I Have received that Book of Learned M ^r Humphreys, which you were pleased to send me by our Carrier; for which I give you hearty thanks; I have taken the first occa­sion that my businesse would suffer, to read it over; but as for my Judgement, which you desire of the Work, it is not of that worth as to be regarded; being made publique, it will undergo the Censure of more piercing eyes; To me, I con­fesse, there is that to be found in his Writings, which is too much wanting in the Works of many, perspicuity of stile, perspicacity of Judgment, and much Candor in expressions. If all Controversies were carried on in this way, Disputes might be brought into a more narrow compasse, but that is not to be expected; Some, it is to be feared, do not intend it, others may endeavour pro modulo suo, that which they cannot reach. Many Scriptures, (if I can judge any thing) as well in the Book, as the Postscript, are both obiter, and ex in­dustriâ much cleared, which I have ever thought to have been impertinently brought into this Dispute; yet though I must joyne with him (the force of Truth evincing it) as to the acknowledgment of the invalidity of some Arguments, and impertinency of some Scriptures, alledged against his Te­nent; yet I cannot do so, in his conclusion; But still am where I was, and must professe my dissatisfaction; Some things in reference to my selfe, I shall take the boldnesse to animadvert, and afterwards happily offer somewhat more, very briefly as I shall finde occasion.

Pag. 31. Taking notice of the Title of my Treatise of the Sacraments, viz. [The Covenant sealed] he saith it is in reference to my former [The Covenant opened] But if that Treatise did open the Covenant, and this Seale it, then [Page 3]this doth again conceale, obsure, and darken it: For that is the use of sealing as it opposed to opening, as I have shewed, Treat. of the Sacram. Pag. 327. I had thought that all would have known, that this Title [The Covenant sealed] had reference to that which I exprest in my former Title-Page [The Cove­nant of God entred with man-kind] There I hold forth Gods entrance into Covenant, and here his sealing or Ratification of it.

Pag. 32. He quotes somewhat out of my Treatise of the Sacraments, where I set down the minimum quod sic in know­ledge, which in my thoughts may give admittance to the Lords Supper; But that which he quotes is cloathed in his own, and not my language: and when I goe as low as I durst, and lower then perhaps some will allow, any that strictly compares my words with his Quotation, may see that he makes me to go yet lower then my selfe.

Pag. 59. Ad finem. He hath these words [ The Sacrament is appointed for the Church, the Church consists of unregenerate, as well as others, which is a firme and solid probation, and is in­deed that strong bottome ( as M ^r Bl. acknowledges it, Cov. Seal. p. 247. whatsoever others have said thereof) on which not onely my Book, but both his too, so far as concernes this matter are founded] 1. These two assertions (whether we take them joyntly or severally) are no bottome on which an administra­tion unto all Church Members, promiscuously may be groun­ded; either according to M ^r H. or my opinion. He puts in his limits to exclude some Church Members, I exclude the same, and put in limits to exclude others, though not from the right, yet from the use. 2. I have nothing at all to say in that place, to either of those Assertions, which he styles a strong bottome, but onely to the words of his Text [ Mar. 14.33.] on which he built his whole discourse. 3. The words in my Book indeed are [strongly bottomed] but I intended, and so it was in my Copy [strangely bottomed] and accor­dingly in the Errata it is corrected, which easily also might be gathered from my words immediatly following, where I set out not the strength, but the weaknesse of that bottome; which is to be wondered, that M ^r H. saw not, seeing in his [Page 4]Postscript Sect. 1. he goes about a vindication of it from the same objection that I there make against it. I there also say, that I had in my thoughts to have given a brief answer to his Scriptures and Reasons, and can he think that I would say, that I intended a refutation, and with the same breath affirme that it was built upon a strong bottome.

