infused, not acquired, gradual faith is got both by infusion and acquisition.

[Page 316]M. H. ibid. Whatsoever God doth properly ra­tifie by way of seal, he attests the truth thereof; but he doth not attest the truth of our faith by the Sacrament; ergo, The Sacrament is not the Seal of our faith.

Answ. 1. Its enough to us that God attests the truth of the promise by the Sacrament, and the promise undertakes for degrees of faith, as well as for perseverance in it; therefore to every worthy Receiver, the Sacrament doth formally and pro­perly seal increase of faith.

2. God in the Sacrament doth attest by conse­quence to the truth of the worthy Receivers saith.

M. H. ib. The Sacrament is common to Hypo­crites with Believers, therefore it cannot ascer­tain any that he hath grace.

Ans. 1. Its common indeed in use and practice, but whether so by divine institution is the Questi­on.

2. The thing it self that is common cannot as­certain, but the right use of it may. Neither Providences nor Ordinances evidence grace of themselves, but onely the right use of either, or both of them. The Worthy Receiver gets evi­dence of grace, not simply by receiving, but by worthy receiving.

M. H. ib. The Sacraments are not seals, be­cause they confirm our faith (which is the error) but they confirm our faith because they are seals. And page 173. Its derogatory, I think, to say the Sacrament is onely a metaphorical or tropi­cal seal; whereas indeed it is a very proper for­mal seal to the Covenant, Rom. 4. 11.

Answ. 1. Here are dictates indeed, but what [Page 317] proof? Dictates charging error upon others; but where is conviction? M. H. should blush to be so excessive in dictares, so defective in proof, who himself is so apt to censure others for the same fault, and too often without a cause.

2. What is a seal, but an instrument of confir­mation annexed to a Covenant? and is not the Sacrament such a thing? And if faith be a branch of the Covenant, is not the Sacrament a seal of faith, because it confirms faith?

3. Let us spell out M. H. his meaning in those words of his, The Sacraments confirm our faith because they are seals.

If they confirm faith because they are seals; I pray, what or whence is their sealing? Is not their sealing-vertue in its very formality a con­firming vertue? And have they not this confirm­ing or ratifying vertue from divine institution? If he mean the latter, we easily agree the Sacra­ments are seals, because God instituted them to be such, which makes nothing against us; if he mean the former, he speaks a meer tautologie, telling us the Sacraments are seals, because they are seals, and confirm our faith, because they con­firm our faith; and so by making onely a flourish, abuses both me and the Reader; unless his mean­ing be the same with ours, That the Sacrament confirms faith promised, formally and immediate­ly, but faith inherent consequentially and mediate­ly: but then its still a truth in the [...], at least, That the Sacraments are seals, because they confirm our faith, as well as its a truth in the [...], That they confirm our faith because they are seals by divine institution.

4. He trisles in opposing tropical to proper, as [Page 318] if that were not proper which is tropical. Its not proper indeed, as to the first notion or intention (the first and second intention being not formally the same) but its proper enough as to the thing in­tended or signified. Do not we hold against the Papists, that the Sacramental words, Hoc est corpus meum, are proper enough as to the sense, though they be tropical as to the terms. The Scripture indeed calls Circumcision a seal: but where doth it deny it to be a tropical seal? or where doth it say, that a tropical seal is not pro­perly a seal? A seal in its native signification, is a bodily substance graven, and so apt to make a sen­sible impression of it self in a fit subject. Will M. H. say, the Sacrament is a seal in this native signification? he will not be so absurd. Then it must be a seal tropically; yet properly also, be­cause it hath the essential use of a seal, namely, to confirm and ratifie, which is all we contend for, and M. H. opposes, but in vain.

M. H. p. 173. If confirming or strengthening a mans faith, were enough to denominate it a seal: Then 1. Acts of grace should be the best seals. 2. Then all other Ordinances should be seals too. 3. Then Baptism should be no seal to infants. 4. Then shall both the Sacraments cease to be seals, when they are admitted who have not true faith.

Answ, 1. By concession, acts of grace are the best seals. He that is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, is better sealed than he that is sealed onely with the Sacrament, Eph. 1. 13. & 5. 30. where you see a seal is applicable to persons, as well as to a Covenant.

2. It follows not that therefore all other Ordi­nances [Page 319] are seals, though they confirm faith, because its not every kinde of confirmation makes a seal, but a confirmation by way of authentick ratifica­tion, which makes a deed good in Law, or more good in Law than otherwise it would be.

3. That Infants, who before Baptism have initial grace, are not confirmed by Baptism (by degrees of grace superadded) is a truth M. H. will not be easily able to confute: yet withal, Baptism is truly called a seal as to them, because of its apti­tude to ratifie the Covenant to them, as well as to elder Christians, though they for lack of maturity cannot apprehend its ratifying vertue. Hence

4. It follows, that neither of the Sacraments cease to be seals, though persons without faith be admitted to them, they being denominated seals from their aptitude to confirm, though the effect of confirmation do not follow. A deed sealed is authentick in law, though some concerned in it, give not credit to it.

We grant, that faith of Assent is confirmed by the Sacrament as a seal, but are not of M. H. his judgement, p. 174. That a true historical assent, and particular faith of evidence, are not divided in the regenerate (if he mean as to their exercise) since, 1. In divers regenerate persons there is faith of assent, and of adherence too, yet without par­ticular faith of evidence; otherwise we must hold, there is no true faith without assurance, and there­by weaken the hearts and hands of many true Na­thanaels. Under­stand me here of sensible as­surance. 2. Historical faith is a direct act, faith of evidence is a reflex act, and the direct act may be divided from the reflex act, yea, often is divided from it. Withal, though degrees of grace are not properly conveyed by the Sacrament as a [Page 320] seal, yet they may be conveyed by it as an instru­ment, the Sacrament being (as M. Perkins well describes it) ‘ a sign to represent, a seal to con­firm, and an instrument to convey Christ and all his benefits to believers.’

M. H. ibid. No faith of particular evidence can be confirmed by the Sacrament as a Seal, but what is confirmed to me already by my expe­rience.

Ans. There is a twofold experience, one real, the other sensible: The Sacrament con­firms nothing, but what is confirmed to me by real experience; but it may confirm to me, that which is not confirmed to me by sensible experi­ence, at least prevalently. How many come doubting to the Sacrament, but return with evi­dence? No true faith, but gives real evidence by its acts, yet may be so overborn by unbelief, as the true believer may be rather opprest with doubts and fears, than comforted with evidence, as conceiving those acts of faith to be but a fancy. His inference therefore is but weak, the Sacrament being tropically, yet properly, a seal both to the Covenant, and to faith.

M. H. page 175. My part of the Covenant is the condition which God doth not seal; if he did, my business were at an end; for then all were to come hither for it.

Ans. 1. God seals all he promises, and nothing but what he promises: To the Reprobate he pro­mises not the condition, and therefore seals it not: To the Elect he promises the condition; namely, initial faith; and to the regenerate he promises all the acts and degrees of faith, as well as of other graces, Ezek. 36. v. 26, 27. John 6. 44, 45. [Page 321] which M. H. must grant, unless he will profess himself an Arminian or Pelagian. God un­dertakes in the Covenant of Grace for the Be­lievers part, as well as for his own part. Now, what is promised in the Covenant, is seal­ed in the Sacrament; therefore its sealed in the Sacrament, that he who hath true faith, shall act it, and encrease it.

2. Yet it follows not hence, that therefore all must receive, the Sacrament being not an Instru­ment of working initial, but gradual faith; and though it do seal in general, that all the Elect shall believe, yet that seals nothing to my especial com­fort, till election break out in my effectual vocati­on. M. D. then is not at a loss, since

1. Faith may be promised in the Covenant, though men cannot be in Covenant effectually without faith.

2. Initial faith is never promised upon condi­tion we do believe, but gradual faith: otherwise there would be progressus in infinitum.

M. H. p. 175. The Sacrament seals not the absolute Covenant, or the everlasting engage­ment between God and Christ.

Answ. This is gratis dictum: I had thought the Sacrament had sealed the whole Covenant of grace, and so the absolute Covenant: It seals that Christs blood is shed for many, as well as for those believers, that at present partake of it, com­pare Matth. 26. 28. and Luke 22. 20. Christ from eternity contracted with the Father for many: In time he shed his blood for those many: This himself tells us is signified and sealed in the Sacrament; And what is this but the abso­lute Covenant?

[Page 322]That the conditional Covenant is sealed (though not solely) we deny not. But that we are to take sealing for conveying or exhibiting, is a new light of Mr. H. p. 176. this is to con­found distinct offices and uses of the Sacrament, and to fight against sense and experience.

True, the Sacrament signifies, seals and con­veyes, but its signification is not its sealing, nor is its sealing its conveying. Let a Bond or Indenture be signed and sealed, there is no conveyance till it be delivered. Therefore some of the Sacramental actions do both signifie, seal, and convey the Co­venant; they signifie and seal the letter of the Co­venant, they convey as instruments the good things promised to beleevers; yea, that very act of faith, whereby a worthy receiver apprehends Christ at the Sacrament is wrought in him instrumentally by the Sacrament. This one thing rightly considered, will shake universal admission, for though all may be admitted to see the Covenant signed and sealed even to themselves conditionally; yet how can Christs officers convey the Covenant instrumen­tally to any, unless they have a charitative evi­dence that Christ hath conveyed it to that person particularly?

Mr. H. ib. A moral instrument acts not Physically. To speak freely in this sense of obsignation, the Sacrament doth no more sanctifie us than glorifie us, &c.

Ans. 1. Its enough for us it acts really as an Instrument; I hope a moral instrument, is a real Instrument, though it be not a physical Instru­ment, otherwise the Devil was not an instrument of our first patents fall.

2. We say, The Sacrament is an instrument, [Page 323] because its an arbitrary means in the hand of God to convey the benefits of the Covenant gradually to the worthy receiver, the Lord at the Sacrament in a especial manner giving him delivery and seisin; as by delivery of a bond, there is not only a conveying of parchment, writing and seal, but also and principally of the good things specified in that Deed, which are not conveyed by writing, signing, or sealing, but only by delivery.

Withall, Mr. H. may as well say, The word preached doth not sanctifie gradually, because its not a physical, but a moral instrument. Both Word and Sacrament are real Instruments of san­ctification; the word both to the regenerate and unregenerate, the Sacrament only to the worthy receiver, I mean quantum ad praesens.

Page 177. Mr. H. charges me to be censorious, but why, or in what nè gru quidem. Is not this really to prove himself censorious? Further, we grant the tenor of the Covenant is seald to all present (that is, the good things of the Covenant are conditionally sealed to them) whether they receive or no, which therefore is no argument to prove free admission, but only free presence or at­tendance at the Sacrament.

But whereas he adds ib. There can be no seal to a blank so long as there is truth and writing in the Gospel.

This in some respect is a truth, but not to the purpose: Did I ever affirm the seal was put to a blank as to the Gospel sealed? We grant there is no real blank at the Sacrament, but there are many personal blanks. The seal of the Sacrament, and of the Spirit should ever go together, and how can I seal him with the Sacrament, whom I have [Page 324] ground to beleeve the Spirit hath not sealed. Hence principally flows evidence in the Sacrament, be­cause the Spirit together with the Sacrament seals the worthy receiver, and doth not only seal to him. In Circumcision, not only the Covenant, but also the person was sealed, Gen. 17. 13. Rev. 7. many persons were sealed: The promise secures not only good things for beleevers, but also beleevers for those good things, 1 Pet. 1. v. 4, 5. and what the Covenant holds forth, that the Sacrament seale.

True, as Mr. H. notes p. 178. God hath com­manded us to baptize all Infants within the Church, and to admit all visible Saints, all which yet have not the benefits of the Covenant exhi­bited in a right sense?

But what is this against us who are bound in charity to judge or hope they are real Saints, till they contradict this judgement of charity by vi­sible prophaneness, &c.

2. True, Christ submitted to the Sacra­ments, and there that was sealed to him of which he was capable, as to Adam in innocency; but neither Adam in innocency, nor Christ, ever need­ed pardon, and as by Adams fall the Covenant of works was broken, so had Christ finned in the least, the Covenant of grace had been broken.

3. True, Christ was baptized to fulfil all righteousness, but is it a fulfilling of righteousness to receive unworthily?

4. True, As relative grace is sealed to the worthy receiver, so relative judgement is sealed to the unworthy receiver. But 1. Relative judgement is sealed to some unworthy persons whether they receive or not. 2. For my part, I [Page 325] shall neither counsel, nor easily admit any to mur­ther Christ, and thereby to seal relative judge­ment to themselves.

5. True, To some unworthy abstainers the Sacrament is a savor of death. But I hope Mr. H. will be more charitable than to assert that all who abstain at present are unworthy abstayners.

Mr. H. ib. By way of inquiry I question, how Gods establishing his Covenant by way of seal does import this exhibition of the effectual bene­fits to those he seals?

Ans. 1. It must convey them necessarily, if sealing and exhibition be all one, as Mr. H. makes them to be, p. 176.

2 With us, Gods sealing of the Covenant, doth not alwayes import exhibition of the benefits of the Covenant, we holding that sealing and ex­hibition are two distinct Sacramental actions. The Covenant may be sealed to all present, though divers of them receive not, but the benefits of the Covenant are exhibited to no receivers, but those who are Evangelically worthy.

His inference p. 179. hangs upon the premises like a rope of sand: Therefore Mr. Drake must affirm here, that God seals to a blank (which he most desperately doth) or that this Objection comes to nothing.

Ans. Here indeed are rash and desperate ex­pressions. Mr. D. never said, God seals to a blank as to the Covenant, but he sayes, Mr. H. pleads for sealing to a blank as to many recei­vers.

2. The Objection stands good, because divers Ministers who admit all pell-mell (and amongst them Mr. H. professedly) seal to personal visible [Page 326] blanks where Christ hath given them no such Commission.

Mr. H. ib. A scrupulous Christian may re­ceive the Sacrament as a sign, though haply he cannot receive it as a seal.

Ans. This scrupulous Christian is Evangeli­cally worthy, or not. If the former, he both may and must receive it as a sign, and as a seal; yet withall he must endeavour to get his doubts re­solved. If the latter, then being present, he may learn by the Sacrament as a sign, though he do not receive it as a seal.

Mr. H. p. 180. Here is Mr. Drakes great er­ror, to confound the outward and inward Cove­nant, the external and internal sealing.

Ans. Here is Mr. H. his great error, to mi­stake union for confusion. Mr. Drake thinks, that on the receivers part, the inward and outward Co­venant and sealing should go together, and that he who wants the inward seal should not dare to meddle with the outward seal. He doth not con­found the inward and outward seal, as Mr. H. doth sealing and exhibiting, by making them all one, but unites the inward and outward seal together in point of duty on the receivers part.

Mr. H. ib. If the seal be set to a blank until Gods Law is written in the heart, then no mor­tal can apply the seal to any, seeing that cannot be discerned by any.

Ans. This is a meer non sequitur. A Minister may without sin set the seal to a blank, where in charity he is bound to judge or hope that person is no blank; and this he is bound to hope of all that have competent knowledge, and live without scandal. The receiver must act by the rule of [Page 327] reality, the Church by the rule of visibility. I do not then contradict my self when I say, p. 72. of my Bar, That truth of grace in the heart is not the rule of our admission. Grace real is the rule of an intelligent Church-members receiving, but grace visible is the rule of the Churches ad­mission, whether it be real, or no.

Mr. H. ib. Now I pray note it, If Mr. D. apply these texts, 2 Cor. 3. 3. Heb. 8. 10. (which speak only of the inward writing) to confirm the Objection, that the Seal is set to a Blank if all be admitted, then the world must know that the truth of grace is his rule, or else the new Cove­nant written in the heart is not truth of grace with Mr. Drake.

Ans. 1. Its apparent by my text, I brought the fore-quoted places for illustration, not for proof of the Objection, Mr. H. therefore might well come with an if; But what if Mr. Drake did not bring those places to prove the Objection, let the Reader consult my text, p. 123. of my Bar, where he will easily perceive Mr. H. his foul play with me in this particular, who to fasten an ab­surdity upon me would fain confound the rule of Admission with the rule of Receiving. Mr. H. cannot be ignorant that our principles are these:

‘ Real Blanks must not receive, visible Blanks must not be admitted by the Church;’ and that the scope of th [...] Objection was to dispute against the admission of visible, not of real per­sonal Blanks.

‘ Mr. D. This Blank is either visible, or in­visible; to God all Blanks are visible, and he may use his liberty to set his Seal where he pleases.’

[Page 328]M. H. p. 180. In what a sad case hath be brought himself through his former error, when he must lay this for his foundation, That God who cannot lie, may set his seal to a visible Blank? If the Minister who is Gods Ambassa­dor seals to a visible Blank, it is such an heinous sin, he says, as murdering Christ; and yet does he affirm that God sets his seal to a visible Blank without scruple. It is no wonder the man deals so coursly with me, that uses such rude and un­civil language towards God.

Answ. Such absurd and unreasonable imputa­tions as these, make it too suspitious, that M. H. disputes rather for victory, than for truth. I hope he will not dare to say in cold blood, that those expressions of mine vent any thing of rude lan­guage to God; but that in the very letter, as well as in their sense, they give unto God the glory of his Soveraignty, who is not bound (but where himself pleaseth) to the rules by which he bindes his creatures.

Object. If it be irregular in the Minister to seal to a visible Blank, why not in God also? If the Minister murther Christ by sealing to a visible Blank, how is God free, who doth the same thing?

Answ. The Minister is guilty, because it pleased God to make it murder, by consent in him to seal to a visible Blank: but who can give law to God, and make it murder, by consent in God, to seal to a visible Blank? Its murder in me to take away my neighbors life at pleasure: I hope M. H. will not infer, that therefore its murder in God to take away any mans life at pleasure.

Object. But doth not God by sealing to a visi­ble [Page 329] Blank, testifie that such a person hath truth of grace?

Answ. Absurd. When God knowingly and professedly seals to Blanks, how can it be ima­gined that his design in sealing is to testifie they are no Blanks. God indeed by sealing to a Blank, bindes that Blank to labor for the writing; but its contradictio in adjecto to say, that sealing to a Blank, makes that Blank no Blank. Its not the seal, but the writing, makes a paper or parchment no Blank: nor is it the seal of the Sa­crament, but the writing of the Spirit, makes a Church-member a real Saint, or an Epistle of Christ, 2 Cor. 3. 3.

Object. But then why may not the Minister by sealing to a visible Blank, binde that Blank to labor for the writing, as God doth? (Ʋnder­stand a sealing here by way of admission; for otherwise the Covenant is sealed in the Sacra­ment conditionally, not onely to the receivers, but also to all present, yea, though they be very Heathen, who yet are not sealed by receiving the Sacrament.)

Answ. Because he hath no warrant to seal to that Blank in that manner; the rule being, that persons must 1. Be Church-members. And 2. Visibly worthy, before the Minister seal to them by admission. But who can binde God to this rule?

Object. But is not this the very language of the Sacrament, Christ is thine, &c. And how can God seal this to a person that hath no part in Christ?

Answ. The natural language of the Sacrament, as well as of the Covenant, to whomsoever it is [Page 330] proclaimed, is, Christ is thine, &c. This gift is mine, 1. By way of tender. 2. By way of ac­ceptance. That Christ is theirs by way of ten­der, God seals by the Sacrament to all present, whether they receive or not. That Christ is theirs by way of acceptance and possession, God seals to no receiver, but the worthy receiver. The Sacra­ment says to all present, Christ is thine condition­ally, and by way of offer; but to the worthy Communicant, it says, by way of evidence, Christ is thine, as sure as the outward elements are thine, being received by thee; and that because he per­forms the condition of believing; which condi­tion yet is promised in the Covenant, and wrought instrumentally in the Sacrament, which acts faith objectively as a sign and seal; but effectively, as an instrument, faith apprehending Christ through the Sacrament, as the eye doth an object through a Perspective-glass; yea, the Sacrament doth not onely clear the object, but also strengthens the visive faculty of the soul, by drawing a fresh sup­ply of visual Spirits from Christ the head.

My meaning (in all hath been said) is, that God, by the Sacrament applied to any, doth not testifie to such a receiver, that he hath truth of grace; though by receiving, every Communicant be obliged to act grace: But the Minister, by giving the Sacrament to any, testifies his perswa­sion, or hope, that such a one hath truth of grace; which perswasion, or hope, is grounded upon that competent knowledge and good affections (ac­companied with immunity from scandal) that he findes, upon tryal, or other good evidence, to be in such a Communicant.

Page 181. M. H. doth onely make a [Page 331] flourish by abusing the homonymie of a visible Saint.

To which I briefly answer, A person may be said to be a visible Saint two ways: 1. Relative­ly, as he is a Church-member, born and bred in the Church. 2. Absolutely, as he walks up vi­sibly to his profession. Now, that God would have all relatively visible Saints (which are M. H. his visible Saints, though they be absolutely visi­ble Devils) admitted, is 1. Against the truth. 2. Against the practice of the ancient and modern Church. 3. Against M. H. his own profession, since persons ip so jure excommunicate, are such vi­sible Saints, yet he allows their suspension. That root of bitterness, Heb. 12. 15. was relatively a visible Saint, as being a Church-member; but absolutely he was a visible Devil. The Lord keep me from giving my vote for the admission of such visible Saints.

M. H. ib. Its M. Drakes error to say, there are any visible Blanks in the Church, for how then can we baptize all children? A visible Blank is one visibly out of Covenant: But to be in a Church-state, is to be externally or visibly in Covenant, &c.

Answ. 1. Then its M. Drakes great error to say, there are any visibly profane in the Church.

2. We baptize all children in the Church (a­mong others) upon this account, because none of them are visible Blanks; knowledge we ex­pect not from them, nor are they guilty of any scandal. Besides, we look at their foederal holi­ness in either of their Parents, 1 Cor. 7. 14. or in their grand Parents right, who may undertake for their Christian education, &c. 2 Tim. 1. 5. But of this formerly.

[Page 332] 3. The same person, at the same time (though not in the same respect) may be visibly in Cove­nant, and visibly out of Covenant. Instance in a known Witch, she is visibly in Covenant in M. H. his sense, as a Church-member, till excommuni­cated; yet visibly out of Covenant in our sense, as visibly renouncing Christ and Religion. They who visibly break the Covenant, by lying in visible impenitency and unbelief, are visibly out of Co­venant in an absolute sense, though at the same time they are visibly in Covenant in a relative sense, as not being excommunicated. Such were many of the Israelites, who are called the holy people, Dan. 12. 7. and Gods people, Hos. 4. v.6. 8.12. and 11. 7. yet Hos. 1, 9. Ye are not my peo­ple; and Hos. 2. 2. Your mother is not my wife. These seeming contradictions are easily reconciled, by distinguishing between Gods people relatively and absolutely considered: They were Gods peo­ple by external Covenant-relation, as are all Church-members: they were not Gods people by an external holy carriage, suitable to their external holy relation. Such Lo-Ammies, though in some sense Ammies, we dare not admit to the Sacrament, till by visible repentance their name is made Ruchamah, and Ammi, Hos. 2. 1.

M. H. p. 182, In case any make a forfeiture, which M. D. says the Church ought to take; its manifest then he must be excommunicate, that is, put out of a Church-state, or external Covenant; for while he stands de jure intitu­led as a member, it is a manifest wrong to suspend him the Symbole thereof.

Answ. 1. The Church takes the forfeiture in part, by suspension: but that she must take the [Page 333] highest forfeiture at the first bout by excommu­nication, is both false doctrine, and uncharitable doctrine.

2. Note here from M. H. that among Intelli­gent persons, some are Church-members de jure, others onely de facto. This is hinted from those expressi­ons of M. H, He stands de jure, in­tituled as a member; and again, here our di­stinction of ipso jure dismembred and de prae­senti dis-ti­tuled, must do its ser­vice. ibid. Next, that he is not for the Admission of all intelligent Church-members de facto, unless they be also Church-members de jure; whence I infer from his own principles, that Church-membership and intelligence, are not the adequate foundation of Admission to the Sacra­ment; but there must be somewhat else which makes him a Church-member de jure: And this is the very thing we contend for. The point of difference is now brought to a narrower compass; and could we but agree about the character of a Church-member de jure, our controversie would soon come to issue. Now Church-membership being a relation, it must needs have a foundation. The foundation of Church-membership de facto in intelligent persons, is Admission to that Society; the foundation of Church-membership de jure, is that which encourages the Church to admit such a person: And what is this but competent knowledge and piety visible? This is evident in the Catechumeni, who stood upon their tryal be­fore they were made compleat Church-members; nor did the Jews easily admit any for Proselytes, till upon good evidence of their faith and piety. This foundation then failing, Church-membership de jure must needs cease; and this is the very case of grosly ignorant and scandalous persons, who therefore being not Church-members de jure (at least, if they obstinately persist in those sins) ought not to be admitted to the Sacrament.

[Page 334]M. H. ib. The bare elements do not confirm the Covenant, but the elements, as instituted to that use: But they were instituted to be eaten and drunken; therefore those that are present, must receive too, &c.

Answ. 1. By concession of the first branch, the confirming virtue of the Sacramental elements depends upon divine institution: but have they a confirming vertue onely as received? Do not the elements set apart by the Minister, in the name of Christ, signifie and seal that branch of the Covenant, that Christ from eternity was set apart by God the Father for mans redemption? Do not the elements broken and poured out, sig­nifie and seal Christs Body broken, and his Blood shed to ratifie the Covenant? And is not the Co­venant hereby confirmed to all present, even be­fore they receive, yea, though divers of them do not receive at all?

2. To the second Branch I answer also by way of concession, in part. The elements were insti­tuted to be eaten and drunk: But that therefore all present must eat and drink, is a meer non se­quitur. The Institution is kept intire, if a com­petent number do eat and drink, though all present do not receive. Divers waiters might be in the room at the celebration of the first Sacrament, but Christ bid the Apostles onely to receive.

‘ M. D. They confirm the faith of the wor­thy Receiver; therefore none but Evangeli­cally worthy may partake.’

M. H. He may as well argue thus, Bap­tism confirms the faith onely of those that un­derstand it: Therefore Infants may not partake of it. The word and prayer confirm faith, [Page 335] therefore none but the regenerate may hear and pray. This is no consequence; for whatsoever ordinance can confirm faith, may beget it.

Answ. To the first Branch I answer, by denying that Baptism confirms the faith onely of them that understand it. For,

1. Baptism may confirm the habit of faith in Infants regenerated before Baptism, though it cannot confirm the act of faith, which they are not capable of.

2. It may confirm as an instrument, though it cannot confirm faith in them as a sign or seal.

3. Baptism applyed to Infants may confirm faith in the same persons when they come to years of discretion, though in their Infancy it should not confirm: and therefore it is not to be denyed to Infants. If persons Baptized in Infancy, could never be capable of the confirming power of Baptism, then the argument were strong, that they should not be Baptized.

To the second I answer, If the word and prayer did onely confirm faith, then the infe­rence had been solid: but such is the condition of the Sacrament.

To the third I answer, A posse ad esse non valet consequentia, That which camconfirm faith, may beget it, if God please to appoint that Ordinance to beget, as well as to confirm: But this is the question in dispute, Whether God hath appointed the Lords Supper to beget faith.

Page 182, 183. ‘ M. D. They confirm judgement to the un­worthy receiver.’

M. H. And I pray now what is become of the Blank? p. 183.

Ans. The Blank is still where it was, namely, [Page 336] at the Lords Table, and may thank Mr. H. his free admission for it. Let the Reader here note Mr. H. his perverse dealing with me, who still turns the Argument to a real Blank, when I applied it only to a personal Blank. His distinction about confirming faith formaliter & consequutivè hath been formerly answered, P. 184. which therefore I pass.

Mr. H. ib. To seal to faith is nothing else but that it seals conditionally, which answers the whole Objection.

Ans. 1. If this be good Logick, then the Sa­crament seals as much to unbelief as to faith, since it seals judgement conditionally to unbeleef, as well as mercy conditionally to faith.

2. Its absurd to say it seals conditionally to faith: It seals indeed mercy conditionally to a person that hath not faith, and judgement condi­tionally to a person that hath faith; but it seals ab­solutely mercy to faith, and judgement to unbeleef. I pray upon what condition doth the Sacrament seal mercy to faith? Is not faith here the very act of beleeving? And doth the Sacrament seal grace to beleeving upon condition of beleeving? True, it seals mercy to a person upon condition of belee­ving; but to say it seals mercy to faith upon con­dition of faith, how absurd? and all one as to say, it seals to the condition upon condition of the condi­tion; would not here be progressus in infinitum?

3. After all, This answer doth not satisfie the Objection: For whether the Sacrament seal con­ditionally or absolutely to faith, still it is a seal of faith, and to faith; and still it seals to a Blank, supposing the person receiving be unregenerate, which is the Blank the Objection looks at.

Mr. H. ib. Here is his constant error; for the [Page 337] writing the Sacrament seals to, is not the in­ward Covenant in the heart, but the outward in the Gospel.

Ans. 1. By way of concession of the last branch, That the Sacrament seals to the outward Co­venant, and in that respect never seals to a Blank.

2. By denial of the first branch, That the Sa­crament seals not to the inward Covenant or wri­ting: For 1. It seals to it by way of obligation, binding all Receivers to the inward Covenant as the condition. 2. It seals the outward Covenant and writing to the inward; the good things pro­mised to faith and grace. 3. It seals the inward Covenant or writing by confirming faith of evi­dence, and this, by ratifying the signs of grace upon record in the Covenant, which signs are the touch­stone of faith; the Sacrament assures the Scripture trials of Faith are good, experience assures those signs are in Peter, the conclusion is Peters faith of evidence which depends upon the major, sealed by the Sacrament, as well as upon the minor, confirmed by Peters experience. 4. To the be­leever it seals the inward Covenant; namely, the condition not only by way of obligation as a duty, but also by way of security, as a priviledge, assuring him of future actings of faith, of growth, and of perseverance. Hereby it appears the great error is on Mr. H. his part, who asserts, That the Sacrament seals not to the inward writing or Covenant.

‘ Mr. D. How can the Minister say, This it the blood of Christ for the remission of sins to the unmorthy?’

Mr. H. As Christ said the same to Judas.

Ans. 1. What is this but a begging of the Question. Let Mr. H. first prove that, Christ said [Page 338] those words to Judas, and then make as much of that instance as he can.

2 Suppose Judas did receive, doth not Christ immediately and particularly note him as a person of whom he meant not those words, and who should have no part and interest in his blood or pardon, Luke 22. v.20, 21, 22. If Mr. H. will press our Saviours example for Judas his recei­ving, why doth he not likewise press the same for the publick and personal nomination and uncasing (at the Lords Table) of every Judas that is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and who had better never have been born if he repent not unfeinedly of his betraying of Christ, such rugged work undertaken by him would soon open his eyes to see the justness, equity, and expediency of suspension.

Mr. H. p. 185. Mr. D. confesses God doth not attest our faith.

Ans. Mr. H. abuses me by mangling my words. I say, page 128. of my Bar, ‘ God doth not in terminis, attest my faith at the Sacra­ment.’ The Sacrament ratifies only what the Covenant holds forth, but the Covenant doth not hold forth, Thou Peter or John by name hast true faith, and art in the state of grace, no more than it holds forth, Thou Peter and John by name shall rise at the day of judge­ment. But it were absurd to say, the Gospel doth not attest Johns resurrection, because it doth not say particularly, Thou John shalt rise; and it is as absurd to say, The Scripture doth not attest Johns faith, because it doth not say particularly and nominally, Thou John beleevest.

"Dr. D. The Seals may be applied before all, not to all.

[Page 339]Mr. H. ib. He that looks on shall be sure to be damned if he eat not Christ spiritually, and to be saved if he receive Christ spiritually, whether he partake of the elements, or not; And what then becomes of all this dreadfulnes that is laid upon our consciences, with a bare touch not, taste not, handle not? This actual receiving then serves but to affect us the more solemnly with our condition, and be a more serious obligation by the outward, to that inward eating, whereby alone we look to be saved.

Ans. 1. By concession; We are saved only by eating Christ spiritually; yet withall, we may be damned by eating Christ Sacramentally, if we eat him not worthily; therefore his condition who eats Christ Sacramentally, but not spiritually, is worse caeter is paribus, than his who wanting faith to eat him spiritually, forbears to eat him Sacramentally. He that kisses Christ, and be­trayes him, hath more to answer for, than he who betrayes him without a kiss. The higher profession we make of love to Christ, the worse is our sin in murdering him; but he who receives, makes an higher profession of love to Christ, than he who at present forbears, as fearing he doth not love Christ, and beleeve savingly in him; there­fore an unbeleeving receives, sins more than an unbeleeving abstainer; and here lyes the dread­fulness laid upon our consciences, though Mr. H. is pleased to put it off lightly.

2. Again, by concession: Actual receiving serves to affect and oblige us more solemnly to the inward eating; whence it follows, that he who eats outwardly, but not inwardly, sins more caeter is paribus, than he who eats neither in­wardly [Page 340] nor outwardly, because the former sins against a greater obligation, as M. H. well notes; which therefore makes for us, and against him­self.

M. H. ib. & p. 186. M. D. is notable, The Sacrament he counts not a seal properly, but fi­guratively to the Covenant it self. I pray mark it. So in the former leaf, he concludes it tropi­cally a seal: now read but a few lines further in the very same page; and he tells us, As it con­firms the Covenant, it confirms faith: and if this be not to seal in a proper formal sense, Theo­logically, I know not what is. Is not this pretty? The Sacrament is not a proper formal seal, but figurative and metaphorical; and yet▪ if it does not seal in a proper formal sense, he knows not what does, M. Drake does often tell you of my contradictions, when he onely goes about to make them, but I need not tell you he hath any.

Ans. Let the Reader but consult my Text, p. 129. of my Bar, and he will easily perceive how M. H. abuses first my self, and then his Reader in this particular.

1. Therefore note, That by proper in the for­mer branch, I mean a litteral seal in the Gram­matical sense, as is evident by my explication of my self in the forequoted place, of purpose to pre­vent this captious mistake, in these words, ‘ In a proper sense a seal is an artificial thing fit to make a visible representation or impression.’ In this sense, I say, the Sacrament is not properly a seal: For 1. It is not an artificial thing. 2. It makes not a visible impression either upon the Co­venant, or upon the receiver. Let me ask M. H. is the Sacrament a litteral seal? I have heard (in [Page 341] this sense) of a golden or silver seal, &c. but ne­ver of a Breaden seal.

By Proper, in the latter sense, I mean a real seal, in opposition to a feigned and counterfeit seal, or the picture of a seal. This is known by the effects: hence we prove the Sun to be fire, because it hath the effects of fire, though it differ much from our culinary fire. Now the main effect and use of a seal being to confirm and ratifie, and this being the proper effect of the Sacrament, we conclude, that the Sacrament is properly a seal, though it be not litterally a seal.

2. M. H. mistakes grosly, in opposing tropical to proper; whereas tropical and figurative is not opposed to proper, but to litteral. Christ is properly a vine, yet tropically a vine; but not litterally a vine. He is the true bread, Joh. 6. 32: His flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed, ver. 55. Surely that which is true bread, that which is meat and drink indeed, is properly so, yet it need not be so litterally, it being enough, that it is so tropically and metaphorical­ly. The mistake of this distinction, was the ground of that Capernaticial error, John 6. 63. of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, and is the ground of M. H. his topical mistake, and perverting of my present Text.

‘ M. D. Nor will his instance of Circumci­sion help him, which was applyed to none but visible Saints, &c.’

M. H. That is the whole Jewish Nation, Josh. 5. v. 3. 6.8. when of age, without exami­tion and profession, which declares both that all Church-members are visible Saints, and that that alone gives a right to be admitted.

[Page 342] Answ. 1. Its evidently false, and against the very letter of Scripture, that all the Jewish Nati­on were circumcised at Gilgal, see Josh. 5. v.5, 7. the text tells us, that onely they who were born in the wilderness by the way, were circumcised; the rest having been circumcised in Egypt.

Object. Were not all who were born in Egypt, destroyed in the wilderness?

Answ. No such matter, but onely those who were twenty years old and upwards at their coming out of Egypt, Caleb and Joshuah onely excepted, compare Numb. 26. v.64, 65. and 14. v.29, 30. and 1. v.2, 3.

2. That all these were not onely visible Saints, but eminently visible Saints; should M. H. deny it, the Scripture would convince him, Deut. 4 v.3, 4. Josh. 24. 21. Judg. 2. 7.

3. That the Israelites circumcised at Gilgal were not at all examined, nor made any profession of their faith and piety, is more then M. H. can prove; his argument for it at best is but negative, because it is not recorded Josh. 5.

4. That they did make profession of their faith before this circumcision, is evident enough by another place, Deut 26. 17. and that probably within a week before they were circumcised; and divers times the whole Nation were put upon it to make profession of, and ingage for God and Religion, Josh. 24. and 2 Chro. 15. and 34. v. 32. 33. which last is the more remarkable, because it was done just before the Passover, that answers out Lords Supper. So Ezr. 10. and Neh. 10. and 11. and particularly its noted, Ezra 6. 21. that not simply all Church-members, but such as had separated themselves from the filthiness of [Page 343] the Heathen, to seek the Lord, did eat the Pass­over; which is also remarkable in Hozekiahs Passover, where moral pollution was looked at as a greater bar than Levitical pollution, 2 Chron. v. 18.—20.

5. Whither will not men fall when once they are sliding, if God leave them to themselves? We had though before, M. H. had been onely for free admission of persons baptized unto the Lords Supper, now he is for the free admission of all persons at years born in the Church (of Christian parents) unto the Ordinance of Baptism, without either examination or profession. Here he falls an Ace below the Anabaptists, who will not ad­mit the Children of Christian Parents to Baptism, without profession of their faith, &c. must we indeed baptize the children of Anabaptists, Qua­kers, Ranters, &c. being at age, without any tryal of their faith and piety, without any en­gaging of them to profession of Christ, or obedi­ence to him? All this laid together, will abun­dantly discover the vanity of M. H. his conclusi­on, and prove, that bare Church-membership is not enough for admission to the Lords Sup­per.

M. H. ib. To the simile that follows, I have spoken, and I refer you to M. Calvin, who pleases himself with it, in shewing the same point; to wit, Sacramenta non desinere esse testi­monia gratiae Dei, Licet impiis quo (que) porrigan­tur. Just. l. 4. cap. 14. sect. 7.

Answ. 1. His similitude I convince of weak­ness, page 130. of my Bar; to which it will be hard for M. H. to speak to purpose argumentative­ly, though I know he can speak fluently. The simi­litude [Page 344] I grant is good, if rightly applyed; at which application (I hope I may speak it with­out offence) M. Calvin is better than M. Hum­phrey, and he is far enough from applying it to M. H. his purpose.

2. We deny not what M. Calvin asserts, That the Sacraments are testimonies of Gods grace, even when they are offered to the wicked. The es­sence of an Ordinance is not changed by mans wickedness: But what is this to the justifying of their practice, who offer the Sacrament promis­cuously; against which Calvin is so zealous, that he calls it, 1. ‘ An ataxie, or disorder. 2. Sacri­lege. 3. A prophanation of the Sacrament. 4. A prostitution of the holy treasures. 5. A gross injury done to God. 6. So great an evil, that after all means used in vain to redress it, a Minister may warrantably forsake such a peo­ple as incorrigible, yea, ought not to stay with them.’ All this you have in one Epistle, page 438. and 439. of Calvins Epistles, printed at Geneva, An. 1617.

M. D. ‘ How dare a Minister by word and seal apply the Covenant of grace to those that visibly reject it?’

M. H. Page 187. Unto this M. D. shall first answer, p. 84, of his Bar, ‘ Though they transgress, they do not renounce the Covenant. 2. They are members of the visible Church till excommu­nicated.’ Well, now let him come to speak about the Sacrament, p. 131. ‘ All who are visibly in the state of nature (says he) are visibly out of Covenant.’ I pray mark it; if natural men be members of the visible Church, how are they visibly out of Covenant: If they are visi­bly [Page 345] in Christ, how do they visibly reject Christ?

Answ. 1. I have answered this cavil formerly by comparing the Prophet Hosea with himself, and with other Scriptures.

2. Experience proves that some Church-mem­bers do in the very letter reject the Covenant, in­stance in Witches; therefore my first assertion must be understood indefinitely, not univer­sally.

3. Were not the Jews visibly in Christ as Gods professed people? yet they rejected Christ visi­bly in the letter before Pontius Pilate, Acts 3. 13. Do not Arrians also visibly reject the Deity of Christ?

4. The same person may own Christ one way, yet visibly reject him another way: Thus too many who own Christ by profession, reject him by prophaneness; attend upon him at the Ordi­nances, but renounce him in their conversation. Here is no contradiction, as M. H. would make the Reader believe. Does he think that Christ is not at all renounced, unless he be universally re­nounced?

M. H. ib. So long as the Lord owns a people in Covenant, the Minister may apply the out­ward seals of it: But while men are Church-members, the Lord does own them outwardly as his people.

Answ. The Minister may own them as God owns them; but God so owns a people professing his Covenant, as at the same time he disowns them breaking his Covenant, as hath formerly been shewed; therefore so may a Minister own them as Church-members, but not as worthy Church-members, and fit Gommunicants.

[Page 346]M. H. ib. So long as men are not excommunicate, I see no reason why Christ may not be offered Sa­cramentally, as free as verbally, to work them to repentance.

Answ. 1. Why then doth not Mr. H. allow the suspension of persons jure excommunicate, who are not yet actually under excommunica­tion?

2. When he can prove that Christ received sacramentally, works repentance and conversion, then he speaks something to the purpose for free admission. For his similitude of a sealed pardon here repeated again: we grant, as the pardon is offered to all conditionally (which general in­cludes every particular) so its sealed in the Sa­crament to all conditionally, whether they receive or no. But what is this to their receiving the sign, who visibly reject the thing signified? As the Pro­mise, so the Sacrament, is offered to all, if they will believe and repent; but unbelievers and im­penitent persons, must neither partake of the pro­mises, nor of the seals.

M. H. p. 188. Absolutely the Sacrament seals no mans interest, as M. D. vainly imagines.

Answ. 1. If it seal not the believers interest absolutely, then the best Saint can take no solid comfort by the Sacrament. This vain conceit of M. H. like the Philistims earth, would stop up the well of comfort to Gods Isaacs.

2. Therefore, a thing is absolute two ways, 1. When without condition. 2. When the condi­tion is performed: but the condition of faith is performed by the worthy receiver; therefore the Sacrament seals his interest in Christ abso­lutely.

[Page 347]M. H. ib. When other means will not work upon them, there remains excommunication, and let that content him.

Answ. 1. Were M. H. serious in this particu­lar, he would not be so favourable to gross and affected ignorance, which by his rule must neither be suspended nor excommunicated; and how then shall that damnable sin be cured?

2. If there can be content in so sharp a reme­dy, we are content with excommunication as the last refuge, provided all other means be first used, among which we look at suspension as a very con­siderable one, how ever M. H. is pleased to over­look it.

M. D. ‘ The Sacraments are Gods seals, as relating to Gods Covenant, &c.’

M. H. p. 188. A good confession. Then they are not Gods seals, as relating unto faith, and instituted formally to ratifie faith. They are not seals of faith for righteousness, &c.

Answ. Is not this strange Logick? The Sacra­ments are Gods seals, as relating to the Covenant, therefore they are not Gods seals as relating unto faith. He may as well argue, Isaac was Abrahams son as relating to the promise, therefore he was not Abrahams son as relating to his faith: or, Isaac was a childe of the promise, therefore he was not a childe of faith. I hope God, Faith, and the Covenant, are not at such a distance, but that each of them may have a propriety in one and the same seal. Besides, if faith be a part of Gods Covenant (which hath formerly been proved) then the Sacrament must needs be faiths seal, as well as the Covenants seal. Is the Covenant, Gods Covenant; the Sacrament, Gods Sacrament, as [Page 348] the Author thereof; and is not my faith also Gods faith, as the Author thereof? and why then may not Gods seal be my faiths seal, as well as the Covenants seal? We dispute not about formali­ties, but realities; its enough for us that the Sacrament is truly faiths seal, as well as Gods and the Covenants seal, though in some respect it may be faiths seal, in which respect it is not Gods seal.

M. D. ‘ Is not faith and every saving grace promised in the New-Covenant, unless M. H. will turn Pelagian?’

M. H. ib. We neither make faith the birth of mans free-will, nor yet to be given by virtue of the Covenant made with man, which the Sacra­ment seals; but to be Gods most free gift that proceeds from election and discovers the mysteric thereof.

Answ. 1. I am glad M. H. is so Orthodox, as to acknowledge faith to be the birth, not of mans free-will, but of Gods free electing grace. This agreement in fundamentals is comfortable, though we differ in superstructures.

2. That in general, faith and other graces are promised in the New-Covenant, is to me un­questionable; for proof whereof I shall intreat M. H. to turn to Jerem. 31. v.31, 32, 33. See like­wise Ezek, 36. v.25, 26, 27. And 1. There you have a Covenant. 2. A future Co­venant, I will make a Covenant, as distinct up­on that account from the eternal Covenant made with Christ, which even then was a Covenant past. 3. A New Covenant, and that either in opposition to the Covenant of works made with Adam, or (which is the proper scope of the place) in contradistinction to the Legal Covenant made [Page 349] with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, compare ver. 32. 4. A Covenant expresly made with man, even with the house of Israel and Judah, ver. 31, and 33. 5. Mark, I pray, what is given by vertue of this Covenant thus made with man, ver. 33. I will put my law in their hearts, and write it in their mindes, &c. And what I pray, is the Law written in the heart, but faith and other graces? This is the more considerable, as prest by the Apostle twice, Heb. 9. v.8, 9,10. and 10. v.15, 16.

3. He mistakes in opposing a free gift to a Co­venant, since the same thing may be a free gift and yet a covenanted mercy; and that two ways, 1. When covenanted absolutely, instance in Gods Covenant against a future universal deluge, Gen. 9. v. 9. to 17. 2. When covenanted conditionally, yet so as the condition is promised in the Cove­nant, God therein undertaking for our part, as well as for his own: And such is the Covenant of Grace to all that are elected and effectually called, but to none else.

To illustrate this by Sampsons covenant with his thirty Companions, Judg. 14. v.11, 12. Had the agreement been, that as many of them as could declare his riddle, should have each of them a sheet, &c. and at the same time Sampson had resolved to declare the riddle to three of the thirty, before the seventh day, undoubtedly that Cove­nant with the three, though conditional in form, yet had been absolute in reality. And if a condi­tional proposition be not absolute, the condition being supposed or performed, then there is no absolute proposition in the world. Instance, If M. H. be a rational creature, then he is a man: [Page 350] this is a conditional proposition, yet I hope the consequent, That M. H. is a man, is an abso­lute proposition. Why? Because the condition is really in M. H. In lake manner, if Peter believe, he is justified, &c. this is a conditional propo­sition, yet upon the same account the consequent, Peter is justified, is an absolute proposition. Why? Because the condition is really performed by Peter. And thus its easie to make the most absolute propositions conditional by an hypo­thetical demonstration of any subject by its pro­perties, 1 Kings 10. 21. If the Lord be God, follow him: this is conditional, yet I hope to fol­low the Lord is an absolute duty. Why? Be­cause the condition of Deity is in him, and in him alone.

For further explication note, A proposition (taking it here in a large sense) may be

1. Absolutely true, and conditionally false; as, Judas shall be damned, and, Though Judas repent he shall be damned.

2. Absolutely true, and conditionally true; as, Peter shall be saved, and, If Peter believe he shall be saved.

3. Absolutely false, and conditionally true; as, Judas shall be saved, and, If Judas repent he shall be saved.

4. Absolutely false, and conditionally false; as, Peter shall be damned, and, Though Peter believe he shall be damned.

Its evident then, that Conditionality is no bar to Absoluteness: That which is conditionally true, may be absolutely true; and that which is absolutely true, may be conditionally true: And thus the Covenant is both conditional and absolute [Page 351] to the Elect, but only conditional to the Repro­bate. Its conditional to both because a condition is required of both; its absolute to the one be­cause the condition is purposed and promised to them, and wrought in them, namely, saving faith and repentance. And, as the Covenant is, so its sealed in the Sacrament.

Its evident then, that faith is the fruit, not only of Gods free gift, but also of Gods Covenant.

‘Mr. D. If the Covenant be Gods, if the Seal be Gods, and faith promised in it be Gods also, is it not apparent that Gods Seal must needs be faiths Seal also?’

Mr. H. ib. and p. 189. If he count this ap­parent which is a very Chaos, you may guess what light to expect from him. The truth is, as faith is our condition it is not a branch of the Covenant that God seals; which puzled this man; for if it were, every man should unque­stionably come, and ingage the Lord by his own Seal to undertake for his condition; and con­sequently, if God perform what he ingages, every one should be saved.