Pag. 109. He assumes to himself an Anti-Erastian, Ortho­dox, free admission to the Lords Table, when that is the thing under dispute, whether such admission be Orthodox or He­terodox; And in the same place charges upon me, a kinde of Erastian indisciplinary suspension. Here I would demand, 1. Whether all be Erastians, as to opposition of Church Dis­cipline, that assert suspension from the Lords Supper, (if you will so call it) by a sole ministeriall power, taking in what assistance they can for the better discharge of their duty: Were the Fathers and School-men, universally Erastian? and in their Times engaged against all Ecclesiasticall Discipline? Was the Church of England also in like sort Erastian from the first Reformation? We have been highly charged for not reforming Discipline, but I never heard, that we were charged for abolishing of all Discipline; They were all (so far as I can possibly understand) of the same opinion that I have declared in this thing; And when they were all free from Erastianisme, how can I in following their steps, stand charged as an Erasti­an; or any kinde of an Erastian? How is that withholding of the Sacrament, which I assert charged as indisciplinary? when I professedly affirmed that all that I say must not any way be understood, as prejudiciall to Church Government, or the power of Church Censures, giving in my Reasons, with­all asserting Church Government (as I was able) with Argu­ments and answer of Objections; though M ^r H. plainly hints in the same place, that he thinks that he hath done it somewhat better: But I am well content that it be done, who­soever it is that hath done it. 2. That that which I have said, is not to make to the prejudice of the Office of ruling Elders, concerning whom there hath been in the Church so hot dis­putes, and after some enquiry into mens different thoughts a­bout them, and the different bottomes on which those that [Page 5]do stand for them, set them; I conclude that on what bot­tome soever they stand, that which I have said can nothing prejudice them. Lastly, That nothing that I have said, may exempt admission to, or exclusion from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in particular, from cognizance of Church power, nor take it out of the verge of their Censures: which may be further seen in my Treat. of the Sacram. p. 265. to p. 272, I do not indeed make it any part of Discipline, yet am carefull to keep it within the reach of it, whereas [indis­ciplinary] as I suppose is that which is without Discipline; not that which is not Discipline. M ^r H. preaching, praying, fasting, Sabboth Observations, publique Collections, private Admonitions, are not Discipline, yet I suppose that he will not say that they may be fairely called indisciplinary. 3. Was Erastus ever so high against promiscuous admission to the Sacrament, that he that opposes it, and would have Ministers withold it from some, that are neither Infant, Ideot or distra­cted; eo nomine suffer in his Name as an Erastian, or as any kind of Erastian. I have not Erastus, and when I desired the Book, I could not buy it with money, and it is now seve­rall years since I read it; But I shall appeale to any indifferent Arbitrator to determine, whether M ^r H. or I, in the point of admission to the Sacrament, more oppose or side with him. In that of excommnication we both differ from him, and o­therwise I think he is much rather then I, an Erastian; though I would not hastily put any such Character or Brand upon him.

Pag. 103. He hath these words [ That there is a possibility (upon what is said) of edification to all intelligent Church-Mem­bers, though scandalous, ( Covena. Seal. p. 240.) or ignorant (p. 133.) M ^r B. cannot ingenously deny.] Intelligent, ignorant Church Members, will be the wonder of many, unlesse the termes were better explained, and with some distinction fur­ther cleared. I suppose that by [Intelligent] he understands one of the principles and use of Reason, a man that is no In­fant, Ideot or distracted person, as he is wont to explaine him­self; And that by [Ignorant] he meanes such a one as is not seen, but wholly or grosly to seek in Christian Mysteries; [Page 6]This is the most favourable Interpretation that I can give of this strange conjunction of intelligence, and ignorance in the same person. But when a man is otherwise intelligent, and of as acute parts, as M ^r H. can reasonably imagine, but versus hoc, respective to Christ and Christian Mysteries, knowing nothing; I suppose there is no more hopes of his edification in his communicating in this Ordinance, then if he were in M ^r H. his sense non intelligent If an intelligent ra­tionall man, shall undertake the imployment of a Taylor, but wholly ignorant how to shape a Garment, such a one that knowes the use neither of sheares no needle; I shall no lesse keep him out of my work, then if he were an Infant, Idiot, or distracted; And I suppose a man of parallel ignorance in Christian Mysteries, should be in like manner dealt with at the Lords Table, according to M ^r Hs. own principles, who still yeelds that non-intelligent men should be denied admit­tance. But M ^r H. sayes, that I cannot ingenuously deny a possi­bility of the edification of such intelligent ignorant persons by the Sacrament. Certaine it is that I do deny it, whether inge­nuously or disingenuously, I must leave it to others to deter­mine; you or he, if you please may consult what I have said, p. 230. of my Treat. of the Sacrament, where you may finde in the Margent these words, (grosly ignorant are in an in­capacity) viz. of edification at the Lords Table. And where­as p. 233. is quoted (where he saies I confesse a possibility of such edification) I wish that the place may be seen, and then it will soon appeare, that I there speak of edification by the Word, accompanying the Sacrament (as the objection there made, led me to it) at the instant of Receiving, and not by the Sacrament it self: And as to that I say indeed, I will not determine an absolute impossibility, but withall affirme, little morall probability, or possibility; that a man coming in his ignorance for the Lords Supper (as is there objected) should receive such instruction, at that instant from the word; as to come a knowing man at that time to the participation of it; and if it do happen, I say it is to a wonder, if not to a miracle. So that this concession of mine (I sup­pose) the Reader will judge might well have been spared, [Page 7]and when these things are laid together, some happily will think that the most harsh of his adversaries (as he styles some) have found more candid dealing from his Pen then my self, whom yet he seemes willing through a great part of his Treatise to represent as of his own party.