Ans. 1. If Mr. H. his ipse dixit be enough, how suddenly can he turn an apparent light into a Chaos? Now to dispel this Chaos of his make­ing, not with words, but arguments. Note the ground of the fore-mentioned hypothesis opposed by Mr. H. is the neer relation between God, the Covenant, and Faith, which are so inseparably united in the matter of grace, as that which is the Seal of the one, must needs be the Sea [...] [...] the other; and that which is a Seal to the one, must needs be a Seal to the other. Thus if the Sacra­ment be a Seal of, and to God, it must needs be [Page 350] [...] [Page 351] [...] [Page 352] a Seal of, and to the Covenant, and of, and to Faith. They must needs be sealed as they are promised, but they are all promised together, and they must needs seal as they promise; but God, the Covenant, and Faith promise together, there­fore they must needs both seal, and be sealed to­gether; particularly, that the Covenant is pro­mised. See Jer. 32. v. 31. &c.

2. Its an untruth, That faith as our condition is not a branch of the Covenant that God seals. He may as well say, That the Law written in the heart, is not a branch of that Covenant; and that perseverance (which also is a condition) is not a branch of that Covenant. Sure the Prophet was of another mind, Jer. 32. v. 39. 40. where you see God undertakes for the condition it self, as well as for the good things promised upon that con­dition.

3. His argument to prove the former assertion is absurd, if his should relates to execution, not to obligation. We grant, every one under the Go­spel should come, in point of duty, and humbly and seriously ingage God to perform the condi­tion in him, and by him, upon which God would perform what he ingages, and every such person would be saved undoubtedly; but we deny that in point of execution every one can, or will come, and thus ingage God, excepting only those who are elected, and effectually called, taught and drawn by the Father, Joh. 6. v.44, 45. Compare Jer. 29. 12 13. & 21. 9. Ezek. 36 v.25, 26, 27, 37. Zach 12. 10. Joh. 6. [...]. True, sal­vation is promised to all conditionally if they be­leeve, and faith is required of all that live under the Gospel; but faith is not either promised, or given to all that are planted under the means of grace, but only to the Elect, Matth. 13. v.13, 14, 15. [Page 353] Joh. 6. 64. and 2 Thess. 3. 2. Rom. 11. v.7, 8. Joh. 6. v.44, 45.

Mr. H. p. 189. This Mr. D. sees p. 134. 135 and is quite lost in his very first particular, for while he supposes the Covenant promises initial grace to the Elect, and the Sacrament seals that Covenant, and the Seal secures what is in the writing (which are all his own terms) he must necessarily take upon him to judge who are Reprobates, which is sinful to do; or all must be admitted; For though men are visibly yet in the state of nature, they may be elect.

Answ. Mr. H. his necessary consequence is, a meer non sequitur in both branches. True, the Covenant promises, the Sacrament seals, the seal secures grace absolutely only to the Elect, and effectually called; When I say initial grace is sealed in the Sacra­ment to the Elects I would not here be mista­ken: I do not mean, that initial grace is sealed to an elect person (now in the state of nature) as progressive grace is sealed to a per­son effectually called. For illustration, Suppose Paul before con­version receive the Sacrament, or be present at it, &c. I do not think the Sacrament can assure Paul (though elected) that he shall be converted; but that it assures only in the general, that all the Elect shall be converted, who indeed are the Seed, and the true Israel. Rom 9. v.6, 7,8. compare Jer. 31. 33. And this at present I cannot but assent to, till I be convineed, that the whole Covenant of grace is not sealed or confirmed in the Lords Supper, which in its very institution, was a sign and seal of Christs blood shed not only for the Apostles, but also for many for the remission of fins; com­pare Matth. 26. 28. and Luke 22. 20. And why that (many) should not include all the Elect (as well as some of them) I know not, yet I will not be peremptory, but shall very willingly learn of Mr. H. or any other that will inform me better. But how doth it thence fol­low that I must necessarily take upon me to judge who are Reprobates, or else all must be admitted? Mr. H. gives the reason, because men may be [Page 354] visibly in the state of nature, and yet elected. A pitiful reason, which I shall endeavour to evince by these Arguments.

1 Did I infallibly know a person to be elected, yea effectually called; It follows not that there­fore I must presently admit him to the Sacra­ment, for he may be notwithstanding actually unworthy, as lying under the guilt of some scan­dalous sin, &c. much less then must all be admit­ted upon a supposition that possibly they are elected. Nor on the other hand doth it follow, That I undertake to judge who are Reprobates; For though it be true, that initial grace is promi­sed, sealed, and secured in the Sacrament only to the elect; and though it be also true, that I dare not admit all Church-members to the Sacrament, yet it cannot flow from these two propositions, that I undertake to judge who are Reprobates, since we neither look at admission of any, as an infallible evidence of their Election, nor at sus­pension of any as an infallible evidence of their Reprobation; Nay we beleeve in thesi, that many persons admitted are Reprobates, and that divers persons suspended are elect vessels of mercy; the rule of Church-admission being not electing grace, but visible worthiness, and the rule of Church-suspension, being not Reprobation, but visible unworthiness.

2. Yet further to convince him from the con­ditional Covenant which he grants is sealed in the Sacrament. It follows not, though the Covenant be sealed conditionally to all Church-members, that therefore all Church-members must be ad­mitted, or else I must take upon me to judge who are in the state of nature, since the ground of [Page 355] suspension, is not simply mens being in the state of nature, but their actual unworthiness as visible, whether they be in the state of nature or not: Now if it follow not from the conditional sealing of the Covenant in the Sacrament, that I must either ad­mit all, or undertake to judge who are in the state of nature; why should it follow from the absolute sealing of the Covenant, that all must be admit­ted, or I undertake to judge who are Reprobates? And this is the more considerable, because the conditional Covenant is sealed to all, not so the absolute Covenant. And if the conditional Co­venant sealed to all be no ground for universal admission, much less is the absolute Cove­nant, sealed only to some Church members, a ground why all Church-members should be ad­mitted.

Again, if denying the Sacrament to divers to whom the Covenant is sealed conditionally be no argument to prove that I judge them to be in the state of nature, much less is the denying of the Sacrament to any an argument that I judge them to be Reprobates. My suspension of any argues indeed that at present I judge such a person to be visibly unworthy, at least actually; but it argues not ne­cessarily that I judge him to be in the state of na­ture, much less, that I judge him to be a Re­probate.

Mr. H. ib. Had not the man so much con­temned me, he might have found how to distin­guish between what comes from Gods under­taking with man, or the conditional bosome of the Covenant; and what comes from his under­taking with Christ, or the free, absolute bosome of Election.

[Page 356]I perceive here the man is troubled as appre­hending that I contemn him, which is a fond and groundless jealousie. I hate his errors, but I ho­nour his person.

Withall he twits me as not distinguishing be­tween what comes from Gods undertaking with man, and what comes from Gods undertaking with Christ.

I confess I am too dim-sighted, and therefore shall willingly be instructed by Mr. H. or any other, provided they will suffer me to see with my own eyes, and not take things upon bare re­port and trust.

I shall therefore crave leave to distinguish be­tween Gods undertaking for man, and Gods un­dertaking with man. For man God undertook with Christ from eternity to call some effectu­ality. With man God undertakes two wayes: 1. With all, at least to whom the Covenant is proclaimed, to give them salvation by Christ, up­on condition of their faith and repentance. 2. With some (that is, the effectually called.) 1. To give them perseverance in the condition which himself hath already wrought in them (partly of free grace, and partly by virtue of the Covenant made with Christ on their behalf.) And 2. In the issue to give them eternal salvation upon the forementi­oned account of Christ and free grace. And why Gods undertaking for man may not be sealed in the Sacrament, as well as Gods undertaking with man; as yet I must confess, I see no convincing reason.

M. H. ib. I pray compare M. D. his third particular with this first. The Sacrament, he says there, is for nourishment (and that I hope to the Elect) So p. 147. it seals not initial, but [Page 357] progressive grace: and yet here, the Covenant (he counts) promises initial grace to the elect, and the seal secures what is in the Covenant. So that what need I to dispute with Mr. Drake, when his own particulars have an opponent and defendant among themselves? &c.

Answ. 1. The Sacrament seals not nourishment at present to the elect unregenerate in sensu con­juncto, as the Covenant promises not growth to them before they have life. As the Covenant promises, so the Sacrament seals orderly: 1. Life and initial grace. 2. Nourishment and growth; M. H. therefore might have spared his parenthesis, but that by it he hoped to slur me.

2. To slur me yet more, M. H. corrupts my text, page 147. of my Bar: my words are these, ‘ The Sacrament (as received) is not a means of initial, but of progressive grace, doth not beget grace at first by regeneration, but in­crease and strengthen grace by nourishment and confirmation, &c.’ There is no such words in that page, as M. H. fathers upon me; namely, that the Sacrament seals not initial, but progres­sive grace.

Object. What the Sacrament seals, that it begets: But the Sacrament ( Dr.) Drake con­fesses) seals initial grace; ergo.

Answ. Absurd, if understood universally. The Sacrament seals Christs death and satisfaction, I hope it doth not beget them. It begets some things it seals; namely, progressive grace and evidence; but it doth not beget all things it seals, amongst which initial grace is one. True, p. 135. of my Bar, I have these words (for omitting of which I do not thank M. H. his kindeness) ‘ The [Page 358] Lords Supper being a Sacrament of nourish­ment, seals not properly initial, but progressive grace, nor can the Church apply it to conver­sion, but edification, &c.’

Thence some may argue, that I assert, the Sa­crament seals not initial grace, yet elsewhere af­firm, that the Sacrament doth seal initial grace: which two propositions seem contradictory.

Answ. True, had I not inserted that term pro­perly; and that upon this account, because though the Sacrament seal or assure, that all the elect shall have initial grace: yet this cannot effectu­ally comfort Timothy (supposing him then in his natural estate) because at the same time his election is uncertain to him, though certain in it self. As that branch of the Covenant, That all the elect shall have initial grace, cannot comfort me, till I know I am elected: so the sealing or assuring of that branch, cannot comfort me, till I know I am elected, Therefore I said, the Sa­crament seals not initial grace properly, because, though it seal really, that all the elect yet un­converted, shall in due time be effectually called, and so shall have an interest in the blood of Christ declaratively shed in the Sacrament, for the re­mission of the sins of many: yet by that sealing, an elect person in the estate of nature, can have no special comfort; because he cannot in an ordinary way know he is elected, till he be effectually cal­led, at which time initial grace is wrought, and is the ordinary and sure evidence of election; and to such a one the Sacrament doth not seal initial grace, as future, and to be wrought, but as past and already wrought, but it properly seals pro­gressive grace, in the sense above-mentioned. My [Page 359] own particulars then do not fall together by the ears, though M. H. do his best to make them mutual Opponents and Defendants, that by their seeming variance, his error of Free-Admission might get the day.

Having laid this foundation, I shall now come to his posing Questions, page 190. unto which I shall endeavor to give a clear and a candid answer.

Mr. H. Q. 1. Whether it be one and the same Covenant I speak of there?

Answ. As to eternal Salvation, and the necessa­ry conditions thereof (to wit, perseverance and suitable growth in grace) I believe the Covenant made with Christ from eternity, and with those of the elect, who are effectually called in time, is one and the same substantially, though in other particulars there be a vast difference.

M. H. Q. 2. How the Covenant being conditi­onal, doth promise absolutely?

Answ. Because as it requires the condition of the regenerate, so it promises the condition to the regenerate.

M. H. Q. 3. How it promises initial grace? For faith and repentance are the conditions of the Covenant; and how can faith be promised upon condition we have grace?

Answ. 1. That it doth promise initial grace, is evident by Scripture, Ezek. 36. 26, 27. unless the new heart, the heart of flesh, the spirit put within us, be not initial grace.

2. Initial faith and repentance are not pro­mised, upon condition we have faith and repen­tance, or grace (I own not that Brat, though M. H. would fain father it upon me) But because its [Page 360] promised or foretold absolutely in the Covenant, that initial grace shall in due time be wrought in all the Elect yet uncalled (not so in the reprobate) And because I apprehend the whole Covenant is sealed or assured (as to its truth) in the Sacra­ment, I must confess (with submission to better judgements) I know not how to shut this branch of the Covenant here out of doors.

Object. This Ob­jection supposes the pro­mise of salvation made con­ditionally to natural men. Is it not a mockage to make a condi­tional promise to him, who I know cannot per­form the condition?

Answ. Not at all. Supposing 1. He be bound to the condition. 2. That the condition was once in his power. 3. That he lost that power by his own default, which is the case of all Adams po­sterity by natural generation. Doth God mock natural men who are under the Law, by promising them life upon condition of perfect obedience? Matth. 19. 17. Hath God lost his authority to command, because we have lost our power to obey? And may not God annex a promise to any command, but he must be thought to mock his creature? And if God may promise life to perfect obedience, without mockage; may he not pro­mise life to faith, without mockage, though the creature left to it self be able to perform neither of the conditions? May the creditor promise liberty to an insolvent debtor, upon condition he satisfie the debt, and that without mockage; and may not God promise life to an impotent creature, up­on condition the creature believe, &c. without mockage? God by requiring impossible condi­tions, and annexing promises to those conditions, designs not to mock his poor creature, but to de­monstrate the creatures impotency, and thereby to out it of self, &c.

[Page 361]Mr. H. Q. 4. What difference is there be­tween the Covenants offer of grace, and promise of grace conditionally?

Answ. As much difference as there is between the tender of 100 l. down upon the nail, and the promise of the said money without tender. The tender of the money upon the day will excuse the debtor in Law, not so the promise of that money. I think there is some difference between saying, Come when you will, and you shall have your money; and saying, Here is your money, I pray tell it and take it.

Mr. H. Q. 5. How can the offer of grace. be said to be sealed, as offer is distinguished from promise?

Answ. As he that tenders money promised un­der hand and seal, may by witness, hand and seal, attest that the tender was made to all, and ac­cepted by some creditors, but refused by others. I hope here the tender sealed, is distinguished clear enough from the promise sealed.

Mr. H. Q. 6. Whether the Minister can seal which he please, either the offer or promise; and why he shonld not content himself to seal the offer which is sure to all present, rather than to seal the promise where he may erre, seeing his visible Legatees, really may not be such?

Answ. 1. The Minister must seal what Christ would have him, and that is both offer and pro­mise, they ever going together in the Sacrament; nor is he at his own choice, to seal whether he please. What God promises in the Covenant, that he offers by his Ambassadors, both in the word preached, and at the Sacrament; onely at the Sa­crament; [Page 362] there is not onely a promise and offer, but also a sealing of them both.

2. The promise and offer are considerable, 1. As to their real existence; and thus the Sacra­ment seals, that the promise and offer of Christ to all present (yea, wherever the Gospel is preach­ed) conditionally, is no fiction, but a funda­mental truth. 2. As to its attingency and effica­cy; and thus its not promised or offered to all pre­sent, or to all receivers. My meaning is, that at the Sacrament, Christ with all his benefits is ne­ver so either promised or offered, as that all pre­sent are assured thereby, they shall either obtain infallibly the good things promised, or accept the good things tendered. Whence it follows, that though the Minister may mistake (as a man) about the person of any receiver, thinking chari­tably he hath grace, when he hath it not: yet he cannot mistake as to his office, since he under­takes not to promise or tender Christ effectually to any (that being onely Gods work) though he groundedly hope God by him doth effectually promise and tender Christ to divers receivers; namely, where the Spirit is pleased to strike in effectually with the promise and tender sealed, in the Sacrament, by the Minister as Christs Am­bassador.

Object. How can the Minister seal absolute­ly to the regenerate, when he cannot seal to them but upon condition of regeneration? And since he knows none that are regenerated (I mean, as such) must he not needs seal conditionally to all, and so to the regenerate among the rest?

Answ. As a promise may be both absolute and conditional, so it may be sealed both absolutely [Page 363] and conditionally: Now the promise is made to the regenerate both absolutely and conditionally; therefore it may and must be sealed to them both absolutely and conditionally. The promise of salvation is made and sealed to Timothy, 1. Con­ditionally, that is, upon condition of his acting and persevering in faith, &c. 2. Absolutely, because really the condition is and shall be performed by him. The same promise is made and sealed to Judas onely conditionally, because those conditi­ons are neither performed nor performable by him: whence the promise can no way be made or sealed absolutely to Judas, as it is to Timothy. Though therefore the Minister at the Sacrament seal con­ditionally to Timothy, yet at the same time he seals absolutely also (though haply unwittingly) because the condition of eternal salvation is per­formed by Timothy, not so by Judas.

Mr. D. ‘ Christ may be given to all at the Sacrament (if you take giving for holding forth) though they do not receive.’

Page 190. M. H. What an unworthy shift is this to be made use of so often! As Christ is held forth to all Sacramentally, he is held forth to this end to be Sacramentally eaten and drunken. Take eat, this is my body; that is, thus taken and eaten it is his body, and not o­therwise. The Sacrament then gives not out Christ, or holds him forth Sacramentally, but to those that receive it. The falla­cy lies in the term Sacramen­tal. At the Lords Supper you have Christ Spiritual and Sacra­mental. At every Lords Supper Christ Spiritual is offered to all present, and its their duty to receive Christ Spiritual: But it follows not thence, that Christ Sacra­mental (that is, the Elements) must be offered to, and received by all present. They are justly denyed the sign, who visibly re­fuse the thing signified.

[Page 364] Answ. I perceive M. H. hath a strong breath, to blast a mans sense, where he cannot convince it. I dare not boast of any worthiness either in my person, words, or actions; I hope the Lord hath made me truly sensible of my exceeding great un­worthiness in them all. However (as I have) I shall endeavor, through grace, to assert and vin­dicate truth, though, I must confess, too unwor­thily. As to the point in hand:

1. Its false, that Christ is or must be held forth to all present Sacramentally, if by holding forth you mean an offer or tender. Suppose one jure excommunicate be present; must the Mini­ster offer Christ Sacramental to him? M. H. himself hath granted the contrary. True, he is held forth to all present Sacramentally by way of Declaration, but not by way of Oblation or of­fer to all present. All present may see Christ set apart and broken Sacramentally, &c. they may also see the Covenant sealed in the Sacrament to all present conditionally: But it follows not thence, that Christ must needs be offered Sacramentally to all present, though he be always offered to some present Sacramentally, and must be so received by them.

2. Its false, that unless the Sacramental bread be eaten (understand proportionably of the Sacra­mental Cup as Christs blood) its not Christs body: for 1. Its Christs body by consecration, according to Christs institution, before it be taken and eaten, otherwise the Minister would utter an untruth in speaking those words, Take eat, this is Christs body, &c. 2. The not receiving of some present (whether it be orderly or sinful) cannot make void Christs institution, but by vertue thereof the bread [Page 365] is Christs body, so long as the solemnity of the Sa­crament continues.

3. Though Christ be not offered Sacrament­tally to all at the Lords Supper, yet he is offered Spiritually to all present, and the promise of Christ spiritual is sealed conditionally to all pre­sent; who seeing Christ crucified by them, and for them, may be much affected and wrought upon, though they do not receive the Elements, Gal. 3. 1. as well as the Communicants themselves, who I hope, are affected with the Elements set apart, broken and poured out, before their actual re­ceiving. May not a Look upon Christ crucified, affect as well as a receiving of Christ crucified? Zach. 12. 10. I do not say as much, since both of these actions will affect more then one of them.

M. H. p. 191. As the Minister doth not one­ly loose, but binde in the word; so doth he in the Sacrament, but conditionally in both.

Answ. If his meaning be, that the Minister looses and bindes onely conditionally, then he looses the wicked as much as the godly, and bindes the godly as much as the wicked; the reason is, because at the same time that he looses the godly conditionally, he bindes them also conditionally; and at the same time he bindes the wicked condi­tionally, he looses them also conditionally. Dare he say absolutely to a godly man; Thy sins are remitted, though thou repent not; or to a wick­ed man, Thy sins are bound, though thou repent? I pray what difference between Timothy and Judas as to this particular, upon M. H. his principles. Timothies sins are loosed if he repent, and bound if he repent not; Judas his sins are [Page 366] bound if he repent not, and loosed if he repent. Is it not evident here, that Judas is loosed as much as Timothy, and Timothy bound as much as Judas, if the binding or loosing be onely condi­tional on both sides. Therefore say we, the Minister looses the wicked conditionally, when he bindes the wicked absolutely; he looses the godly absolutely, when he bindes them conditionally: yea, when he loose the godly conditionally, he looses them abso­lutely; and when he bindes the wicked conditional­ly, he bindes them absolutely; and that because the conditions upon which the first is loosed, and the second bound, are in them absolutely, or are performed by them. And a conditional loosing or binding, where the condition is performed, is absolute, as before. The Minister acting clave non errante, bindes the wicked absolutely, as to his present state, but looses the godly absolutely both as to his present and future-state, because the godly hath performed the condition of loosing, and shall certainly persevere in the performance of that condition; but many wicked men do not persevere in the condition of binding (namely, unbelief and impenitency) therefore the Minister cannot binde them absolutely for the future. Now as the Minister looses and bindes, not onely con­ditionally, but also absolutely in the word, so he doth in the Sacrament: And so he seals my loosing or binding, whether I receive or not, since the Sacrament seals the whole Covenant of Grace made with man, whereof loosing and binding are a great part. Nor is it material the Minister should know (as such) the persons whom he bindes or looses absolutely, the binding or loosing being as sure and effectual, though he do [Page 367] it ignorans, as though he did it sciens volens. Only the Minister must take heed he lose not ei­ther pastorally or juridically where he thinks in his conscience he ought to bind; nor bind where his conscience tells him he ought to loose, whether it be with the key of Doctrine, or of Discipline.

Mr. H. ib. The word is a sealed word only to the Church, the seal is delivered only for her use, and therefore is to be applied only to her members.

Ans. 1. He may as well say, The word is a sworn and written word only to the Church. God hath not only written, but also sworn, and sealed in the Sacrament the salvation of all beleevers, and the damnation of all unbelevers, whether they be Church-members or no; And do we think the oath and seal shall not take hold of them as well as the writing.

2. Cannot the word be a sealed word, un­less the Seal be applied to persons, as well as to the writing? I hope a Will is a sealed Will, though the Seal be not applied to the Legatees, but only to the Will it self. Had God appointed the elements only to be broken and powred out; I hope those very actions had sealed the Covenant, though no person present had received; and even now they do seal the Covenant before any person doth receive. The Sin-offering did both signifie and seal pardon to the penitent offerer, though he are not one bit thereof; and so doth the baptizing of a child seal the Govenant to the whole Con­gregation, though baptismal-water be applied only to the Babe.

‘Mr. D. Not only the tenor of the Cove­nant is sealed absolutely to the worthy re­ceiver, [Page 368] but also his interest in it. And though the word speak not particularly of any mans single interest by name, yet it doth by signs, &c.’

Mr. H. p. 192. If a mans particular in­terest depends upon these signs and marks, then is his interest only conditional, and must be sealed as it is; and the rather, because the word doth no where tell me, that I have these signs and marks.

Answ. 1. I deny the consequence as pro­pounded by Mr. H. my interest indeed upon the supposition is conditional, which is no bar to ab­soluteness, as hath been formerly shewed. But that it is only conditional is Mr. H. his mistake: For where the condition is performed (as it is in the worthy Receiver) there his interest is abso­lute, and is sealed absolutely, yea, though nei­ther the Minister, nor the Receiver know the con­dition to be performed, God ratifying his Co­venant absolutely to them that keep Covenant, though neither the Minister, nor themselves know they keep Covenant.

2. The word doth no where tell Mr. H. in par­ticular that he hath the signs of a man, yet I hope the general. That all men shall rise at the day of judgement, doth as certainly prove that Mr. H. shall rise, as if the word had said particularly, John Humphrey Minister of Froom, Anno 1653. shall rise at the day of judgement. In like man­ner, The word never sayes, Thou Timot by shalt be on Christs right hand at the day of judge­ment, but it sayes, All the sheep shall be then at Christs right hand; therefore it sayes absolutely Timothy shall be at Christs right hand; Why? [Page 369] Because Timothy is a sheep; for the condition be­ing performed makes the promise or prediction absolute; and otherwise its not an absolute truth that Mr. H. shall rise at the last day. Set the pro­positions together;

1. If Mr. H. be a man he shall rise at the last day.

2. If Timothy be a sheep, he shall stand on Christs right hand at the last day. Here both the propositions are conditional in terms, yet I hope they are absolute in sense. Why I pray? Because the conditions are performed in each of them, for Mr. H. is a man, and Timothy is Christs sheep.

‘Mr. D. visible interest is sealed to visible Saints.’

Mr. H. ib. Church members are visible Saints, therefore consideratis considerandis, must be ad­mitted.

Answ. 1. I speak of visible Saints absolutely so, he of visible Saints only relatively so, that is, divers persons worse than heathen, that have no­thing to plead, but that they are born in the Church, baptized in their infancy, and have the name of Christians.

2. True visible Saints must be admitted con­sideratis considerandis; but Mr. H. will not con­siderare omnia consideranda; therefore by his own rule his visible Saints must not be admitted.

Page 192 & 193. Mr. H. falls foul upon me as questioning Mr. Baxters truth of grace, whom yet he quotes so blindly.

That 1. He mentions not Mr. Baxters name.

Nor 2. His book out of which he quotes.

Nor 3. Did I know it was Mr. Baxter, or who it was particularly.

[Page 370] Nor 4. Have so much as read Mr. Baxters Aphorismes, out of which the Quotation was taken.

Nor 5. Had Mr. H. reason to censure me for putting an if so, upon Mr. Baxter presented to me under a confused disguise, when himself puts an if so upon all the godly men in the world, in say­ing, The Minister cannot seal salvation to any but conditionally, that is, if he be Evangelically worthy; and what is this, but an if so? Yet, I hope, by that if so, he doth not out of a bitter spirit question their piety. If herein I am more charitable to him, than he hath been to me, I hope he will not take it unkindly. My words p. 140. of my Bar, are these:

‘ I hope that godly person (if so) was conver­ted before Mr. H. his Embryon was hatcht.’

Upon these very words, Mr. H. is pleased to charge me with self-conceit, prejudice, and a bitter spirit, p. 192. when as himself in that very place where he quotes Mr. Baxter so blindly, p. 48. of his Vindication, gives him in effect, an if so, in these words, I cannot but be glad to find a piercing godly man (I take him) &c. Him­self dare not say absolutely he was a godly man, but he takes him to be so; I say that godly man, if so, was converted before, &c. I leave it to the judicious Reader, whether Mr. H. or my self were more guilty of self-conceit, prejudice, and a bitter spirit. Withall, what ever Mr. Baxters judgement be for Mr. H. his syllogism, I am sure he is not of Mr. H. his opinion for admitting all pell-mell. Mr. Baxter is a person whom I highly honor in the Lord, though I cannot in every thing jurare in verba magistri.

[Page 371] Page 193. Mr. H. comes to his syllogism, Whosoever beleeves shall be saved, I beleeve, ergo, I shall be saved. p. 141. of my Bar, I en­deavour to prove the conclusion of this syllogism (I shall be saved) is sealed in the Sacrament. My argument is drawn from the general, and parti­cular promise, Joh. 3. 16. and Rom. 10. 9. and confirmed from the particular offer of grace, and from the argument à genere ad speciem. See p. 141. and 142. of my Bar. Now what is pro­mised in the Covenant is sealed in the Sacra­ment.

Mr. H. denies my argument, and gives his reason, page 193. because the Covenant pro­mises only conditionally that I shall be saved.

Ans. It hath been formerly shewed, that what is promised conditionally, is promised ab­solutely, where the condition is performed; and what is promised in the Covenant, is sealed in the Sacrament. As in this conditional proposition, If Mr. H. be a man, he is a living creature. I hope the conditionality of this proposition is no bar to the absoluteness of the consequent. Mr. H. is conditionally an animal, as is evident in the hypothesis, yet he is absolutely an animal too. Why? because the condition of animality (namely humanity) is in him.

In like manner, If Timothy beleeve, he shall be saved; the consequent (Timothy shall be sa­ved) is absolute in sense, because he hath per­formed the condition of faith, though it be con­ditional in terms: And that promise which sayes, All that beleeve shall be saved, sayes Timothy shall be saved, because Timothy beleeves; as he that sayes, All men shall rise, sayes Timothy shall [Page 372] rise, because Timothy is a man.

Note by the way, that I do not say, The con­clusion is absolute to all, but only to those who have performed, or have in them the condition; and withall, that though it be true, that he who once receives with faith shall be saved, yet it fol­lows not, that he who once receives without faith shall be damned, as Mr. H. absurdly infers, page 194. since even a state of unbeleef doth not prove absolutely that I shall be damned, but only that at present I am in a state of damnation; much less doth a receiving once without faith in­fer any such direful conclusion; and the reason is, because a state of unbeleef is changeable through grace, but a state of faith is unchangeable through grace; and one act of faith, argues a state of faith, but one omission of the act of faith, doth not argue a state of unbeleef.

Ib. His argument is too weak to convince my distinction of weakness, for though the matter of the offer and promise be all one, yet that grace may be offered absolutely which is not accepted, but no grace is promised absolutely, which is not, or shall not be accepted.

‘Mr. D. Where the condition is performed, there the promise is absolute.’

Mr. H. ib. I deny it; what is but upon suppo­sition is not absolute; you may say, It is as good to me, as if it were absolute; it is certain, (there lyes the equivocation) but how is it certain? not absolutely certain (as election is) but con­ditionally certain; for the promise is still the same, and no new promise.

Answ. 1. If a conditional promise be as good to me, as if it were absolute; that is, certain, then [Page 373] M. H. doth but wrangle about terms. Grant the Believers salvation is certain, as if it were ab­solute, we have enough: And its evident, there is a wide difference between the conditionality of Peters and Judas his salvation, since Peters con­ditional salvation is certain, not so Judas his con­ditional salvation. That which is absolute can but be certain, and that which is conditional is certain. Now that which is certain in the Covenant, is sealed in the Sacrament; therefore its sealed in the Sacrament that Peter shall certainly be saved (not so that Judas shall certainly be saved) which is the conclusion of the Syllogism.

2. There is no equivocation, but a plain and downright assertion, That conditionality is no Bar to absoluteness: And, if this be not true, there is no absolute proposition in the world. To instance in that of election, which M. H. grants is absolute. Let the proposition be, All that are elected, shall certainly be saved. This proposi­tion in truth is absolute, and is so granted to be by M. H. Now let M. H. or any other, prove this proposition; he will clearly see, it is condi­tional also. For evidence whereof, I shall pro­pound this Agument, ‘ If God be all-wise, all-sufficient, and un­changeable in his eternal purpose of free­grace, then all that are elected shall cer­tainly be saved. But God is so; ergo.’ Is it not here evident, that the consequent (which is the conclusion) is conditional? yet withal, we say truly, it is absolute. Why? Because the condi­tion of infinite wisdom, power, and unchange­ableness (which are the necessary mediums to prove the conclusion) are really, necessarily, and essenti­ally [Page 374] in God. Now if conditionality be no bar to the absoluteness of election, why should it be a bar to the absoluteness of the promise as made to the elect and regenerate, for whom, or by whom the condition either is, or shall certainly be per­formed, and is undertaken for in the promise, as well as are the good things promised upon that condition.

M. D. ‘ When I believe, the condition is per­formed; ergo, the promise, that I shall be saved, is absolute.’

M. H. ib. That which assures me of a benefit onely upon condition, and does not assure me the condition, doth not assure me absolutely of the benefit. The Sacrament assures me of salvati­tion onely upon condition I believe, but doth not assure me I believe: Therefore it doth not assure me absolutely of salvation.

Answ. 1. M. H. his answer is not home to the matter immediately under debate; I speaking of the absoluteness of the promise to a believer, and he answering of the Sacraments sealing to a be­liever. Now the promise is absolute, whether the Sacrament seal or no, yea, though there should be no Sacrament or Seal at all.

2. There is a twofold assurance, 1 Real. 2. Sen­sible. The Sacrament gives to Peter real assu­rance of his faith, though not always sensible assu­rance, for which not the Sacrament, but Peter himself is to be blamed, who fails haply, 1. In a direct act, not considering the nature and use of the Sacrament. 2. In a reflex act, not observing his own faith of adherence; whereupon he may well fall short of sensible assurance. The Sacra­ment can seal but what is in the Covenant, and [Page 375] the Covenant doth not undertake so absolutely for faith of evidence, as it doth for faith of adhe­rence.

3. There is an ambiguity in the words, I be­lieve: The Sacrament doth not seal, I believe, de praesenti, unless actually I do believe de prae­senti, for then it should seal a falsity; which how absurd? But it seals, 1. That every true believer hath saving grace. 2. That he hath believed, and shall believe by intervals till he dye. And this it doth by consequents; namely, by sealing the Covenant, and therein the truth of those marks and signs which accompany the act of adherence, produced by a Believer at the Sacrament, or at any other time.

M. H. ib. Again, ‘ That proposition that con­tains the Covenant is sealed: But the ma­jor contains the Covenant, not the con­clusion; therefore the major not the con­clusion, is sealed.’

Answ. 1. The major of his Syllogism is not sufficient to infer the conclusion, unless the term onely or alone be added to it.

2. I deny the second branch of his minor, and affirm the contrary proposition, namely, That the conclusion is in the Covenant, to wit, remote­ly, and by consequence, though not immediate­ly, as is the major. M H. will not deny; that all solid consequences from Scripture are virtually in Scripture; otherwise our Saviour could never have proved the Resurrection from that text, I am the God of Abraham, &c. Let us compare the Syllogisms.

[Page 376] 1. Syllog.

2. Syllog.

The Antecedent in each Syllogism is express Scripture, and virtually includes the Consequent. Nor is it material as to the present Conclusion, whether Peter by a reflex act knows that he doth believe, the conclusion of certain salvation flowing from the presence, and acting of faith in Peter, not from Peters knowledge thereof. Peters comfort indeed depends upon the knowledge of his faith; but that is the minor of the first Syllogism of assurance (of which anon) not the conclu­sion.

M. H. p. 195. M. D. p. 143. undertakes the minor, although before, p. 128. he tells us, ‘He knows none so simple as to assert, that God doth attest our faith:’ Yet here he is grown so wise as to assert, that God doth seal to this propositi­on, I believe.

Answ. In these expressions M. H. doth not carry himself as a fair and candid Adversary, but mangles and corrupts my text, thereby to slur me. My words, p. 128. of my Bar, are these, ‘ I know none so simple as to assert, that God doth in terminis attest our faith in the Sacrament.’ And to prevent (what in me lay) all possibility of cavil, I have these words in the margin, ‘ My meaning is, The Sacrament doth not say [Page 377] in express terms. Thou Roger believest, no more than the word doth, but onely by con­sequence.’ Now M. H. (more prudently than honorably) leaves out those words, in terminis; and withal, takes not the least notice of my margi­nal explication, that thereby he might make the Reader believe I speak here a contradiction; whereas if both my assertions be candidly present­ed, there is no shew of contradiction. For proof, let the propositions be compared.

1. Propos. The Scripture says not in express terms, Thou Roger believest.

2. Propos. The Scripture says by consequence, Thou Roger believest.

I hope its no contradiction to affirm, The Scri­pture says that by consequence, which it doth not say in express terms. But enough of this ca­vil, which I leave at M. H. his door, and pro­ceed.

M. D. ‘ What the Covenant assures, the Sacrament seals: The Covenant assures me that I believe; therefore the Sacrament seals that I believe. The minor is proved, because the Covenant gives me clear evidence of my faith by infallible signs of faith, &c.’

M. H. p. 195. You may see here how much prejudice will blinde a man. The mistake is manifest in reckning that to the minor, which belongs to the major: for when the word says, If I believe, I shall be saved, it is all one with, If I receive Christ for righteousness, and have these and these marks, whereby it describes this faith to me: All which go to the major. Now the minor or Assumption is, But I have these marks, signs, or that true faith thus de­scribed. [Page 378] And this is no where affirmed to me in the word, and consequently not sealed.

Answ. 1. If this Logick of M. H. be good, there is no minor or Assumption, but the proof of it belongs to the major. Take one instance, I would prove my self (by Philosophy) to be a man, the very same way I have proved my self (by Scripture) to believe. Observe now how the argument and answer run parallel with my ar­gument, to prove I believe, and M. H. his an­swer applyed thereto; by which comparison the absurdity of M. H. his answer will evidently ap­pear. The argument stands thus; ‘ If I am animal rationale, I am homo: I am animal rationale; therefore I am Homo,’

The minor is proved, because Philosophy gives me clear evidence of my animality and rationality, by sure signs thereof.

May not M. H. here with as much shew of reason argue, The mistake is manifest in reckning that to the minor, which belongs to the major; for when Philosophy says, If I am animal rati­onale, I am homo; it is all one with, If I am a sen­sitive body indued with a reasonable soul, and have all other necessary signs and marks where­by it describes animality and rationality to me, then I am Homo, all which go to the major. Now the minor or Assumption is, But I have these marks and signs, or that true anima­lity and rationality thus described: and this is no where affirmed to me in Philosophy; for Phi­losophy doth not say in express terms, Thou Roger hast the true signs or marks of animality and rati­onality; therefore Philosophy doth not say, Thou [Page 379] Roger art a man; and so it cannot be proved from Philosophy that I am a man. You may argue as absurdly, from Scripture, if you please, The Scri­pture doth not say in express terms, Thou Roger hast the certain signs of animality and rationality, therefore it doth not say, Thou Roger art a man: And so, belike, it cannot be proved from Scri­pture, that I am a man. Is not this rare Logick think you? If now I should desire M. H. to prove himself to be a man, he must prove it from Scripture or Philosophy. And how I pray, but by those infallibly and necessary marks laid down in Scripture, or in Philosophy? Suppose then I should return, and say, I but Sir, neither Scri­pture nor Philosophy say those signs are in M. H. therefore neither Scripture nor Philosophy prove that M. H. is a man: Did I not deserve to be hooted at for such a return?

It is evident then, that though neither Scripture nor Philosophy say in express terms, Thou Ti­mothy art a man; yet because both of them lay down the certain signs of a man, which are really in Timothy; therefore both Scripture and Phi­losophy say by consequence (though not in ex­press terms) Thou Timothy art a man. Pro­portionably, though the Scripture say not in ex­press terms, Thou Timothy believest; yet be­cause the Scripture lays down the infallible signs of faith, which are really in Timothy, it says by consequence, Thou Timothy believest. And that which the Scripture speaks by consequence, is as true, as that which it speaks expresly. If the Scripture say, whoever hath these marks of faith, hath saving faith, it says Timothy hath saving faith: And though the proposition be conditional, If [Page 380] Timothy have these marks, he hath saving faith; yet the consequent is absolute, because the condition is performed in Timothy. And it is as absurd to argue, I but the essential marks of faith are the same with faith; and therefore cannot prove believing to be faith: as to argue, The essential marks of a man are the same with a man; and therefore cannot prove Timothy to be a man.

You see the absurdity. If you ask how M. H. was beguiled to close with such an ab­surdity?

Answ. He was deceived by a false principle, as apprehending, That whatsoever is a medium of demonstration, must not be one and the same with the thing it demonstrates. This is evident by those expressions of his, p. 195. When the Word says, if I believe I shall be saved; it is all one with, if I receive Christ for righteous­ness, and have these and these marks, &c. The Argument stands thus, ‘ If I believe, I shall be saved: I believe, therefore I shall be saved.’

The Antecedent (which is the same with the minor) is thus proved, He that receives Christ for righteousness believes: I receive Christ for righ­teousness; therefore I believe. The first Propositi­on is not at all asserted in the ma­jor, but supposed: the second propositi­on is as­serted on­ly condi­onally in the major: but that is asserted absolutely in the minor, this in the Conclusion. And though both propositions were false, yet the major or hypothesis is good, if the connexion be right. Here M. H. an­swers, that receiving Christ for righteousness, is the same with believing; and therefore belongs to the major, not to the minor or Assumption. True, it belongs to the major materially, as one part thereof; which major being an hypothetical [Page 381] proposition is compounded of two propositions; namely, the Antecedent and the Consequent, I receive Christ for righteousness, I believe; both which propositions are united by the note of con­sequence (if) but it doth not formally belong to the major, as an hypothetical proposition, or as a Consequence, whose essence lies not in the truth of the parts, but in the connexion of the parts. Reduce the hypothetical into a Categorical Syl­logism, it will evidently appear, that this pro­position (I receive Christ for righteousness) be­longs not to the major, but to the minor. Thus: ‘ He that receives Christ for righteousness believes: I receive Christ for righteous­ness; therefore I believe.’

Will M. H. now say, the minor belongs to the major?

Object. I but Receiving Christ for righteous­ness, and believing, are all one, and so you do but prove idem per idem.

Answ. True: And how will M. H. prove idem, but peridem? Is not that the clearest and strongest demonstration that proves a subject à priori, by its essential principles, that are the very same with the subject? Can he demonstrate the definitum better, than per definitionem? and is not definitio the fame with the definitum? Is not animal rationale, the very same with homo? And if M. H. will prove himself to be a man, is not the best demonstration thereof by animal ra­tionale, which yet I hope is one and the same thing with a man. The definition indeed differs vatione from the definitum, but not really. In like maner, is not ens the same with unum, verum, bonum? yet Philosophy demonstrates ens by [Page 382] those properties of ens, as it doth also per essen­tiam, which must needs be the same with ens. Thus too, it demonstrates animal per animali­tatem, which animalit as is the very same with animal. To conclude, Gods essence is demon­strated by his properties, and one divine proper­ty is demonstrated by another; yet Gods essence and properties are all one and the same thing, the divine nature having not the least composition; yea, can M. H. prove himself to be a man by that which is not really a man? If the best de­monstration be per idem, then sure I erre not in demonstrating faith by it self; which if M. H. will deny, he must make not onely a new Logick, but also a new Scripture, seeing the Scripture de­scribes, and so proves receiving Christ, and be­lieving in Christ, each by other, John 1. 12.

Object. Is not this a circular demonstra­tion?

Answ. Not at all, so the medium or argu­ment be notius, more known of it self, or to the learner, than the thing proved is. Thus, If you ask me, what is faith? Ans. Its a receiving of Christ for righteousness. This description is the very same indeed with faith, but more known to a learner than the term faith is; and therefore doth very aptly both open and demonstrate the nature of faith, as being the same with faith reali­ter, though not ratione. Its evident then, that though faith be the very same with receiving of Christ, yet its no Paralogism to prove or de­monstrace faith by receiving of Christ, as M. H. would make the world believe.

M. H. ib. I will therefore return his argument; If the word or Covenant doth not assure me, I [Page 383] leeve, then this minor cannot be sealed; but this it doth not, for it no where sayes, I have these marks and signs, ergo.

Answ. Since Mr. H. will needs be absurd, let me be absurd also to convince him. Suppose the minor be I am a man. Let me now act Mr. H. If neither Scripture, nor Philosophy assure me that I am a man, then the minor cannot be proved from Scripture or Philosophy; but this they do not, for they no where say, I Roger have the marks and signs of a man.

Yet further to evidence the absurdity, let us argue proportionably about the Command, as we have done about the Promise. I ask Mr. H. then, Whether the Scripture doth not say, I Roger must not commit adultery. I prove it doth, thus: The Scripture sayes, No man shall commit adultery; Therefore it says, I Roger must not commit adultery. The minor of the Enthy­meme, I Roger am a man, is thus proved, He that hath the necessary marks of a man, is a man; I have these marks, therefore I am a man.

Object. I but the Scripture or Philosophy no where say, That I Roger have those marks of a man, therefore it cannot be proved from them that I am a man, and by consequence it cannot be proved from Scripture that I am forbid to com­mit adultery: Would not such an answer be both ridiculous and prophane? Yea by such a loose argument might not all obedience be waved, as also the especial commands of the Gospel? If the Word and Covenant do not assure me that I must repent, then it cannot be proved from Scripture that I must repent. But this the word doth not assure me, ergo. The minor is proved, because [Page 384] the Scripture no where sayes, Then Roger must repent; ergo. How will Mr. H. now convince me but by arguing thus? The Scripture sayes, Every man must repent, Acts 17. 30. Thou Roger art a man, ergo; suppose now I should return, the Scripture no where sayes, Thou Roger art a man, or hast the marks of a man (understand the same of Phi­losophy) therefore it cannot be proved that I am a man, and by consequence, that I am commanded in Scripture to repent. Would not such a reply de­serve a Cudgel rather than an answer? Its evident then that the Scripture doth by consequence (though not in express terms) assure Timothy That he doth beleeve, which is the minor of the syllogism of assurance: And what the Covenant assures, that the Sacrament seals, namely, That Timothy doth beleeve, &c.

Mr. H. ib. & p. 196. Again, if it were in the word, it were an object of faith; but it is no object of faith; Probo, That which is seen is no object of faith, for sense takes away faith, 2 Cor. 5. 7. and faith is an evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11. 1. But the minor, I beleeve, is an object of sense, spiritual experience, or thing seen.

Ans. 1. It is in the word (by consequence) and so an object of faith, That Timothy be­leeves.

2. Mr. H. his argument to prove the contrary is invalid, since the same thing may be both an object of faith, and an object of sense; and such was Christs resurrection both to John and Tho­mas, Joh. 20. v. 8. & 29. both which saw and be­leeved that Christ was risen. Christs resurrection then was the object both of faith, and of sense.

Object. How then shall we reconcile the [Page 385] Scriptures quoted by Mr. H.

Ans. Very easily, thus: Faith and sense are not always opposite in order to the object, but in order to the maner of apprehending the object. Both faith and sense may at the same time apprehend the same object, but not in the same maner. Thus faith assents to Christs resurrection as a thing revealed by divine testimony; sense assents to it as a thing seen and felt. Joh. 20. 27, 29. Faith assents not properly upon the principles of sense, nor doth sense assent upon the principles of faith. The pro­per object of faith is a thing not seen, the proper object of sense is a thing seen; and the same ob­ject in one sense is considerable as not seen, in ano­ther sense as seen. Thus heathen by sense assent to a Deity, Rom. 1. 20. Christians both by faith and sense; whence the Deity is said to be both vi­sible and invisible in the fore-quoted place, and Heb. 11. 27. invisible to sense, visible to faith; invisible in its essence, visible in its effects. Its evident then that in some respects sense doth not take away faith, and that therefore this proposi­tion, I beleeve, may be an object both of faith and sense. It depends upon faith in order to evi­dence by Scripture signs, it depends upon sense in order to experience by an act of reflexion. Thus the major in the syllogism of assurance depends purely upon faith, the minor partly upon faith, partly upon sense. The Conclusion flows necessa­rily from both. Mr. H. his illustration if rightly stated will favour us, in order whereunto I shall reduce Mr. H. his Thesis to an hypothesis, Thus, Josh. 2. The Spies treat with Rahab about articles of peace and safety, upon condition of her constant friendship to them, which is the quali­fication. [Page 386] How is Rahab now assured of her pre­servation? Ans. By being assured of her con­stant friendship. How is she assured of her con­stant friendship? Ans. By the sure marks there­of given by the Spies; namely, if she continued to keep their counsel, and to keep them safe from the King of Jerico his danger, &c. Is it not here then true, that the evidence of her friendship to the Spies, depended upon an act of humane faith, That the forementioned hiding of the Spies, &c. were sure signs of her friendship; and partly up­on experience, by reflection that she had these signs. In like manner in the spiritual treaty, Ti­mothy is assured of his salvation, by being assured of his faith. He is assured of his faith, by the in­fallible signs thereof held forth in the Covenant. Suppose (which is M. H. his illustration) Arti­cles are granted and sealed to a Town, upon such and such qualifications; here it concerns me (if a Townsman) to evidence that I have the right qua­lifications. For evidence hereof, I must appeal, not onely to witnesses, but also to the Covenant of Articles, where there is any controversie about the rectitude of my qualifications; else might not the General say? Friend, you bring witness of such and such qualifications, but you are mistaken in the manner of them, or in some necessary cir­cumstance about them? must not I now appeal to the Covenant of Articles to make out that the qualification thus evidenced, is right for manner, and all requisite circumstances? And doth not my evidence then depend partly upon my witnesses, and partly upon the Covenant? Now in proving the minor, That I believe, it seldom falls out, but there is some dispute within me against this [Page 387] act of evidence, which may arise from temptati­on without, from the opposite corruption within, and from the weakness of my faith, &c. upon which account, I must to the Covenant for the clearing of those objections and exceptions. And otherwise, why do Ministers take so much pains in laying down tryals, signs and evidences of faith, and other graces, but to help my faith of evidence, which is the minor of the Syllogism of assurance? A godly man will easily assent to the major, That all who believe, are justified by Christ, this being express Scripture, Acts 13. 39, but the difficulty is to bring him to say con­fidently, I believe, which is the minor of the Syllogism of assurance. Now to produce this assent, you must clear it by Scripture-evidence, that his act of adherence is conformable to the rule of the covenant. In order whereunto two things are necessary, 1. An assent by reflexion, that I have produced an elicite act of adherence upon Christ. 2. An assent of faith in my understand­ing, that this act of adherence is not an act of pre­sumption, but a regular adherence, according to the minde of the Covenant. Both these concur to make out the minor, which therefore depends partly upon faith, and partly upon inward sense and experience. Now so far as my faith of evidence depends upon Scripture, so far its evidenced by the Covenant, and sealed in the Sacrament, which is all I drive at. And here I must intreat M. H. to take heed, lest by opposing the truth I bold in this particular, he turn not too much aside to the Papists, who upon this very account deny faith of evidence (without an immediate revelation) because its no where said in Scripture, Th [...] J [...] [Page 388] or William believest. If I mistake not, this is a good maxim in Divinity, The act of Grace is seen by reflexion, the truth of grace in that act is known by comparing it with the rule of tryal. Evidence is the beautiful childe of a di­rect and reflex act married together. Its pos­sible some evidence may be (like Christ) a vir­gin birth, but ordinarily that evidence which hath not both the forementioned parents is a Bastard, presumption instead of faith.

Mr. D. ‘ The marks and signs which Consci­ence makes use of to evidence the minor, are in Scripture; therefore the minor is consequent­ly in Scripture.’

M. H. ib. That is, because the medius ter­minus is both in the major and the minor; there­fore whatsoever proves the major, must prove the minor.

Answ. That M. H. wrongfully fathers on me so absurd a Consequence, I shall endeavor to evi­dence by clearing his misty expressions: which must be done by instance and example, thus; The Syllogism of Assurance is, ‘ He that believes shall be saved: I believe; ergo.’

The minor (I believe) is thus proved; He that receives Christ for righteousness believes: I receive Christ for righteousness; ergo. The middle term or argument in the first Syllogism is be­lieving; the middle term in the second Syllogism, is receiving Christ for righteousness. Whence its evident, I prove not the minor of the first Syllogism, by proving its major; for the argu­ment that proves the major, is pure Scripture in express terms. If any should say, its false, That he who believes shall be saved, will you bring [Page 389] receiving of Christ for righteousness, as the medium to prove it? He will still deny, That he who receives Christ for righteousness shall be saved; and so in infinitum. Therefore to prove the major irrefragably, you must argue thus, That which the Scripture says shall be, that shall cer­tainly be: The Scripture says, He that believes shall be saved; therefore he that believes shall cer­tainly be saved. The major holds forth the con­nexion between faith and salvation; the minor holds forth the assertion of my faith; which as they are very different propositions, so they are proved by very different mediums. The way to prove the minor, is not pure Scripture in express terms; for no Scripture says in express terms, Thou Roger believest, &c. But partly Scripture, and partly Experience, namely, Reflexion upon an Act compared with the rule of Scripture, and therefore cannot be the same way of proof, with express Scripture, unless simple and compound be the same. Therefore I do not prove the minor, (I believe) by the same medinus terminus by which I prove the major (He that believes shall be saved.) Where a thing consists of more terms than one, it must be proved by more terms than one: Faith of e­vidence doth nor depend upon a simple or double di­rect act, as do sundry other proofs drawn from Scri­pture; but upon a di­rect and reflex as­sent com­bined, w ^ch holds so long, till the reflex assent be as evident to me, as it is evident that I see or hear, &c. for if there be the least doubt or scruple, it must be removed by Scripture, else the reflex assent cannot be firm & undeceiving. Suppose I would prove that Paul had faith of evidence, or affurance. I must use this Syllogism, He that by producing regularly a direct and reflex act, assents to grace inherent in himself, hath assurance: Paul did this; ergo he had assurance. Here you see the medium proving Pauls assurance is a direct and reflex act regularly united: or, he that assents directly to this proposition (He that receives Christ believes) & reflexly to this proposition (I receive Christ) hath assurance that him­self believes. Paul had both these assents; ergo, he had assurance. But faith of evidence consists of more terms than one, namely, a direct and reflex act, and [Page 390] therefore must be proved by more terms than one; which terms yet being united, make one compound medium or argument. You may prove Gabriel to be an Angel, by one simple term of spirituality; but you cannot prove David to be a man, but by two terms, of Spirituality and Materiality united. Why? Because David is compounded of spirit and matter; and therefore must be proved by those terms united in one medium or argument. In like manner, faith of evidence consists of two terms, namely, a direct and reflex act united, and therefore must be proved by two terms united: not so the faith of general assent: But two terms united are not the same with one simple term. And if proof by two terms united, be not the same with proof by one simple term, then the medius terminus proving that I believe, is not the same with the medius terminus proving that He who believes shall be saved.

M. H. ib. Though the evidence in actu signato be in Scripture, this is nothing, seeing that goes to the major proposition: But his evidence in actu exercito is the business; and that is no where I hope in Scripture, by his own Confes­sion.

Answ. 1. If by going to the ma­jor, he mean an Identity with the major; its true, the evidence in actu signate is the major, or the same with the major, the evidence in actu exercito is the minor. But I pray, may I not prove a weak and trembling evidence in actu exercito (such are generally our evidences) by a strong and firm evidence in actu signato? If by going to the major, he mean proving the major of the foregoing Syllogism (which he must mean, or he speaks not to pur­pose) then its false, that the evidence in actu sig­nato goes to the major; which I must evidence [Page 391] by the former instance of the Syllogism of Assu­rance: thus, ‘ He that believes shall be saved: I believe; ergo.’

The minor (I believe) is thus proved. He that receives Christ for righteousness, believes: I receive Christ for righteousness; ergo. In the second Syllogism (which proves the minor of the first Syllogism) is the evidence of my faith; 1. In actu signato, in the major (He that receives Christ for righteousness believes.) 2. In actu exercito in the minor (I receive Christ for righ­teousness. Now, I pray, how doth the major of the second Syllogism, prove the major of the first Syllogism? Set them together in an hypotheti­cal Syllogism, and see if they hang not together like ropes of sand: thus, ‘ If I receive Christ for righteousness, then he that believes shall be saved: I receive Christ for righteousness; ergo.’

I pray, what connexion is there in the foremen­tioned hypothesis? Had it run thus, If I receive Christ for righteousness, then I believe: I re­ceive Christ for righteousness, ergo. There is an evident connexion: but in the former hypothesis, there are clearly quatuor termini: 1. The pro­noun, I. 2. Receiving Christ. 3. Believing. 4. Salvation. The major then of the second Syllogism doth not prove the major, but the minor of the first Syllogism, as is evident, because not the major, but the minor of the first Syllogism is the conclusion in the second Syllogism.

‘ He that receives Christ for righteousness be­lieves: I receive Christ for righteous­ness; therefore I believe.’ [Page 392] The conclusion (I believe) is the minor of the first Syllogism; and that was the thing to be proved, but not the major of the first Syllogism, which was taken for granted, as being express Scri­pture.

2. That the evidence in actu exercito, is in Scripture by consequence, I have formerly proved, and wait to see what M. H. hath further to say to it.

M. H. p. 196, 197. Whereas Mr. D. puts this off with a not in terminis, but by consequence, Let us see his Consequence, ‘ All are sinners, therefore thou Roger art a sinner: All must rise, therefore thou must rise.’ This is true, because the one includes the other. So, who­soever believes, shall be saved, includes this de fide, If thou Roger believest, thou shalt be saved: but it cannot include de fide Therefore thou Roger believest.

Answ. 1. If that proposition (All that are men shall rise) include, Therefore thou Roger shalt rise; then this proposition (All that believe shall be saved) includes, Therefore thou Roger shalt be saved. The reason is, because as the former proposition includes not Roger but as a man (hu­manity being supposed to be in him) so that latter proposition includes not Roger but as a Be­liever (faith being supposed to be in him) which faith being really-in him as well as humanity (up­on the supposition) its evident the last propo­sition includes Roger as well as the first; and therefore Rogers salvation is as sure as his resur­rection. True, seldom is it as sure to Roger, be­cause Rogers faith is seldom as evident to him as his humanity: but it is as sure in it self. Thus, [Page 393] if Roger be a Babe, his resurrection is sure in it self, though not to Roger, because he cannot re­flect to know himself to be a man; and so if Roger be a Babe in Christ, he cannot by a reflex act dis­cern himself to be a true Believer, as he can dis­cern himself to be a man; yet his salvation still is as sure as his resurrection, though not as sure to him: And the Conclusion is firm, Roger shall be saved, though Roger do not know he shall be saved.

2. As that proposition (Whosoever believes shall be saved) includes this de fide, If thou Ro­ger believe, thou shalt be saved; but doth not include de fide, Thou Roger believest: So that proposition (All men shall rise) doth include de fide, If thou Roger art a man, thou shalt rise; but doth not include de fide, Thou Roger art a man. And if Roger may be sure by Scripture-evidence, that he shall rise at the day of Judge­ment, though the Scripture doth not say in ex­press terms, Thou Roger art a man; then Ro­ger may be sure he shall be saved, though the Scripture doth not say in express term, Thou Roger believest.

M. H. ib. M. D. says, ‘ Yes, because the mi­nor here is the Conclusion in the Prossyllogism; to wit, He that hath these signs believes: But I have these signs; ergo I believe.’ I answer contra, seeing the Conclusion in the Pro­syllogism is the same with the minor in the prin­pal Syllogism, it cannot be in Scripture or de fide, by the same consequence he proves it can: For that he hath these and these signs, is not in Scripture: but to have these and these signs is all one with to believe, ergo, That he believes [Page 394] is not in Scripture, or de fide by consequence. He that hath these signs, I say, is all one with, he that believes; and so his Prosyllogism then comes effectually but to this, He that believes, believes: But he believes; ergo he believes.

Answ. Here Mr. H. undertakes to prove, That the minor, (I believe) in the Syllogism of Assurance, is not in Scripture so much as by con­sequence: An high attempt, I confess, and of so sad consequence (if true) as to thrust out of our Sermons all Uses of Tryal, break in pieces bruised reeds, increase the fears of doubting Christians, and in a word, discourage all sorts from the great and necessary work of self-examination; for wherefore should I try my faith by Scripture, unless by Scripture I can come to know that I believe? If by Scripture I can come to know that I believe, then it follows necessarily that this proposition (I believe) depends some way or o­ther upon Scripture: but it doth not depend up­on Scripture in express terms; therefore it must depend upon Scripture by consequence: And so by consequence the Scripture says, I believe, or, Thou John, Peter, or Roger believest, which is the minor in the Syllogism of Assurance. Now, what in me lies, to convince M. H. and to stablish weak Christians, that they may not be overborn by principles that strike, not onely at Church-exami­nation, but also at self-examination, I shall en­deavor as much plainness as the subject will bear, being made the more intricate by terms of art; and the rather, considering I have to deal, not onely with a Scholar (my Antagonist) but also with weak and plain-hearted Christians, whose life of comfort lies very much in the Vin­dication [Page 395] of this sweet truth here opposed by Mr. Humphrey.

Let me only premise (to prevent mistake) That the minor in the Syllogism of Assurance is not sealed in the Sacrament, as it is formally the minor or Assumption of the principal Syllogism, but as it is the conclusion of the Prossyllogism, He that receives Christ, &c. believes: I receive Christ; therefore I believe. And thus, as the conclusion of the principal Syllogism (I shall be saved) depends partly upon Scripture, as to the major; partly upon sense and experience as tp the minor: so doth the conclusion of the Prossyllogism (I believe) and therefore as the first, so the second conclusion depends upon Scripture by consequence, &c. Amesius is clear to this purpose in his Cases of Conscience, Lib. 1. Cap. 9. Sect. 2. speaking of the application of conscience in the conclusion of such practical Syllogisms; in these words, Pendet igitur ista conclusio partim ex generali illo jure quod in propositione Synteresis dictar, & partim ex recognitione illa facti vel status quae in assumptione continetur, &c. thus, He that receives Christ, &c. believes: I receive Christ; therefore I believe. This conclusion (I believe) in Dr. Amesius his judgement, flows from the major as well as the minor, and so in part depends upon Scripture.

I shall in order hereunto, first propound the principal Syllogism, and the Prossyllogism. The principal Syllogism is, ‘ He that believes shall be saved: I believe; therefore I shall be saved.’

[Page 396]The Prossyllogism is, ‘He that hath the true marks of faith be­leeves: I have the true marks of faith; Therefore I beleeve. Amongst which marks re­ceiving of Christ is a princi­pal one.’

Here you see the minor of the principal Syllo­gism (I beleeve) is the Conclusion of the Pros­syllogism.

Now sayes Mr. H. Page 197. Seeing the Conclusion in the Prossyllogism is the same with the minor in the principal Syllogism, it cannot be in Scrip­ture, or de fide, by the same consequence Mr. D. proves it can. Why I pray? For, that he hath these signs and marks is not in Scripture; but to have these and these signs is all one with to beleeve, ergo. That he beleeves is not in Scripture, or de fide by consequence.

Answ. Though the Conclusion in the Prossyl­logism be the same with the minor in the princi­pal Syllogism, yet it is in Scripture, or de fide by consequence.

M. H. His reasons to prove the contrary are invalid, his scope being to prove. That the Con­clusion (I beleeve) is not de fide by Consequence, because its medium (I have the true signs of faith) is not de fide expresly, or in terms.

His second reason is, Page 197. Because to have these and these signs of faith is all one with to be­leeve; And so my Prossyllogism comes effectually but to this, he that beleeves, beleeves, but I be­leeve; Therefore I beleeve.

Answ. 1. Proportionably, to have the marks and signs of a man is all one with to be a man; and so the Prossyllogism, proving that I am a man (and therefore shall rise) comes effectually but to this, He that is a man, is a man: but I am a man; therefore I am a man.

[Page 397]In like manner, To have the marks and signs of a living creature is all one with to be a living creature; and therefore my argument (proving Mr. H. to be a living creature) comes effectually but to this, He that is a living creature, is a living creature, But Mr. H. is a living creature; therefore he is a living crea­ture; and so its impossible to prove Mr. H. to be animal, for I cannot prove it but by the marks of animality, and these marks and signs are the same with animality. You see now to what streights and absurdities be hath brought himself, and all by that fundamental error against faith and reason, That a thing cannot be proved by it self; which if true, then I cannot prove the thing de­fined by its definition; I cannot prove entity by unity; I cannot prove God by his Attributes, yea it is impossible to demonstrate any thing à priori by its essential principles; and then farewell Divi­nity, Science, Reason, and all. But of this more largely before.

Now contrà, If I may prove a thing by it self, then I may prove a man by the marks of a man, which (if essential, & à priori) are himself; I may prove faith by the marks of faith, which (if essential, & à priori) are faith it self: And such is that mark of receiving Christ for righteousness. Nor is there any absurdity in it, so the Argument proving be not both re and ratione, the same with the thing proved. Thus the Whole or totum is defined or descri­bed by all its parts; all which together differ [...] re, but only ratione from the whole, and that whether this Totum be Ʋniversale, Essentiale or Integrale. But in Mr. H. his absurd Syl­logism, Beleeving is the same both re and ratione with beleeving; but beleeving is not the same ra­tione [Page 398] with receiving Christ for righteousness, though it be the same realiter, as animal ratio­nale is not ratione the same with homo, though it be realiter the same with homo; but differs, as definitio differs à de finito.

Mr. H. ib. And whereas to illustrate this he so elaborately demonstrates he is a man, and so that he shall rise, &c. ‘ partly by sense, partly by faith: first, by a direct act, and then by a reflex act on the signs of his humanity, &c.’ Spectatum admissi? when, I am a man, and I be­leeve, are propositions of equal evidence. Mr. Drakes Argument shall carry it. He that is a man, is a man; he that beleeves, beleeves; he that is in the right, is in the right; But Mr. D. is in the right, ergo, he is in the right.

Answ. Nay, soft there Sir, rather because they are not propositions of equal evidence, there­fore Mr. Drakes Argument will carry it. If I be­leeve were of equal evidence with I am a man, then (haply) I had no more need of Scripture marks to prove I beleeve, than I have of Scrip­ture marks to prove I am a man, though it be a truth that both propositions are by consequence in Scripture; But because my faith is not so evi­dent as my man-hood, therefore I must to Scrip­ture for proof of my faith, when I need not go to Scripture for proof of my man-hood: And if I must to Scripture to prove I beleeve by the marks of faith, then its evident that this proposition, I beleeve, depends upon Scripture by virtue of those marks, as well as upon sense and experience by virtue of my reflexion.

2. Let me ask Mr. H. whether this Conclusion ( John shall rise at the day of judgement) be in [Page 399] Scripture by consequence or not? If it be not, then by the same reason, No particular Conclusion drawn from a general expresly in Scripture, is in Scripture by consequence; which how absurd? for instance, then it is not in Scripture by conse­quence, That I must not steal, &c. If it be, then upon the very same ground it is in Scripture by consequence, That John shall be saved: For as John being a man is included in the general, All men, so John being a beleever is included in the general All beleevers: And as by consequence I may argue from Scripture, If all men shall rise, then this man shall rise; so I may firmly argue, If all beleevers shall be saved, then this beleever shall be saved. It flows then as necessarily from Scripture, That John the believer shal be saved, at it flows from Scripture, That John the man shal rise again. So likewise that John the receiver of Christ is a beleever, as that John the reasonable creature is a man. I grant for the most part it is not so evident that John is a beleever, as that he is a man; and that therefore it is not so easie for him to beleeve that he shall be saved, as to beleeve that he shall rise; but still its a truth, That both these Conclusions flow from Scripture by consequence, and there­fore are in Scripture by consequence, which is the thing here opposed by Mr. Humphrey. He might therefore well have spared himself the labour of his merry Tautologies (he that is in the right, is in the right, &c.) but that he hoped to catch his Reader by a frothy expression, rather than to convince him by a solid Argument. Had he clo­sed with this Syllogism; If Mr. D. be in the right, then Mr. H. is in the wrong, but Mr. D. is in the right, ergo, he had done both himself, his [Page 400] Reader, and his Antagonist more right than now he doth.

Page 198. Mr. H. mentions an Objection of mine about the Sacrament supposing assurance and faith; unto which he sayes, I can make no solu­tion, when at the same time my solution is laid down, p. 147 & 148. of my Bar; only he tells the Reader that he is not of my mind, That we must forbear the Sacrament, till we have effe­ctual faith: And truly I think he is not of my mind in that particular; nor is it material what is his mind, or what is my mind, but what is the mind of truth.

Ib. Mr. H. grants, That a general faith and acknowledgement of the Gospel, or Covenant of Jesus Christ, as the only means to be saved by, is prerequisive to adult Church-membership, and so to the Sacraments.

Answ. Then 1. What will become of all grosly ignorant Church-members that know no­thing of Faith, Christ, or the Gospel? He that blames us, as too severe for suspending them; is here so severe as to excommunicate them, and make them no Church-members.

2. We accept (as to the latter branch) his good confession, which makes strongly against the free admission of grosly ignorant Church-members.

Again, we grant with Mr. H. ib. That the con­dition is not absolutely prerequisite to ingage to the condition; but the Question is whether a natural man be bound to ingage all manner of wayes to the condition; He may ingage to the condition (and so to the Covenant) though he do it not by receiving the Sacrament.

[Page 401] Page 199. Mr. H. tells us, The receiver seals not to his condition necessarily in esse, but in fieri.

Answ. What then? Our present debate is not what the beleever seals to God, but what God seals to the beleever in the Sacrament, and God at the Sacrament may seal to the beleever the condition, in esse, when the beleever cannot seal to God that himself hath the condition in esse.

In the same page Mr. H. pins upon me ano­ther contradiction, by mis-quoting my Text, p. 147. of my Bar; which sayes not the Sacra­ment is, but may be the means of initial assurance; and its one thing to say the Sacrament is; another thing to say it may be the means of initial assu­rance. I beleeve if God please, the Sacrament may be the means both of initial grace, and of ini­tial assurance; I do not say it is the means of either. Besides, initial assurance is real, or more sensible. The word that works conversion works real assurance at the same time it works grace, which yet is not then so sensible, as being hid and over-born by much corruption, till the beams of grace have in some measure dispelled the cloud; but the first sensible or prevailing assurance may be wrought at the Sacrament. Grace (as light) brings its own evidence with it, though a person diverted haply minds neither for a while: He wrongs me therefore in saying, p. 200. That I affirm the Sacrament is sometimes the means of initial assurance; whereas my express words are, The Sacrament may be sometimes the means of initial assurance, and à posse ad esse non valet con­sequentia. I hope he that sayes, Mr. H. may be [Page 402] mistaken, doth not therein say Mr. H. is mistaken. Mr. H. If the Sacrament work further degrees in the same kinde, why not the kind it self?

Ans. If food work further degrees of life, why not life it self? Must every thing that strengthens a weak man, needs raise a dead man? Acts pro­duce moral habits, but no act of the will works in it self supernatural habits; yet, I hope, acts of the will may, and do promote supernatural habits, therefore that may further degrees, which cannot produce the kinde. Nor is the first grace wrought effectually, either per modum obsignationis, or proponendo obje­ctum, or per moralem, actionem, or mediante significatione; (for then all would be converted who have these) but per creationem & infusio­onem, since the first grace (as some think of mans soul) creando infunditur & in fundendo crea­tur. Under­stand me here, that initial grace is not wrought by any, or all of these joyned regether (if abstractedly considered) as moral habits may be, but as assisted in an especial manner by divine concourse, which concourse amounts to a Creation. Not opus operatum, but spiritus operaus, acts eminently for the production of initial grace. And God may annex this creating act to what Ordinance he please. Now the great con­troversie between us is, whether God do thus in­fuse initial grace by the Sacrament as a moral Instrument thereof, as he doth by the word? This Mr. H. seems to affirm, but we deny.

M. H. p. 201. For this we thank him; and if a man may come as lost and undone, then he may come while he judges and humbles himself, though he is in doubt of his regeneration.

Answ. 1. I am glad of any agreement between us in this unhappy controversie, especially in a point [Page 403] of this nature, which tends so much to the bind­ing up of bruised reeds. Yet

2. There is some ambiguity in that expressi­on of M. H. If a man may come as lost; nor are they my express terms, p. 148. of my Bar. A man is lost three ways, 1. Really, when in the state of nature (I mean, he is in a lost condition.) 2. Sensibly, and that either in himself (and thus we must ever be lost, if we mean to be saved) or by mistake, thinking he is in the state of nature, at that very time when in truth he is in the state of grace. 3. Both ways, when clearly convinced by the Spirit of bondage, that he is in a natu­ral estate, and so under the work of Legal humi­liation, which is ever accompanied with reigning pride, till evangelical humiliation melt the rock, and level the mountain. By legal humiliation a person is humbled, but by Evangelical humiliation he is made humble; by legal humiliation God humbles him, by evangelical humiliation he hum­bles himself; the one is humbled passively, the other actively.

To apply the distinction:

1. He that is lost really, and sensibly, ought at present to abstain: Such are they, who know themselves to be in the state of nature, and have no resolution at the present to come up to the terms of the Gospel, but are under the Regal power of sin, especially of some bosom corrupti­on, and that sensibly.

2. He that is lost really, but not sensibly, as thinking himself converted, when unconverted, is (I conceive, with submission to better judgements) in the condition of one who thinks a sin to be a duty, ligatus, but not obligatus, bound, by con­science [Page 404] misinformed, to receive; but not obliged to receive; yea, obliged by the precept, to abstain: or as he who thought himself clean, but was unclean, was bound and obliged in order to the Passover.

3. He that is sensibly lost (as thinking himself unconverted, when really converted) seems bound by conscience to abstain, but is obliged by the command to receive; and in order thereunto, must endeavor to get his doubts satisfied. He that is both really and sensibly found, as having sensibly evangelical preparation (of which self-loss, and self-unworthiness in a Gospel sense, is a chief part) is both bound and obliged to come, unless detained by a just occasion.

What M. H. addes page 201. I shall go along with him as far as I can, and be glad of his com­pany too. And therefore grant 1. That the Sa­crament is a seal of faith Consecutivè. 2. Ob­jectivè. 3. Conditionaliter. 4. Obligatoriè, as obliging the receiver to believe. 5. That the Sa­crament is not properly a seal of reason and expe­rience; and therefore in a strict sense, doth not seal the Conclusion, as it depends upon the minor, which speaks experience; but as it depends upon the major, which speaks express Scripture.

But whereas he addes, ibid. But if you say it is a seal of faith subjectivè, properly to confirm and ratifie faith, or any way so to assure or evi­dence faith, that God shall be made to set his seal to a lye, if any come without saving faith, this must be denied and rejected, and answered, that the Sacrament is not thus a seal of faith (to wit, formally, directly, properly) but of the Covenant, &c.

[Page 405] Answ. 1. If I may but crave to be candidly understood, its no such monster as M. H. would make it, to assert, That the Sacrament is a seal of faith subjectivè; namely, that by Consequence the Sacrament seals to Peter, that he believes. The reason whereof hath formerly been given, because it seals the major proposition, upon which the Conclusion of Assurance doth partly depend. For, as no Conclusion depends onely up­on the major, or onely upon the minor, but upon both premises; so the Conclusion of the Pros­syllogism ( That Peter believes) depends not solely upon the major (He that receives Christ, &c. believes) nor solely upon the minor (Peter receives Christ) but upon both. And therefore so far forth as this Conclusion (Peter believes) depends upon the major (which is ex­press Scripture, and as a sign discovers to Peter, that the act of adherence he produces is not coun­terfeit) so far forth its sealed in the Sacrament, it being sealed in the Covenant onely as it is in the Covenant; namely, by Consequence; as is that Conclusion, That Peter shall rise, which depends upon the major, That all men shall rise; as well as upon the minor, That Peter is a man.

2. Whereas M. H. hints, that by this means God shall be made to set his seal to a lye, if any come without saving faith: this is a most false, gross, and uncharitable inference and imputation, it being far from my judgement or argument to hold forth, that the Sacrament seals to all re­ceivers, that they have true faith; but onely un­to those who have saving faith indeed. Suppose now Judas did receive; the Sacrament which seals to Peter that he believes, seals no such mat­ter [Page 406] to Judas, but the quite contrary, namely, That he doth not believe; and that because it seals, That he who doth not receive. Christ rightly, doth not believe: But Judas never received Christ rightly; therefore by consequence it seals to Judas his unbelief, and so his damnation in statu quo.

3. Therefore, If by formally, directly, pro­perly, M. H. mean expresly, we grant the Sacra­ment is not so a seal of faith subjectivè; for it can seal nothing thus expresly, but what is in express terms in the Covenant, and that is onely the major: yet this is no bar, but that the Sa­crament may seal that consequentially, which is consequentially in the Covenant; and such is this Conclusion, Peter believes, as well as that Con­clusion, Peter shall rise.

As for his vapor therefore in the close of this Section, I shall say but onely this to it, However my arguments be but earthen ware, yet God can use them to break his conceited bar of iron.

SECT. 5.

THe fifth Objection is, The Covenant belongs not to all; therefore the Seals neither.

Page 202. M. H. first states his answer to this Objection, and in the same breath overthrows it in these words, The state of my answer then lies plainly, that all those to whom the Cove­nant belongs by way of interest in it, though but according to title, are in Covenant so far as the external seal belongs to them, without some known bar otherwise.

Answ. Grant the whole, it will not much pre­judice either us or the Objection: Not us, who easily yield that all Churchmembers are to be ad­mitted without a known bar, the term known be­ing [Page 407] rightly understood. Nor the Objection, since the seals cannot belong to any, but as the Cove­nant belongs to him (speaking now of the visible Covenant) but the Covenant cannot visibly be­long to any who visibly reject it: and this (with us) is one of the principal known bars.

Mr. D. ‘ The Sacrament belongs conditionally to all, but absolutely to the worthy Receivers.’

M. H. p. 203. If there be any sense and vali­dity in this, he must argue thus, The Sacra­ment is not to be delivered to all it belongs conditionally, but to those onely to whom it be­longs absolutely: But it belongs onely to the worthy receiver absolutely; therefore it must be delivered onely to the worthy receiver. Now this you see is apparently false, seeing he admits some onely visibly worthy, to whom he himself counts it belongs not absolutely.

Answ. 1. To shew the fallacy, let us put the same case about the Passover, and the receivers thereof: thus,

" The Passover belongs conditionally to all Israelites, but absolutely to the clean Israelite. Suppose now Mr. H. reply as above, mutatis mutandis.

‘ If there be any sense and validity in this, he must argue thus, The Passover is not to be delivered to all it belongs to conditionally, but to those onely to whom it belongs absolutely; But it belongs onely to the clean Israelites ab­solutely; therefore it must be delivered onely to the clean Israelites absolutely: Now this, you see, is apparently false, seeing he admits some onely visibly clean, to whom himself counts the Passover belongs not absolutely.’ Is [Page 408] not the first branch now evidently false? namely. That the Passeover is to be delivered onely to those to whom it belongs absolutely. I hope the Priest or Master of the Family might, and ought to admit all persons visibly clean to eat the Passover, when at the same time he that was visibly clean, but really unclean (to whom therefore the Passover be­longed conditionally, but not absolutely) sinned in receiving the Passover.

2. Is it not a meer non sequitur, as to the Objection, which mentions not to whom the Passcover is to be delivered, or not, but onely to whom it belongs, or doth not belong?

Apply now the same answer to the Lords Sup­per, and it will appear my sense is good and va­lid; and that I do not argue, as M. H. would make the Reader believe I do, who to make my sense absurd, shuffles into his own answer the term delivered, in stead of the term receiving. Let my answer run thus, The Sacrament is not to be received by all to whom it belongs condi­tionally, but onely by those to whom it belongs absolutely: But it belongs absolutely onely to the worthy receiver; therefore it is to be received onely by the worthy receiver.

Where is now M. H. his absurd Conclusion, Therefore it must be delivered onely to the wor­thy receiver?

The Minister, I hope, may, and in some cases ought to deliver it to them, who at the same time ought not to receive it, he acting (as Christs Officer) by the rule of visible, not of real wor­thiness, and so regularly admitting those to whom it belongs visibly, though at the same time it be­long not to them absolutely. They to whom the [Page 409] Covenant belongs conditionally, to them the seals belong conditionally; to whom it belongs visibly, the seals belong visibly; to whom it belongs ab­solutely, the seals belong absolutely. The first must neither be admitted, nor receive till they have visibly or really performed the condition. The second must be admitted, but if onely visi­ble Saints, ought not to receive. The third must both be admitted, and ought to receive, unless detained by a just occasion.

Page 203. M. H. charges me with railing, for shewing him the horrid conclusion that follows from his loose principles; namely, That the Sa­crament doth more ingenuously belong to one out of Covenant, than to one in Covenant: See p. 51. of his vindication. Which if true, it must more ingenuously belong to Drunkards, Whore­masters, Murderers, &c. than to real and visible Saints, the former being out of Covenant, the latter in Covenant. An inference so monstrous, that I apprehended such a soar and ulcer required a sharp knife to open it; yet withal, I told the Reader what M. H. his meaning should be, name­ly, that the Sacrament belongs more ingenuously to weak Saints, than to strong Saints. An Adul­terer, &c. resolving sincerely to believe and repent, hath already begun to do both; and so is not out of Covenant, but a weak Saint. This was my scope, and is the same still, though I will not justifie every quick expression that either there or elsewhere passed from me.

What he cites from my text elswhere, to salve his contradiction, wil do himlittle service; since I charge him not with absurdity for saying, a man may have a good resolution before he is in Covenant; [Page 410] but for saying, The Sacrament be longs more in­genuously to one out of Covenant, if he have some good resolutions for kinde, through fear of Hell, &c. (which are but legal or meer velleities) then to a real and visible Saint, who comes fully up to Christs terms in point of sincerity, but acts weakly, as a Babe in Christ. That a man may not onely resolve well, but also enter into Cove­nant with God, and yet his heart be naught, I never questioned; or that he may have good re­solutions before be believe, or enter into Cove­nant sincerely, as M. H. notes, p. 204. But what is this to M. H. his purpose? or how doth it follow (what he charges me ib.) that I am too narrow in speaking of these things, unless because I cannot extend my self to his latitude? If study of brevi­ty, and therefore passing by those things which are well known, and not to our present pur­pose, be narrowness of expression, I must confess I affect such narrowness, and wish I were better at it than I am: But M. H. his clouding and jumbling things together, forces me to be larger than otherwise I would; yea, withal, I must confess, I am always too narrow in discoursing of the things of God, which are far above my weak comprehension, much more above my poor expres­sions. This ever is the glory of divine Truth, That the apprehensions and expressions of the ablest, are but cockle-shels to its Oceans, Psalm 119. 96. and mine are but cockle-shels to the flood of their appehensions and expressions.

Page 151. of my Bar, I took some pains to reconcile (if it might be) M. H. to himself; which being difficult to do (haply because of my dulness and inability to reach his sease) I was bold to [Page 411] conclude, that he wrote contradictions. For this M. H.p. 204. and 205. is pleased to correct me as one very dull, and prone to vent contradicti­ons.

Answ. 1. I thank him for his reproof.

2. Intreat him to write more plainly.

3. As I have in part, so I hope to clear it, that I write not contradictions; or if at any time I do, I shall not wittingly own them.

I shall relate M. H. his words, and then let the Reader judge whether my dull apprehension might not be puzled about them. His words are these, page 51. of his Vindication, The benefit of the Covenant you may truly say belongs not yet to him, until he is in Covenant (Where note from M. H. that some Church-members are not in Covenant) but the Covenant it self is of epidemi­cal concernment, and so far belongs to all, that it is to be tendered freely, and offered to them, &c.

‘ Had he now said, That the benefits of the Covenant do not belong to him, as to right or fruition, till he be in Covenant: but the condition of the Covenant belongs to all by way of obligation, and the benefits of the Co­venant belong to all by way of tender, &c. I am sure he had spoke plainer to my dull capa­city, and I think also to the capacity of divers of his Readers.’

He that divides the whole into parts, and pre­sently gives the name of the whole to one of those parts, speaks neither Logically, nor clearly. But this doth M. H. by distinguishing the Covenant into its condition, and its benefits; and then say­ing the Covenant is of epidemical concernment as [Page 412] to its tender (he supposing and holding, that the conditions are required, not tendered, and that onely the benefits are tendered conditionally to all) here the Covenant is the totum, the condi­tion and benefits are the partes; which last part (in applying his distinction) he presents under the notion of the whole, and thereby makes his sense obscure and subject to exceptions. Nor doth he clear it in his answer, p. 204. though in order thereunto he distinguish the Covenant into its Condition, Benefits, Tenor, which consists of both. For still I ask him, Whether the Tenor of the Covenant belong to all by way of Tender? If he hold the affirmative (as he seems to do) I disprove him thus, The whole can belong to none further, than as both parts belong to him: But both parts of the Covenant belong not to all by way of tender; therefore the whole (namely the tenor) belongs not to all by way of tender. The major is firm, as I shall clear by instance. Let homo be the totum, its evident homo cannot belong to Socrates, farther than materia & for­ma hominis, which are its parts belong to him. The minor, That both parts of the Covenant be­long not to all by way of tender, is as evident (upon M. H. his principles) since, according to him, the condition, which is one part, is not tendered, but required. The Condition then be­longs not to all by way of tender, but onely by way of duty and obligation. And though it be a truth, that the benefits of the Covenant are ten­dered to all upon condition of faith, yet because M. H. holds that faith is not tendered, but required, (in the revealed Covenant sealed in the Sacrament, of which we now speak) he cannot say the tenor [Page 413] (called by him the Covenant) is tendered to all, without contradicting himself; but must say, if he speak uniformly to his own doctrine, that the tenor of the Covenant is partly required of all, and partly is tendered to all; the tenor consisting (as himself declares) of the condition required, and of the benefits tendered; and he may as ra­tionally say, the tenor is required of all, as say the tenor is tendered to all; both being false in his sense, and contradictory to his Doctrine.

Page 152. and 153. of my Bar, I oppose four things to M. H. his universal obligation of receiving.

1. Infants, &c. and because this infant-passage offends him now seventeen times, I shal put in the room of it his ipso jure excommunicate.

2. I say there, ‘ All have a mediate, but not an immediate right.’

He tells me, page 205. This distinction is in vain, because all must prepare as well as come.

Answ. True, yet 1. I hope a person prepared hath a more immediate right, than a person un­prepared. 2. If he sin who prepares, but doth not receive when he may, why doth not he sin also who receives, but doth not prepare when he ought? Let not M. H. separate, where himself confesses that God hath joyned.

My illustration from the Passeover, he tells me, That one Text, 2 Chron. 30. 18, 19, 20. may convince.

Answ. True, when M. H. can prove that one extraordinary dispensation makes a rule and command to be void.

[Page 414] The third Mr. H. sayes is answered some­where else.

Answ. And I hope that answer is confuted somewhere else.

4. ‘I say, That in a strict sense, actual re­ceiving is no more an act of worship, than preaching is, &c.’

Mr. H. answers, I should say they are no du­ties neither, else it will not adde one cubit to my stature.

Answ. Mr. H. did prudently omit my third answer, which but mentioned had stopt the mouth of this Objection. There I shew that affirmative precepts binde not at all times, nor in all cases; therefore though receiving be a duty, yet being an affirmative precept, it bindes not at all times, nor in all cases. For his flouting Simile in the close of this Section, I forgive him, and confess that in some part of it he speaks too true, I being no bigger than my shadow, that is, an empty no­thing, and so very unfit to compare with him, or any of my brethren and fathers in the Lords work. The Lord send me more humility, and him more charity.

Sect. VI.

THe sixth Objection is, ‘ The Sacrament is only for the regenerate; it is no conver­ting Ordinance, &c.’

From page 206-212. Mr. H. is large by way of preamble, before he come to down-right blows.

And 1. He sayes, Suppose the Sacrament convert not, yet it must be received by all, be­cause God commands all to receive it.

[Page 415] Answ. 1. Is not this the very [...], whether God command all to receive?

2. Mr. H. knows I dispute against a natural mans receiving, not only upon the supposition, that it cannot convert him, but also because it can do him no good in statu quo, but evil; which an­swers his instance of Alms-deeds commanded a natural man, though it be not converting. And this argument doth no where cross Gods revealed will, but highly commends his rich and free grace, which commands nothing but what is profitable to the creature, as well as what is honourable to his Majesty. I grant God may command with­out respect to the creatures profit, but I deny that in the Covenant of grace he doth command any thing, the performance whereof is not (of its own nature, and by divine institution) advantagous to the creature. Its a slander therefore, that by this argument I advance my benefit above divine authority, &c. as Mr. H. would make the Rea­der beleeve, p. 206. yea I joyn together Gods authority, and my benefit, in saying, That in the way of duty, I am ever in a possibility, yea proba­bility of spiritual good, 1 Tim. 4. 8. and that act which imports no such possibility, or probability is no duty. Yea Mr. H. himself confesses in the same page, That there is no man, but so far as he doth his duty, it shall tend to his good; which if true, then that which tends not to my good, is not my duty. If therefore this doctrine be a tradition, Mr. H. is guilty of it, as well as my self.

Page 208. Mr. H. makes the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, not for Heathen, but for Church-members.

[Page 416] Answ. 1. I desire a Scripture proof for this distinction.

2. I perceive Mr. H. is not clear in opening this distinction, but confounds Conversion, and Edification together, in these words, The Sacra­ment, as it serves to edifie unregenerate Church-members, it must be a means of their regene­ration, p. 208. I had thought Conversion was the Foundation, Edification the superstructure, and that as there is a double Conversion, 1. To profession. 2. To truth of grace, so there is a double Foundation, the one upon the sand, the other upon the rock, Matth. 7. v.24, 26. and proportionably a double Edification, one of the house upon the sand, the other of the house upon the rock, which doctrine, if true, then surely the house upon the sand is not properly edified by saving Conversion, but is new founded upon the rock.

Page 209. Mr. H. layes a foundation in two Propositions.

1. That the same faith which served to ad­mit men to be Church-members, served to ad­mit them to the Communion.

2. That a faith that falls short of saving (to wit, the very receiving of the Apostles do­ctrine) served to make men disciples, and adde them to the Church.

With all, he grants there, That conversion of assent (which alone reaches so far as to ingage one to the Covenant) is necessarily prerequisite to adult Church-members, and both the Sacra­ments; not so the conversion of Consent, which he opens well; and page 210. concludes, That in order hereunto, God uses this Sacrament especi­ally, [Page 417] where is a more vigorous confluence of all the Ordinances.

Answ. 1. By concession of both Propositions in relation to admission (which is Mr. H. his own term) though I do not beleeve, that receiving mentioned, Act. 2. 41. fell short of saving grace in most of them. The Minister must some­times admit him, who at the same time ought not to receive.

2. If the fore-mentioned Conversion of assent be necessarily pre-requisite to adult Church-members, and both Sacraments (which is the very truth, and acknowledged here by Mr. H.) then those Church-members who cannot give such an assent, ought not to be admitted to the Sa­crament (I might adde, by Mr. H. his present doctrine, they ought to be excommunicated; though we rise not, especially at first, to that se­verity) but this is the condition of many, grosly ignorant adult Church-members, whom if you ask, Whether Christ be a woman? They are as like to give their assent, as if you ask them, Whe­ther Christ be God-man? And so of other fun­damental truths.

3. We grant, The Sacrament (as having a more vigorous confluence of all Ordinances) may be singularly useful in order to conversion of consent (as he expresses it) and therefore judge, none should be hindred from presence at it, any more than from presence at Baptism, where by presence they may be converted, though they partake not with the childe, or Catechumenus, of Baptismal water; and the rather because the Lords Supper (as well as Baptism, Prayer, or Preaching) is a publick Ordinance, and therefore may be [Page 418] honoured with universal presence, though not abused by universal partaking.

Whereas p. 310. Mr. H. pleads humane testi­mony.

Answ. With due respect to the Authors, Mans testimony is either 1. Ambiguous in this point; Or 2. may be ballanced by opposite testimonies of man; Or 3. at best is not authentick. Mans testi­mony may suadere, but only Gods testimony can persuadere.

As for his distinction about real and relative grace here repeated; The latter branch thereof hath been formerly answered, which therefore I pass.

Page 211. He thinks its unsound to hold the Sacrament conveyes real grace morally by way of Obsiguation: Why I pray? Because moral instruments cannot exhibit any thing real.

Answ. 1. If this be true, then how can the Sa­crament convey grace by way of signification, since the Sacrament (himself confessing) is only a moral instrument. And if it convey grace neither by way of signification, nor of obsignation, nor of exhibition, it conveyes grace no way. Thus by Mr. H. his principles the Sacrament conveyes no grace at all; and if so, then it neither converts, or edifies, which how absurd? yea, pari ratione, how doth the word convert, since it also is but a moral instrument?

2. Grace is not strengthned, but by super-added degrees (I mean ordinarily) but grace is strengthned by the sealing, as well as by the signifying virtue of the Sacrament, therefore degrees of grace are mo­rally conveyed by the sealing power of the Sacra­ment. [Page 419] The major is firm till Mr. H. can shew some other way of strengthning grace immedi­ately (for of that strength I now speak) besides superadded degrees. The minor is proved by in­stance, the Sacrament is a Seal, assures the Cove­nant to faith; by this assurance faith is confirm­ed, as was Abrahams by the Seal of Circumci­sion, Rom. 4. 11. Faith is not confirmed but by intention; an habit is not intended but by degrees superadded. The conclusion then will follow, That degrees of grace are conveyed by the seal­ing power of the Sacrament; and because the Sa­crament works only morally, therefore they are conveyed by it morally.

I doubt not but the Sacrament may beget grace; but the Question in dispute is, whether every Sacramental action doth so, and particularly the act of receiving; for till Mr. H. proves this, he is still at a loss, and while he would charge me, p. 212. as being injurious to poor Christians, disvaluing this means of grace, bringing in question how it can beget any degree of grace at all (a charge to which, I trust, I can grounded­ly plead not guilty) himself is found guilty of his own charge, by denying the Sacrament conveyes real grace morally; as I have shewed in the fore­going Paragraph.

Mr. H. p. 212. I agree with him as for In­fants; but for the intelligent, Johns Baptism may convince him, whom we finde admitting all to it, and then exhorting them to amendment, as the use or end of it, &c.

Answ. 1. If Baptism be a converting Ordi­nance, I see no reason why Mr. H. should suspend Infants any more from its efficacy than from its [Page 420] use. And to what purpose are Infants baptized, if they are (in statu quo) capable of no good by it? especially those of them who dye within few hours or dayes after Baptism. They were rela­tively holy, and so members of the Church (in the right of their parents) before Baptism, 1 Cor. 7. 14. as in hereditary Kingdoms, the Heir upon the death of his Father, is King before his Corona­tion. His argument drawn from their non-intelli­gence seems as strong against their edification or confirmation by Baptism, as against their conver­sion and regeneration by it, since the baptized In­fant can understand no more in order to his edifi­cation, than in order to his regeneration by his Baptism.

Therefore (with submission) I rather appre­hend, That Baptism being a Divine Ordinance, doth undoubtedly attain all its ends for good in the elect vessels of mercy, be they Infants or grown persons; and that either in their Infancy, or when they come to riper years.

Upon supposition that it is a converting Ordi­nance, I see no absurdity in it if we say, it may (at the very moment of Baptizng) be morally instrumental to convert the Infant-baptized, not by way of signification to the apprehension of the Babe, who can understand nothing of it (nor is it necessary he should understand; man cannot get into the heart, but by the head, God needs not that porch or threshold) but by way of super­natural concourse with this, as with other Or­dinances when ever they become effectual. Christ at the very moment when the Minister baptizes the Babe with water, can baptize it with the Holy Ghost, and powr grace into its heart as [Page 421] the Minister powrs water upon his face, the childe being equally passive both in the sign, & in the thing signified, and understanding nothing of either. If an Infant may be bewitched by a Diabolical Ce­remony used by the Devils ministers, and that Witchery be removed by a spell, or the like, which the Babe cannot understand (and if he could, the understanding avails not to its efficacy) why may not the same Babe be regenerated by a Di­vine Ceremony applyed to it by Gods Minister? the Devil in things of this nature being but Gods Ape. How did Jordan cure the Leper? 2 King. 5. 14. How did Peters shadow cure the sick? Acts 5. 15. How did Pauls handkerchiefs both cure diseases, and cast out Devils? Acts 19. 12. All these were but signs and seals of Gods mira­culous presence. And why may not God (when he pleases) concur supernaturally with Baptism, in order to Regeneration, as he concurred with Jordan, a Shadow, or Handkerchief, in order to cure or dis-possession? I believe Divine concourse is much after this nature in every Ordinance when savingly effectual. And Baptism applyed to an Infant, or to a man, is but as Pauls handkerchief was to an Infant, or to a man. The man might understand this handkerchief came from Pauls body, and would be effectual to heal him; this the Infant could not understand, yet the effect of heal­ing followed alike in both. Nor was the hand­kerchief more powerful to heal the man, because he was intelligent; but possibly his intelligence might prove a bar, he being thereby capable of an act of unbelief, which might hinder the cure, Matth. 13. 58. and 17. 19, 20. Mark 6. 6. and 9. 23, 24. Acts 14. 9. which actual unbelief In­fants [Page 422] are not capable of. Thus the word preach­ed hath a natural aptitude to illuminate the minde with common knowledge of Christ, but never of it self can work a saving understanding or regene­ration, this being wholly in Gods power. We must therefore extend the notion of a moral in­strument further than M. H. doth; that being truly a moral instrument, not onely which works by way of signification to my understanding, but that also upon which being used, an effect of ano­ther kinde follows, by way of compact, or other­wise, whether I understand it or not. Thus a Witch is the moral cause of a childes death, but the Devil is the physical cause thereof, he apply­ing his natural power (by Gods permission, up­on the Witches using of his ceremonies for that purpose) to kill the childe. And thus the Minister and Ordinances are the moral instruments of con­version, but God is the physical, or rather hyper­physical cause thereof.

Nor do we by this doctrine deviate to the Po­pish opus operatum; but honor Gods Liberty, Soveraignty and Grace, who when he pleaseth concurs with his Ordinances supernaturally, in or­der to Conversion and Regeneration wrought then infallibly, and not otherwise. And certainly, if Baptism be a converting Ordinance, why may not Infants thus be converted by it as well as elder persons? especially when at the hour of Baptism, faith and devotion are upon the wing in the Pa­rents, Friends, Gods people, and the Minister, assembled to wrestle with God, that he would please to wash the childe in the Laver of Rege­neration, &c. whence publike Baptisms are more eligible than private Baptisms. And thus upon [Page 423] the supposition, it may also be effectual to the in­telligent person baptized; yet not simply because he is intelligent, but because of Gods supernatural concourse in him, as well as in the Infant, the work of Conversion being supernatural in every subject.

2. Whereas M. H. says, ib. John first bap­tized the people, and then exhorted them to re­pentance.

If his meaning be exclusive, that John did not exhort to repentance before, but onely after Baptism, I believe he will finde little favor from the Text for such an opinion. Its evident, Mat. 3. 11. that John leads them from his Baptism to Christ, for the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, as a future thing; withal, that he preached to them before he baptized, to me seems more than pro­bable, by comparing vers. 2, 5, 6, 7. of Mat. 3. Besides, supposing the exhortation were after Baptism, and that some were converted upon the place, the great question will be (which shews the weakness of M. H. his inference) whether they were converted by Johns Baptism, or by his fol­lowing exhortation? For his instance in the Con­verts, Acts 2. it is more than M. H. can prove, that their faith was onely historical. Likely, it might be so in some of them; but what is this to prove that their Baptism did convert them (any more than it did Simon Magus) who might after­wards be converted by some of those Sermons which they heard every day, or hold out in a form of Godliness to their dying day, as Ananias and Saphira did. The Text says, they were all bap­tized, Acts 2. 41. but it doth not say, that any of them were converted by Baptism.

[Page 424]M. D. ‘ Can any man make the Seal a cause of the writing?’

M. H. p. 212. Here is the mans error still; the seal of the inward writing in mens hearts, is not the Sacrament, but the Spirit, and that seal I hope, is the cause of the writing, &c.

Answ. 1. That the Sacrament is a seal of the inward writing (though not the sole or principal seal) hath formerly been proved, which therefore I pass.

2. That one and the same thing may be both a seal and a cause (as well as a sign and a cause) I deny not: but I hope it is not a cause as it is a seal. The Spirit first works, then evidences grace wrought; in that it acts as a cause, in this as a seal: When therefore I say, the seal is not the cause of the writing, my meaning is, that as a seal, it is not a cause of the writing, but under an other notion. M. H. interprets it simpliciter, which I propound secundum quid, and so abuses both me and the Reader.

Page 213. M. H. would fain court me from my yielding to universal presence, to yield to universal receiving. But I must in­treat him to excuse me, since I finde none in Scripture forbid to be present; but I finde divers in Scripture forbid to receive, as hath formerly been proved. And I hope, that upon second thoughts, he will be more charitable, than to judge me upon this account, as trifling with this holy Ordinance, and with the Consciences of people.

His argument drawn from the seeing to the tasting of Christ Sacramental, will not hold, till [Page 425] he can prove that a sight of Christ Sacramental is effectual to convert, and withal, that the precept (Take, eat) doth immediately take in all in­telligent Church-members; and if so, then let his jure excommunicate receive also. His instance of Thomas feeling and believing, proves onely that feeling may draw out an act of faith, from a principle of faith inherent: But what is that to the producing of a principle of faith; where there is no faith at all.

Lastly, M. H. should consider, not barely the application, but the end of application in the Lords Supper, which is evidently nutrition, but no where (as I know) Conversion.

Mr. D. ‘ Taking and Eating call for acts of faith, but presuppose the habit, &c.’

M. H. p. 214. When Christ and his Disciples preached (Believe and Repent) the command did call for faith and repentance, but I hope it did not presuppose the habit in those who were to be converted; so when Christ says here, Take, &c. There is a virtue or power from Christ goes along with his command.

Answ. True: so far as Christ hath promised, vertue shall go along with his command. But the great question is, Where Christ hath promised that converting power shall go along with his com­mand of taking in the Sacrament, as he hath, that it shall accompany the command of believing in the word preached?

M. H. p. 216. God hath promised in general, to meet with those that wait on him in his ways.

Answ. Here he begs the question; as if re­ceiving [Page 426] were a way God commands unregenerat men to walk in.

M. H. ib. Christ consecrated this Ordinance with a blessing.

Answ. So he did the Ordinance of the Mi­nistry, yet I hope all are not therefore bound to turn Ministers.

Mr. H. ib. Mr. Drake tells us this (Take) is a short exhortation, and will he demand a pro­mise to prove that Exhortation is Convert­ing?

Answ. Mr. D. p. 158. of his Bar, ‘ onely supposes the word Take, as a short and virtual Sermon, may convert; and then addes, What think you of that person who stands out against this word also, can he be converted by actual receiving?’

A Supposition, I hope, is not a Position. Be­sides, it will puzzle Mr. H. to prove, that every virtual Sermon is converting; for then every mo­ral Precept, yea, every Creature, should be a means of Conversion.

M. D. ‘ The word is both seed and food, not so the Sacrament.’

M. H. p. 216. The Sacrament works by the word, and therefore may work the first grace, as well as further degrees of grace.

Answ. The question is not, What the Sacra­ment may do, if God pleases, but what it doth. Let M. H. produce one Scripture to prove that the Lords Supper, as received, is converting.

M. H. p. 217. In the Sacrament there is a Take, and this is certainly seed; and there is an Eat, including food,

Answ. A strange interpretation, and contra­dictory [Page 427] to it self, That the command of taking Christ for nourishment, should be seed, as is the command of taking Christ for Conversion.

M. H. ib. Prayer is no where called the im­mortal seed, yet it is seed, I doubt not, in this sense, to beget grace in us.

Answ. Prayer, as such, converts not as seed, but by way of impetration, setting God on work to cast the seed of grace into the heart. If an Hus­bandman upon Mr. H. his request cast seed into the ground, I hope M. H. will not say, His request was the seed wherewith the ground was sown.

2 The matter of Prayer is the Word, since we can ask nothing but what is promised; Upon which account Prayer in some sense may be cal­led an immortal seed, and may prove very effe­ctual, in order to conversion, especially where spiritually and powerfully uttered: But as Prayer, it works properly by way of Impetra­tion, Psal. 2. 8. And thus Stephens prayer, Act. 7. 60. might be effectual to convert Paul.

Mr. H. ib. Ex quibus nascimur, ex iis nutri­mur, That which nourishes us can beget us.

Answ. I perceive Mr. H. is better at quota­tion than at translation: A Grammar-Scholar would have translated it better thus, That which begets us, nourishes us, or we are nourished by those things by which we are begotten: Which makes for us, and against Mr. H. we being nourished by the word that begets, but not be­ing begotten by the Lords Supper that nourishes us. And though nourishment contribute re­motely to the making of seed, yet I hope nourish­ment (as such) is not seed, though sometime seed may be nourishment.

[Page 428] ‘Mr. D. But suppose a man stouts it out be­fore and after the word take; If actual re­ceiving can convert him, the Apostles rule is not universally true, He that eats unworthily eats judgement to himself.’

Mr. H. Suppose the Jaylor had stouted it out against the word, Beleeve, &c.

Answ. He belonging to the election of grace, the Lord, no doubt, would have converted him by another word of command to beleeve, &c. as he doth all the Elect sooner or later, 2 Pet. 3. 9. the word being still the Instrument of conversion, not so the Lords Supper.

What ever Mr. H. may think, or would make the Reader beleeve, a Dilemma, if right, is no Sophistry, but a forcible Argument. On the other hand, Let me warn the Reader to take heed he be not deceived by Mr. H. to think that a per­son in the state of nature can receive worthily in the Apostles sense; Or, that the sin of not dis­cerning the Lords body, is nothing else but the making of the Table of the Lord a common table, in the gross and litteral sense. But of this formerly.

Mr. D. ‘ But suppose a man may be con­verted by that short exhortation, Take; this may be done by presence, &c.’

Mr. H. Page 218. If all come to this still, you may see what he must have, a Sacrament without re­ceiving, which yet himself decryes.

Answ. Soft, Sir, no such thing follows; If there be persons either visibly, or really worthy, there will be no Sacrament without receiving: If there be none such in a Congregation, I think that at present there ought to be no Sacrament in [Page 429] such a Congregation. Though the Sacrament as a mixed Ordinance, may convert standers by, yet I am far from turning the Sacrament into a Mass to be received by the Minister alone, all the people in the mean time being only Spectators, and Au­ditors. I beleeve some present must receive; but it follows not that all must receive who are pre­sent, or that none must be present unless they re­ceive. Nor is the command of Taking an empty liveless word, unless it convert; I hope an edify­ing word, is no empty liveless word.

Page 219. Mr. H. is a little too confident in da­ring to lay his life upon his opinion, That Christ would never have so indeterminately command­ed, Drink you all of it, if so many thousands of unregenerate members that come thither, must but necessarily therefore eat their damnation. He considers not that the term all in Scripture-phrase, very seldome notes an absolute uni­versal.

Mr. D. ‘ Every natural man, notwithstand­ing all his preparatory acts, hath still the un­worthiness of person, and comes to the feast without the wedding garment, &c.’

Mr. H. p. 219. f. This himself satisfies, for the feast he sayes is Christ, and I hope a man must come to Christ for conversion, &c.

Answ. A man indeed must come to Christ for conversion, but not under every notion. I come to Christ as a Father for conversion, I come to him as a Feast for nourishment and edifica­tion. Christ as a Father beget [...] us by the word, as a Feast he nourishes us by the Sacrament. Such confounding of notions by Mr. H. may well puzzle, but will not inlighten, or edifie the Reader.

[Page 430] Page 220. Mr. H. catches now again at a marginal scape of mine, p. 160. of my Bar, which I will not justifie; but thank Mr. H. for shew­ing me my error, though it be with a scoff.

That fruit is to be attained by the Sacrament as tactible and gustible, I deny not, but the Question is whether the fruit of regeneration be attainable by touch and taste; and whether an unregenerate person can attain any benefit at all by receiving. I seek not to vilifie Antiquity by saying, that Ite missa est, was an humane tradition; but desire Scripture-proof to make it a divine Or­dinance, which is not evinced by Christs command­ing all the Apostles to receive (supposing Judas did receive also) for that proves not that all pre­sent did receive; For 1. Can he say, Our blessed Saviour did receive? 2. Doth he know what waiters were present at the Celebration; or can he say groundedly that none were present? He will finde tough work of it to prove such nega­tives.

Page 220. & 221. Mr. H. flourishes, but speaks not to the purpose, ‘ Instead of answer­ing what I laid down, That humiliation, if not right, leaves a man still in the state of nature, and so Evangelically unworthy,’ He asks me how my soul was infused into my body after due preparation of the matter, I can tell him some hold, It is ex traduce; others that cre­ando infunditur, &c. But whether I can answer him or no, as to that particular, this I am assured of, That till the soul be united to the body, that body hath not the dignity of a man; and til grace be in the heart, that man hath not Sacramental wor­thiness.

[Page 431]Mr. H. p. 222. Me thinks the man here speaks very carnally. His doctrine is this, If you partake of the Lords Table without faith, you are without danger; but if you actually touch the bread upon the Table, and eat, you become a debtor.

Ans. Here Mr. H. doth me a great deal of wrong. Where do I teach any such doctrine, That if you partake of the Lords Table without faith, you are without danger? I beleeve that standers by do more partake of the Lords Table than they do of Baptism, yet they may receive much good by presence at both Ordinances, be they re­generate or unregenerate. For the latter branch, I hope Mr. H. will not deny that unworthy re­ceivers are debtors. Surely he that doth not eat cannot be guilty of unworthy eating, though I grant he may be guilty of unworthy carriage; yet not so deeply guilty caeteris paribus as he that receives unworthily.

Page 164. to 167. of my Bar, I indeavoured to convince Mr. H. of his error, in holding, That the Ordinances are primarily and directly means of grace, and remotely means of conversion and confirmation.

For answer, page 223. Mr. H. sayes I mistake him for want of distinguishing between gratia operans and gratia operata; and that his meaning is, the Ordinances are primarily means of gratia operans, and then of gratia operata. If by gra­tia operans he mean an act of the crea­ture un­converted, which is the cause of habitual grace, or initial conver­sion; will it not thence follow, that Mr. H. beleeves a natural or moral act of free will, can, or doth produce a supernatural habit? a thing extra sphaeram activitatis liberi Arbitrii; And what is this but Pelagianism?

[Page 432] Ans. That this cannot be his meaning (unless he mistake himself) is evident by his own Text, page 59. of his Vindication, in these words, This grace we receive in the use of them, is that which converts some, and strengthens others. Now grace received is not the divine Act, which he calls gratia operans, but the terminus of that action, called gratia operata, and which being re­ceived, doth, formally and immediately convert, regenerate, and change the heart; of which effect or terminus the word preached is the moral In­strument, but God as creating and infusing is the principal cause: and as the divine action is really distinct from the terminus wrought by it, so the divine action is not receptible, but only its termi­nus, namely the habits of grace. Whence it fol­lows strongly against Mr. H. (by his own expli­cation of himself) that the Ordinances as they are primarily and directly means of grace, so they are primarily and directly (not remotely) means of conversion, they being the primary and direct means of grace received, which grace received is nothing else but the habits of grace infused, not the divine action of creating and infusing, for that cannot be received.

In vindicating his distinction of outward and effectual conversion, Mr. H. p. 223. & 224. hath divers mistakes.

And 1. He mistakes in saying, That con­version to the knowledge of what we knew not before, is necessarily wrought by teaching only, and perswasive arguments, unless by miracle. There is a wide difference between humane, and divine discoveries; the former doth change our understandings in an ordinary way, the latter [Page 433] (when effectual) by special and supernatural con­course, 1 Cor. 12. 3. True, by hearing or reading, I may come to have a notion or apprehension of a thing, be the report true or false, but the under­standing is not converted by the knowledge of apprehension, but by the knowledge of assent, Joh. 8. 32. And this assent is not wrought only by teaching and perswasive arguments, but by the power of God concurring with them, Joh. 6. 45. yea though it be but a common assent, 1 Cor. 12. 3. yet we call not this Assent miraculous in Mr. H. his sense, because God ordinarily works it in the use of means, to wit, the word preached, though the means cannot work it without Gods especial concourse.

Mr. H. his second mistake is p. 224 (suppo­sing the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, which is his position) That God hath not appointed the Sacrament to convert heathen.

Answ. 1. I desire a Scripture-proof, That God hath not appointed the Sacrament (suppose it be converting) to convert Heathen, as well as unconverted Church-members. His argument from analogy of the Passeover reaches not home, for though uncircumcised persons might not eat thereof, yet they were no where forbid to be pre­sent at the Passeover eaten (suppose an uncircum­cised sojourner or hireling desired to see the Passeover eaten in the house where he lodged, where doth God forbid such to be spectators or auditors?) Nor is any unbaptized person forbid by Christ to be present at the Lords Supper, though I beleeve he ought not to receive till first initiated by Baptism.

[Page 434] 2. M. H. grants, p. 223. and 224. That the Sacrament is apta nata to convert an Heathen sufficiently knowing in the mysterie of our Reli­gion, if he be present, though he do not receive; and I pray then why may not presence convert a prophane Christian sufficiently knowing, though he do not receive? And if the Sacrament cannot convert an ignorant Heathen, how shall it convert an ignorant Christian? yea, lastly, if it have an aptitude to convert any present, though he do not receive, how can M. H. forbid any to be present at that which is apt to convert him, without an ex­press warrant from heaven? If he have any such warrant, let him produce it.

His argument for excluding infants, Because the Sacrament converts by a joynt virtue of the word and discernment, which children have not, may as well exclude them from Baptism, of which they have no more discerning than of the Lords Supper.

Page 224. M. H. grants, 1. That the Lords Supper is instituted for edification. 2. That this edification refers to the whole Church.

Whence I infer from M. H. his five principles, That those intelligent Church-members who are warrantably suspended (instance in his jure excom­municate) at least may (if not must) be present in order to their edification, to which in his sense the Sacrament refers. How can I edifie by an Or­dinance, if I be not present at that Ordinance? He that is absent in reference to place, is further from edification, than he that is absent in under­standing, 1 Cor. 14. v.17, 24.

His conceit of making regeneration to be edi­fication, hath been formerly answered. We [Page 435] dispute not about the latitude of the word edifi­cation; but grant, that in a large sense, he who lays a foundation edifies, if the foundation be a part of the building; yet I hope, in precise speak­ing, the terms and notions of founding and build­ing, are distinct, both in the Civil and Spiritual Edifice, 1 Cor. 3. 10. and that an Ordinance, or part of an Ordinance, may be effectual to edifie, which is not effectual to found in a precise sense. Be­sides, edification must be proportionable to the foundation; therefore edification in common grace follows and suits with the foundation of common grace; and edification in saving grace, follows and suits with the foundation of saving grace, which is regeneration: Common grace founds but upon the sand, saving grace founds upon the rock, which are two distinct foundations, and must have two distinct edifications. But of this for­merly.

M. H. p. 225. In that word (fancy) he wrongs me; for his sense is answered: A vital Ordinance can beget life.

Answ. Then M. H. wrongs himself, the word Fancy being his own word, page 63. of his Vin­dication. An Ordinance may be called Vital, not onely as it begets, but also as it preserves and in­creases life. Christ indeed is vital food, but not before he be vital seed, and in the Sacrament he is received as vital food, not as vital seed.

Page 170. of my Bar, I blame M. H. for say­ing, That confirmation of the Covenant is a primary end, confirmation of faith a secondary end of the Lords Supper.

Page 225. of his Rejoynder, M. H. tells me scoffingly, That I blame him for saying but what [Page 436] I say my self. For confirmation whereof he quotes page 126. of my Bar.

Answ. I say there indeed, ‘ That Sacra­mental seals confirm, 1. The Covenant. 2. The faith of the worthy receiver.’ But where do I say, that confirmation of the Covenant is the pri­mary end, confirmation of faith the secondary end of the Lords Supper? Is not that generally first in time, which is last in intention. Confir­mation of the Covenant, as a means, is first in or­der of time, or at least in order of nature, be­fore the confirmation of faith, as the causa sy­nechtica, is before the effect: but the confirma­tion of faith, as the end, is in order of intention, before the confirmation of the Covenant. That is first in order of existence, which is last in order of intention, and contrà. In order of existence, the confirmation of the Covenant, is before the confirmation of faith, as the means are before the end; but in order of intention or design, the con­firmation of faith, is before the confirmation of the Covenant, as the end is before the means. I say, the confirmation of the Covenant is in order of existence, before the confirmation of faith. M. H. says, it is in order of intention, before the confirmation of faith. Let the Reader judge whe­ther these two propositions are all one; and whe­ther M. H. does not violate the Law of Moral Philosophy, as well as Divinity, in holding, That the confirmation of the Covenant is the primary, the confirmation of faith, the secondary end of the Lords Supper. Who knows not, that the Cove­nant is confirmed by the seals (as well as by Gods oath, Heb. 6. v.17, 18. in order to the confirma­tion of our we ak faith. As Gods oath, so the [Page 437] seals, by confirming the Covenant, do [...] in order to the confirmation of our faith, as the end. And if so, then the confirmation of our faith, is the end of the confirmation of the Cove­nant; whence it follows necessarily, that the con­firmation of the Covenant cannot be the primary end of the seals, and confirmation of our faith their secondary end, as M. H. would have it.

M. H. p. 226. Let me help him out here, There is the end of the Ordainer, and the end of the Ordinance. It may be true, that the Churches edification is primarily the intention of the Or­dainer: But the primary end of the Ordinance must be that which goes into the institution, and the secondary that which flows from it: Now the end that is thus express in the institution is, for to be a memorial of Christs death, and so outwardly to seal, solemnize or confirm the Co­venant, and then the confirming a mans faith (as begetting it in others) is plainly a consequent effect, result or concomitant thereof. By this one passage well considered, you may have a guess at the man.

Answ. In the former branch of his answer, M. H. is pleased to make himself and his Reader merry with me; with the rehearsal whereof I shall not waste and defile paper, but give him leave to make up in frothy wit, what he falls short of in solid argument. Now he profers to make amends by helping me (rather himself) but I fear his help will prove as unserviceable, as his jesting is unsavory.

1. Therefore, its false that an effect or conse­quent of another end, is not, or cannot be a pri­mary end; yea on the contrary, its most certain, [Page 438] that the last effect or consequent is the first, pri­mary or highest end, and so by proportion, this being a sure maxim in morality, Finis, ut in executione ultimus est, ita in intentione pri­mus.

2. Its likewise untrue, that the primary end must go into the institution of a Sacrament (I mean expresly, for at that Mr. H. drives) as is evident (to go no further) by the Passeover, of which Christ and salvation by him was the pri­mary end, yet not so much as mentioned in the in­stitution thereof, Exod. 12.

3. Supposing his rule were true, that the primary end of the Sacrament, must go expresly into the institution;

Then 1. The confirmation of the Covenant (by Mr. H. his own rule) is not the primary end of the Lords Supper, since the confirmation of the Covenant is not expresly mentioned in the insti­tution, though the Covenant it self be.

Or 2. The confirmation of our faith is as evidently mentioned, as the confirmation of the Covenant, and therefore (by M. H. his rule, though against his dictate) may be a primary end of the Sacrament. For proof compare Matth. 26. 28. This is the blood of the Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Luke 23. 20. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you, 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my body which is broken for you. Those words for you, and for many, evidence that Christ in the Institution as expresly minded the con­firmation of his peoples faith, as the confirma­tion of the Covenant which is subservient there­unto; and that therefore by M. H. his rule it [Page 439] may be a primary end of the Sacrament. That, compared with the Confirmation of the Cove­nant, it is a primary end, hath been formerly proved; which is also more evident by the words of institution in the fore-quoted places. Should I now for a close return M. H. his Epiphonema upon himself, and say, By this one passage well considered, you may have a guess at the man, I suppose the Reader could not blame me. But I forbear.

In the same page M. H. mentions some excepti­tions I make from page 171. to page 175. of my Bar, and confutes them with a dash or two of his pen, saying, That I carp, snarl, my ex­ceptions are not worth any further answer, what pittiful things are they, as if I envyed him a bare expression, &c.

Answ. 1. The Reader cannot expect I should spend time in vindicating those five passages which M. H. doth not answer, but onely vilifies with re­proachful terms. If this be to answer and confute, the Ladies of Billinsgate are excellent Disputants. We have had too much heat already on both sides, I had rather bring water, than fuel to this fire. I beseech you, Sir, think not that I envy you any expression; I think too many of your expressions, and of mine also, deserve rather pitty than envy. Can we not seek the light of truth, without the heat of passion?

Page 227. He presents his Jury of Arguments, to prove the Lords Supper a Converting-Ordi­nance. His first Argument is,

[Page 440] Argument 1.

It is the duty of every intelligent member to frequent the Sacrament: But officium est propter beneficium; ergo.

Answ. 1. I deny the major, if by frequenting the Sacrament, he mean actual receiving, other­wise it militates nothing against us, who grant universal presence.

2. Supposing some benefit did accrew to all re­ceivers, must that benefit needs be initial Conver­sion? Studying to know by the Creation, is a duty required of Heathen, and no doubt but it was eo nomine, beneficial to them; but doth it thence follow, they were converted by this study of na­ture? or were the Sun, Moon, and Stars their Gospel? This for the minor.

3. He asserts untruly, That mans benefit is not the ground of duty. He had as good say, The Promises are no ground of obedience. Shall Self be no ground of duty, because it is not the sole or principal ground?

M. H. ib. A thing is not good, and our du­ty, and therefore God wills it: But God wills it, and therefore it is good, and our duty.

Answ. I assent fully to the latter, but questi­on the former branch, if universally understood. Some things are essentially good, and therefore necessarily our duty, as rational Creatures; in­stance in the duty of Loving God, this is good, and our duty, though there had been no positive command to enjoyn it. Other things are our duty, meerly because required by a positive Law; in­stance [Page 441] in Sacrifices, Sacraments, &c. Hence the distinction of natural and instituted worship, with which latter God often dispenses, not so with the former.

M. H. ib. That the Sacrament can do an unregenerate man good, I have formerly proved.

Answ. And that proof hath been formerly an­swered, which therefore I pass. Hence it fol­lows, That no unregenerate man is bound to eat and drink his own damnation, because he is not bound to eat and drink the Sacramental elements. I have given M. H. more than one Text to prove, that persons Evangelically unworthy, must not receive; and have also proved, That every na­tural man is Evangelically unworthy. I hope there­fore M. H. will be as good as his word in this place, in yielding to me, That receiving is not the natural mans daty; as eating the Passover was not the unclean mans duty.

M. H. p. 227, and 228. Let the pious Reader underst and this point, and that is, through mans impotency, to make void Gods Autho­rity.

Answ. When a duty in thesi, is therefore every mans duty in hypothesi, then M. H. speaks somewhat to purpose. Are there not many du­ties? which binde not all persons in every state, but this or that person, as his state and relation varies; instance in the fifth Commandment, and in duties of institured-worship, of which nature is the Sacrament. That may be a married mans duty, which is not a single mans duty; and that a godly mans duty, which is not a natural mans duty. I hope here is no intrenching upon Gods [Page 442] Authority, but onely an explication how Divine Authority applies it self to binde one man, where it doth not bind another.

Argument 2.

Page 228. M. H. his second Argument, All Gods Ordinances within the Church, are means of grace, whether first or second, to beget or encrease it; ergo.

Ans. The Antecedent is true in sensu diviso, not in sensu composito. Among all Gods Ordinances, some are means to beget grace, others to encrease grace; but the thing to be proved is, That every Ordmance, yea, every part of an Ordinance, is a means both to beget, and to encrease grace; nor can M. H. prove, that the act of receiving is a way God would have natural men to walk in. He that says, Receiving is a Converting-Ordinance, must produce, 1. A command for all natural men within the Church to receive. 2. A promise of Conversion annexed to that command.

M. H. ib. You must produce some Text where converting grace is denyed peculiarly to this means. If any say, This is a negative, which ought not to be proved: I answer, though it be so in the words, yet materially in the thing it is an affirmative; for he that excepts out of a general, affirms a limitation, and must prove it.

Answ. Here M. H. his Logick fails him. Himself as Opponent in this place, undertakes to prove, That receiving is a Converting-Ordi­nance. I as Respondent, deny his Antecedent [Page 443] (That every Ordinance is Converting, and parti­cularly those Ordinances which have no promise of Conversion annexed to them) doth it not ap­parently concern M. H. to prove (if he will make good his minor or Antecedent) that all Ordinances have a promise of Conversion annexed to them? It lies indeed upon the Respondent, to grant a true Proposition, to deny a false one, to distinguish a doubtful one; but it lies onely upon the Opponent to prove what he undertakes, unless he mean to yield up his cause; which in my poor judgement would be more for M. H. his comfort and honor. Suppose M. H. would prove the Sun, Moon and Stars to be means of Conversion, because they dis­cover to us much of God, &c. I as Respondent answer, That is not proof sufficient, but he must produce a promise of Conversion annexed to the observation of those Heavenly Bodies, if he will make it out, that they are a Converting-Ordi­nance. Were it now a reasonable demand on M. H. his part, to bid me produce any one Text of Scripture, where Converting grace is denyed to the Contemplation of the Heavenly Bodies? The case is here much alike; nor is every means of Edification, a means of Conversion. True, the Respondent denying an universal Proposition, and so by consequence affirming a limitation, is bound to give an instance for that limitation; but it lies not upon him to prove that instance, but upon the Opponent to disprove it. For example, I deny M. H. his universal (that all Ordinances are Converting) in this denyal, by consequence I affirm a limitation, and give instance of those Or­dinances which have no promise of Conversion annexed to them. Doth it not here lie upon [Page 444] M. H. to prove, that every Ordinance hath a pro­mise of Conversion annexed to it, if he mean to fortifie his Universal? Will any fair Opponent here require of me to produce some Text, where Converting-grace is denyed to any Ordinance?

Argument 3.

M. H. p. 229. There is but a peradventure for the Conversion of any in the use of all means besides, because there is no special promise of grace in the best use of meer naturals: But there is, an it may be granted by our Op­posites, to the Sacrament.

Answ. There is a wide difference between the first and second it may be; the first it may be, or peradventure, flowing from Gods ordinate power, as declared by his revealed will, that it shall con­cur with some Ordinances for the Conversion of his: the second it may be, flowing onely from his absolute power, which is a poor ground of encouragement to expect Conversion from any standing Ordinance, to which God hath annexed no promise of Conversion. Its possible, by Gods absolute power, the damned may be saved through the satisfaction of Christ; but by Gods ordinate power, its possible onely for the Living to be saved. The former it may be, speaks no comfort to the Damned, but the latter it may be, speaks much comfort to the living, especially those under the means of grace. Why? Because the efficacy of Christs satisfaction, is by promise annexed to divers of the living, but to none of the damned. In like manner, its possible, by Gods absolute power, receiving may convert, not so by Gods [Page 445] ordinate power, unless a promise can be produced which annexes conversion to actual receiving. There is a wide difference, I hope, between these two it may bees. It may be God may convert me occasionally by my sin (as he did divers of the Cru­cifiers of Christ) but it were madness thence to conclude that sin is a means of conversion. ‘By saying therefore, that actual receiving cannot convert any;’ I do not limit the Spirit of God, but onely declare that the Spirit is pleased to limit himself not to convert any by receiving, and that because he wills not to convert any by it: And that God wills not to convert any by this, as well as by other Ordinances, I conclude, because God hath not revealed his will to convert any by this, as by other Ordinances. Let it appear, that God wills to convert any by receiving, and I shall easily be of M. H. his judgement, That actual receiving is a converting Ordinance.

For his amplification, ib. by a distinction of an half promise, and a full promise.

Answ. These half promises are made to none but such as attend upon God, in, and under the means of conversion; and that actual receiving is a means of conversion, is the Question to be proved.

Argument 4.

Mr. H. p. 230: If the Sacrament be convert­ing as it is a visible word, then it must be converting as it is a gustable, tactible word, &c.

Answ. 1. Its not granted that the Lords Sup­per converts as a visible word. See my Bar, p. 155. and 156, but that the word reed', opened, and [Page 446] applied at the Sacrament, is, and may be a means of conversion.

2. We desire Mr. H. to produce one promise that the Sacramental elements, either as seen, touched, or tasted, are a means of conversion.

Argument 5. ib.

The precepts of God are lively and opera­tive, and the offers of grace are the means and conveyances of that power we have not in our selves to receive it: But here is this most sweet and gracious offer and command, Take and eat. Ergo:

Answ. The precepts of God are lively and operative in order to the ends, for which he ap­points them, and the offers of grace are means to convey unto the heirs of grace that grace which God offers by them; but that in the Sacrament God commands us to receive in order to conversion, or that he offers converting grace in tendering the Sacramental elements, is still the [...].

Argument 6. ib.

The reclayming of a man from some particu­lar vice, or vices, is a good step forwards towards repentance and conversion: But the Sacrament is a constant experiment hereof. Ergo.

Answ. 1. There is a wide difference be­tween a step towards repentance materially, and repentance it self. In the Devils and damned, there [Page 447] are some steps towards repentance, as conviction, fear, &c. Yet they, I hope, are far enough from repentance.

2. A man may turn from one sin to another, from prodigality to covetousness, is this a step to­wards repentance or conversion?

3. That receiving the Sacrament reclaims a natural man from any sin is still the Question begged. Mr. H. pretends constant experience, but names here no experiment. We are sure, upon his own principle, we can shew him an experi­ment to the contrary. Supposing (as he will have it) Judas did receive, I pray what vice or vices was he reclaimed from by his receiving? doth not the very Liturgie hold him forth as a warning un­to natural men not to venture in that estate upon the holy Sacrament?

He supposes indeed a drunkard coming to the Sacrament with a resolution against drun­kenness, taking the Sacrament upon it, and proving ever after a sober man.

Answ. 1. This resolution of his is either against drunkenness alone, which is purely carnal, upon carnal principles, and is often justly plagued with returning to the vomit; or it is against all other sins too; and this either a velleity and faint resolution, made by the strength of natural free will; or real and sincere: the former is but a good mood, or turning upon the hinges, Prov. 26. 14. exposing him to a more dangerous fall; the latter is true repentance begun, and such a one comes not a natural man to the Sacrament, but is converted be­fore receiving.

[Page 448] Argument 7.

Mr. H. 231. The acting or exercise of com­mon grace, and endeavouring to do what a man can, is another good step forward towards con­version: But the Sacrament is the means to ex­ercise common grace in the unregenerate. Ergo.

Answ. 1. It hath formerly been shewed, that a step towards repentance may be far enough from repentance.

2. If this be warrant enough for receiving be­cause the Sacrament is a means to exercise com­mon grace, then why should not persons jure ex­communicate be admitted in order to the exer­cise of common grace, and that thereby they may get a step nearer repentance?

3. Common grace may be exercised by pre­sence, and I am not against free presence, but against free receiving. For his half or com­parative acceptance, ibid. I beleeve he sins less in divers cases who performs the matter of a duty, than he that prophanely omits both matter and manner; yet on the other hand its as true, that better omit the duty altogether, than venture upon it in an unwarrantable way, witness the sad fate of Nadab, Abihu, and Ʋzza, Levit. 10. 2. and 2 Chron. 15. 13. and of the unworthy guest, Matth. 22. 12, 13.

Argument 8.

M. H. ib. The solemn ingagement of the soul to Christ upon his terms, &. is a [Page 449] means of full and effectual closing with him, if Gods Spirit shall be pleased to act with it. But actual receiving is such a means, &c. ergo,

Answ. 1. Then let persons jure excommuni­cate be thus ingaged.

2. An ingagement will binde poorly where its not understood, which is the case of grosly ignorant persons who know neither the nature of the Sacrament, nor of such a solemn ingage­ment.

3. He that comes to ingage with no resolution to keep that ingagement, yea with a resolution against it (which is the case more or less of all natural men) will be no more tyed by those in­gagements than Sampson was with cords and withs, or the Legion was with chains and fetters. Nor can any expect the Spirits acting out of the way and road of the Spirit. A penny earnest would binde no more than a promise were it not for the coactive power of the Law; and there is no compulsion of elicite, but only of imperate acts. Not but that natu­ral men ought to ingage against sin, and to duty, which in­gagement may be also very useful and beneficial, but that may be done otherwise, and with less danger than by receiving.

Argument 9.

M. H. p. 232. That which can beget more degrees of the same grace, can beget the first grace, unless these degrees are be­gotten some other way than that is. But all grace (first and second) is begotten alike, by [Page 450] propounding the object, by illumination, and by a touch upon the will; which object is shewed forth in the Sacrament, as in the Word, &c.

Answ. 1. M. H. answers himself by his own li­mitation, since the first grace is ever begot by supernatural infusion; not so alwayes the second, but may be got by exercise of the first grace, the Holy Ghost concurring to excite, and act the principle received, but not alwayes insusing new grace, as God first powred down fire from heaven, which afterward was preserved and increased by the Priests applying fuel, &c. Lev. 6. 12. This truth is held forth by the Parables of the Talents and Pounds, which were at first given by the Lord, but improved and increased by the servants industry. As moral habits are strengthned by moral acts, so spiritual habits are strengthned by spiritual acts. Light may be intended by reflection or refraction, but cannot at first be generated with­out a direct beam; Such is the first grace darted into the soul by the Holy Ghost, but afterwards intended by exercise, and multiplied acts as so many reflections and refractions, though withall the Holy Ghost may at pleasure dart in fresh beams of grace, as the Lord did often-times cause fire to fall from heaven.

2. The external propounding of the object, either by the Word or Sacrament, can no more work saving grace than the setting of an object before a blind man, or one that is in the dark can work upon him before the medium and organ be illuminated. Now the Holy Ghost is that light which illuminates the faculty savingly; and that he conveyes the first illumination by actual [Page 451] receiving is the question to be proved.

M. H. ib. It is a mistake to think that the second grace is exhibited by way of obsignation, but it is wrought (I say) through the Spirit of God by the way of moral operation onely; as the first and second grace, both are begotten in reading and hearing, &c.

Answ. 1. We beleeve that separation, tender, obsignation, and exhibition are distinct acts in the Sacrament; nor do we think that that Sacra­mental action which doth the one doth formally perform the other, which yet it may do virtually; and why grace received should not be confirmed by the sealing virtue of the Sacrament (which is really, though not formally, the exhibition of the second grace) as well as by Gods oath and pro­mise laid hold on by faith, I see no solid reason.

2. That the first grace is wrought by way of moral operation only, as M. H. seems more than to hint in [...] [...]aragraph, is a Pelagian, and a dangerous [...]; nor did Pelagius himself deny the grace or concourse of the Spirit; but what that grace of his was, is too well known, namely natural reason, common illumination, propound­ing the object, moral swasion, &c. I will not here charge M. H. in the same kinde, but wish he had explained himself, that the world might know his meaning whether he really think that the first grace is infused, or whether it be wrought (as moral habits are) by moral swasion, by strong and iterated acts which are both the seed and fruit of moral habits.

[Page 452] Argument 10.

M. H. p. 232. The sad Consequence of this Tenet, that the Sacrament belongs onely to the effectually converted, is sorely against it, and that both for the giver and re­ceiver. For the Receiver, this will cut off every poor doubtful Christian from the Sacrament. For 1. If I am bound to re­ceive when I am regenerate, and bound to forbear if I am unregenerate, then I must be perswaded in my Conscience that I am regenerate, or else I cannot eat in faith; and he that eateth and doubteth is damned if he eat. I desire this may be tonderly weighed.

Answ. In general. This Argument hath more accidentall than natural strengt [...] [...]d is more plausible than powerful; as pretending much re­spect to tender consciences, and charging our principles with the contrary. I shall therefore endeavor to weigh it tenderly in the ballance of the Sanctuary, that thereby I may satisfie tender consciences; and if it may be, my Antagonist also. Instance in the op­posite te­nets about the time of Easter, which so merly vexed the church &c.

1. Therefore I lay this down as a foundation, That a sad Consequent is no solid Argument a­gainst any Tenet, unless first it be a proper and natural effect of such a Tenet. And,

2. Unless it be a moral evil. Or,

3. That Tenet be so trivial, that the least af­flictive evil is too much to suffer for it. And other­wise, if all sad Consequents should be Argu­mentative [Page 453] in M. H. his sense, we might by a like Argument conclude against Christ and Religion, the sad consequents whereof are troubles, divisions, temptations, persecutions, &c. But to descend from the Thesis to the Hypothesis, what sad con­sequents follow as to the Receiver, from our Tenet, That onely the regenerate ought to re­ceive.

M. H. tells us, 1. This will cut off every poor doubting Christian from the Sacrament. Why, I pray? Because he cannot eat in faith, be­ing under a doubt of his regenerate estate.

Answ. 1. No more can he abstain in faith, if this argument were good; since, as he is bound to abstain, if he be unregenerate, so he is bound to receive if regenerate (I mean, unless warrant­ably detained by some just occasion; for affirma­tive Precepts do not binde ad semper)

You will say, This makes more against us, and for M. H. since it hereby appears, that a doubting Christian, is in a snare, whether he receive or not.

Answ. 1. No more then a doubting Jew was in a snare in order to his eating of the Passover (the rule being, that no unclean person should eat, Numb. 9. 13. compare 2 Chron. 30. 18.) Suppose now Caleb doubting whether he were clean or no, yet without any folid ground; but it may be, I have touched, or have been touched by an un­clean person, or thing, &c. think you this ground­less scruple had been sufficient to detain him from the Passover?

2. The best way under such scruples, is to consult with God, and to discover their ground (either real or apparent) to some faithful friend [Page 454] or Minister; whereby, through mercy, their con­sciences would soon come to some settlement, far better than by M. H. his Doctrine of admitting all pell-mell.

3. If yet his scruple still remain, its wisdom to take the better part, which is the affirmative. He that doubted whether he were clean or no, might cat the Passover; and he that doubts whe­ther he be regenerate or no, having faithfully used Gods way of discovery, by self-examination, ad­vice with others, and prayer, I believe both may and ought to come to the Sacrament, though he cannot yet attain full satisfaction of his scruples. That scruple which cannot exclude me out of the state of grace, sure cannot suspend me from the Sacrament; for then who shall receive? The best are not without scruples about their estate; which scruples may weaken, but cannot abolish evidence. As faith, so evidence is gradual, ebbing and flowing upon several occasions. Nay, the Sacrament is especially instituted for doubting Saints.

Page 233. M. H. his second sad Consequent, as to the Receiver is, That upon this account every one that comes, professes himself con­verted; and if any man be but doubtful that he is not yet converted, he cannot come, but he acts a lie, and is a publike hypocrite, &c. thus shall every humble, tender Christian keep away, and the self-justitiary harden to death.

Ans. 1. Its a mistake, That upon this account every one that comes professes himself converted. This onely follows upon our principle, That every one who receives, doth virtually profess he apprehends or thinks himself converted; as every [Page 455] Jew that came to the Passover; profest onely that he believed himself to be clean, which belief yet might stand with some doubt or scruple. Hence it follows indeed, That he who knows himself to be in the state of nature, and yet comes to re­ceive, acts a lie, and plays the gross hypocrite; which consideration well weighed, may be bar sufficient to a generation of Receivers, who wil dare before God, Angels and men, to profess they believe themselves to be real Saints, when their own consciences, and divers of their neighbors, can groundedly evidence against them as profance per­sons, and scorners of holiness. But what is this to a poor doubting Saint, who hath solid evidence of grace, yet somewhat shaken by scruples, to whom Gods Messengers and people can and ought cordially to give the right hand of fellowship, and perswade, yea, charge hi [...] [...] receive, and not be afraid to close with his be [...] friend in the Sa­crament. We assert, That none but real Saints ought to receive, and that all real Saints, with due provision, must receive: But many doubting Saints are real Saints, and therefore by our asser­tion ought to receive. Contra, hypocrites, whe­ther doubting or confident, ought not to receive; and if they receive, they do so at their own peril: And should Christ ask any of them, Friend, how camest thou in hither? he would be as speechless as was the presumptuous guest, who for all the general invitation, was bound hand and foot, &c. because he came without th [...] wedding gar­ment, Matth. 22. v.9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Yet further, if a consident hypocritereceive, his dan­ger is the greater, the Sacrament (through Gods rihteous judgement) building him up accidental­ly [Page 456] in a damnable error of false assurance: A sad Edification.

We have scanned M. H. his sad Consequents for the Receiver. Next let us view his sad Con­sequents for the Giver.

Page 233. M. H. For the Giver, 1. The case will be neer the same; for the Sacrament cannot be administred according to rule, nor he (that is, the Giver) act in faith, unless both the Re­ceiver is regenerate, and he assured of it (which he cannot be) if Regeneration were a qualifi­cation commanded as necessary to receiving.

Answ. This imaginary Consequent, discovers more of M. H. his weakness than the former. He might as well argue about the Passover, thus, If no unclean person might eat thereof, then the Passover cannot be administred according to rule; nor the Giver of [...] act in faith, unless both the Eater be clean, and the Giver or Overseer be assured thereof (which he cannot be) if legal puri­ty were a qualification commanded, as necessary to the eating of the Passover. Think you the Priests or other Overseers were to admit none to the Passover, but those whom they knew to be clean? yet the rule was strict, No unclean person shall eat thereof: Whence I infer, As the strict­ness of their rule obliged not them to know certain­ly who were clean, who unclean; so the strictness of the Gospel-rule (let no unregenerate man re­ceive) obliges not Church-Officers to know cer­tainly, who are regenerate, who not; but onely to take care, that no persons visibly unclean in an Evangelical sense, be admitted to the Sacrament. Will it follow, That because none but regenerate persons must receive, therefore none but such must [Page 457] be admitted? The latitude of Admission is as far beyond the latitude of Receiving, as the latitude of visibility, not contradicted by gross ignorance and scandal, is beyond the latitude of true Grace.

M. H. ib. Secondly, men will be ready to think themselves converted, when they are admitted, and the formal Christian rest in his estate, when he should come hither to repent of it.

Answ. 1. Carnal persons are apt to conclude their estate good, by catching at any evidence that seems to favor them; as, because they are Church-members, attend upon the Ordinances, have the good word and opinion of eminent Pro­fessors, &c. yea, some people abuse right evi­dences; must Ministers therefore forbear to preach evidences and tryals of grace?

2. Though we hold, that none but visible Saints must be admitted; yet withal we teach, that few visible Saints are real Saints, and that therefore admission to the Sacrament is no evidence of true grace, though it be a strong obligation to grace. It argues indeed, that the Admitters have a good opinion of the persons admitted; but what folly is it to infer, I must needs have true grace, because Gods people give me the right hand of fellowship, and hope well of me?

M. H. ib. Thirdly, the best Minister must fall infinitely short in the discharge of his tryal, were any at all required upon this ground.

Answ. No more than the Priests and Levites, who were not bound to know certainly who were clean or unclean, but upon suspition, might and ought to bring the case to issue by the parties [Page 458] confession, or sufficient testimony. Or no more than a Judge is bound to know certainly, whether the person suspected be a Felon or not, but must endeavor to seek out the truth by the persons con­fession, or legal evidence; which being done, the Judge is innocent, however eventually a guilty person may be cleared, and so enjoy the privi­ledges of an honost man, & contra.

However therfore in the close of this Argument, M. H. is pleased to judge. That the first touches of Conscience, before mature deliberation, have inclined pious persons to plead for tryal of others in order to the Sacrament; yet the serious de­bates both in the Assembly and Parliament about this particular, before it was ratified by the Civil Sanction; as also the constant practice of our own and other Churches before these times, may perswade M. H. that his judgement is not infallible. If Self-examination exclude Church-examination, then pari ratione, Self-judging ex­clude Church-judging, and Self-teaching Church-teaching.

Argument 11.

M. H. 234. his 11 Argument, The Sacrament is a means to confirm faith of Assent: Ergo, Its a means of Conversion.

Answ. 1. This Argument proves indeed, the Sacrament is a means to confirm Conversion, by confirming assent in those who are regenerate.

2. That it may confirm a common assent in any that understands it: But the great question is, Whether actual receiving can beget a saving [Page 459] assent, and so work initial Conversion. His testi­mony out of Calvin, proves Gods orderly and gradual proceeding about the work of Conversion, first by the word, then by the Sacrament, yea, after­wards by both together, but that by the Sacrament God opens a passage for initial Conversion, is M. H. his gloss, not M. Calvins text. Besides, by the word, God teaches not onely convincingly, but also effectually; and so far as the word teaches, the Sacrament may confirm, either in relation to degrees of Conviction, or of Conversion; in or­der to both of which, the Spirit is a necessary Agent.

Argument 12.

M. H. his 12. Argument, ib. The solemn ap­plication of the Covenant to a mans self, according to his estate, &c. is the very onely way whereby the Spirit usually worketh Conviction, and sincere Conver­sion: But actual receiving is a solemn means of such an application, Ergo.

Answ. 1. I deny the minor, as to the second branch about sincere Conversion. M. H. his Pros­syllogisms drawn from Legal-conviction, and self­judging, will not help him, till he can prove, that an instantaneous act of Legal-Conviction, with a like instantaneous and hypocritical act of Self-judging (if produced at all by the unworthy Com­municant) in the act of receiving, are effectual means of converting such an obdurate sinner, who resists all the grace of the Sacrament, till he come to the last act of receiving.

[Page 460] 2. The fore-mentioned application may be made (with less danger of guilt) by presence without receiving.

Mr. H. p. 236. and 237. He that is willing to go on in his sins, and refuse Jesus Christ, I will not gratifie him so far, to say he must stay away. This were doctrine after the fleshes own heart.

Answ. 1. How comes it then to pass, that the most fleshly men are usual most eager for the Sacrament, and think themselves most wronged when kept away? Ask the worst in every Parish, Whether the Minister gratifie them most by sus­pension, or by admission?

Yet 2. By suspension we affect not simply either to gratifie or displeasure any, unless care and endeavour to prevent their sin, and bring them to saving knowledge and grace be a gratification or displeasure; and I hope every godly man should be willing to gratifie all, nor afraid to displease any by endeavour to prevent their sin, and to work in them real conversion.

What ever therefore M. H. is pleased to in­sinuate, p. 237. be not deceived as if by abstention, or suspension, thou either gavest up thy self, or wert given up as lost; Or that any unworthy re­ceiver can make so good use of the Sacrament, or of the blood of Christ as to wash away any one stain of sin. Such conceits may puzzle and trouble, but will never convert or edifie thee. If the guilt of Christs body and blood can bring thee nearer heaven, then may unworthy receiving bring thee thither. Study well those two Texts, 1 Cor. 11. v.27, 29. and thou wilt easily perceive, that M. H. is better at Rhetorick than spiritual Logick. [Page 461] Attend upon the word which undoubtedly is a means, and hath clear promises of coversion: And upon true, though weak discoveries of grace, come to the Sacrament as Gods second Chariot that will carry thee apace to heaven.

Page 239-240. M. H. endeavours to back all his twelve Arguments by an instance or ex­ample; before which he inserts these words, Whereas Mr. Drake is ready to cite me before the great Tribunal, I may appeal thither to those many Saints in heaven, together with this party, &c.

Answ. 1. Sir, Had you noted the place where I cite you before the great Tribunal, you had done me a favour. I do not remember such ex­pressions, and should censure my self for rashness if I uttered such words without a very weighty ground.

2. In appealing thither to the Saints departed, how ever your meaning may be good, the ex­pressions are not very sutable to Protestant prin­ciples. But I let it pass as a superfluity of Rhe­torick, and come to scan the instance and example, I doubt not but Mr. Fairclough reported faith­fully and candidly according to what he appre­hended by information and observation: which te­stimony Mr. H. presents to publick view, p. 240. I hope verbatim without addition or detraction. Onely here I intreat the Reader to note three particulars, so I have done with this Section.

1. By this testimony its evident Mr. F. dif­fered from Mr. H. his opinion about free Ad­mission.

2. That Thomasin Budde said not, That her receiving the Sacrament was the first thing [Page 462] which by the power of the Holy Ghost, brought over her will to the acceptance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But that it was the first thing which she sensibly perceived brought over her will, &c. whence it follows, she had her first sensible evi­dence at the Sacrament in receiving; but whether she were not really converted till that instant is still in dispute.

3. Mr. F. confesses, That before her ad­mission she had some sleight motions and con­viction wrought upon her. Who can say, but these sleight motions (in mans judgement) might be converting motions. That may be real and glorious with God which is but sleight with man, & contra, Luke 16. 15. Hence I may (without injury to that pious woman) conclude that this example affords no solid bottome to prove actual receiving a converting Ordinance.