Pag. 112. He is pleased to bring an Argument against me, to prove that ignorant men are in a capacity to edifie by the Sacrament, and so to be admitted, which he also touches upon, p. 35. Were not those words (saith he) of our Lord to his Disciples? This is my Body broken for you, This is the New Testament in my Blood which was shed for remission of sinnes, teaching words, informing them of his death and mistery of our Redemption. Who can deny this? And were not the Disciples ignorant at that time of his death and mistery of our Redemption? Mark. 9.31, 32. Luk. 9 44, 45. with Luk. 24.7, 8. Joh. 20.9. And what then will follow for the ignorant is cleare. But if the intelligent Reader please to take a view of those Scriptures, he will soon see, that they do not shew, that the Disciples were ignorant of his death; at the time of the institution of this Supper, as is affirmed, but of his Re­surrection onely; And not simply ignorant or unbelieving in the Doctrine of the Resurrection (being not of the party of the Sadduces, and well knowing, that in this Christ had opposed them, Mat. 22.23. Mark. 12.18.) but of his Re­surrection on the third day. They were seen in the Mysteries of Redemption, according to the measure of the dispensati­on of Gospel Mysteries, in the time that they lived, and it is not to be doubted, but that they were better seen in it, then those that at the time of Christs birth waited for Redem­ption in Israel, Luk 2.38. Those did expect a Redem­ption by a Messiah in Gods way; which yet was not explicit­ly made known: And the twelve might well further be­lieve it and expect it to be by his death whom they had received as their Messiah, though as yet they understood not, that he should rise the third day from the dead, as those Scriptures speak: That more dimme light is therefore no plea for their blindnesse, that in the cleare day-light see nothing.

[Page 8] Pag. 25. M ^r H. in his own defence distinguishes between the non inteligent as Infants, ideots, and distracted, and igno­rant ones, respective to their admission to the Lords Table, affirming that it is the ignorant mans duty to communicate: he is under an Obligation to it, whereas it is no duty of those, that are thus non intelligent, they are upon that account disobliged. And is it not their duty in like sort not to be ig­norant? as in duty they should communicate, so in duty they ought to be qualified to communicate: They are not to be admitted to one part of their duty, when another part (which is greater and more necessary) is so grosly and visibly neglected. Every one that is under Obligation to du­ty is not immediatly to act according to that duty. An uncleane Israelite was under an Obligation to receive the Passover, and yet not to be admitted in his uncleannesse. It must be confest, that it is an ignorant mans duty (bearing the Name Christian) to receive the Lords Supper, but he is to do his duty and the Pastor to see quantum in se that he orderly do it, which cannot be done without helping him to some precious knowledge. Suppose a distracted person hath brought himself into that condition, by his own pride, in­ordinate passion, or otherwise, as I have known the case visibly of too many, I suppose such a one is no lesse under an Obligation to communicate, then an ignorant man, who by his own negligence is held in blindnesse: yet I beleeve M ^r H. doth not think that in this distraction he is to have admission.

Pag. 100. Bending himself especially against those that looke upon suspension from the Sacrament, as a judiciall Censure, he takes notice of some other Divines that look upon it onely as a prudentiall, pastorall duty; which [some] he may well take notice to be the farre greater party, especially if he look back to former Ages, and either of both of these are his opposites, neither of them judging his promiscuous free admission (as he judges it) to be Ortho­dox; Both agree that there should be a barre, though there is not so full an Argument, whether it be juridically to be laid, as a penalty, or incumbent on the Pastors care, as the [Page 9]prudentiall discharge of his duty: I wish M ^r H. to take in­to consideration, how much it is that he yeelds to the latter, and how much cause he hath, wholly to come up to them, and not they to him: He confesses that a Pastorall inspecti­on into the state of the Flock is needfull, that as other Or­dinances, so, this of the Sacrament is to be so administred as that all may be edified, that actuall Church-Members by the Pastors care must be excluded, that are in an unedi­fying condition; instancing in Infants, ideots, and distracted. Now every Pastor that judges that ignorance obstructs edi­fication as well as Infancy, ideotisme, and distraction, is as well to take care for the non-admission of the ignorant as he is for the non-admission of the other, which (as I think) he calls non-intelligent: This is my case, and therefore I dare not admit (and as I think I may not according to M ^r H. his principles) without some cognizance had of their knowledge that offer themselves to communicate; having so largely (as he knowes) made it appeare that such are in no present capacity of edification. Some ignorant ones I think are not to be juridically censured, yet none that may be justly termed ignorant, in Christian Mystries, can to their benefit (as I conceive) be received; As for the scan­dalous, when M ^r H. grants p. 114, 115. that a forbearance of the Lords Supper may be advised many times to unprepa­red unfit persons when we judge it Christian prudence, con­ducible through a more solemne addresse thereunto, towards a further improvement of it to their souls, and so may the same be asserted happily as I judge of it, (saith he,) ex quadam convenientiâ ob majorem reverentiam, as the School­men speak in some other cases out of the Sacrament, To which that of his p. 34. may be added, Indeed I conceive a forbearance sometimes, for all this may be pionsly advised, upon the account of prudence, and the solemnity of the Ordi­nance to do more good by it. When he I say yeelds thus much, Divines that have the same thoughts, and further think (as they beleeve there is just cause) that men of a profligate course do not onely meanely esteeme of the Sacrament (as it appeares M ^r H. thinks) and bring a hard [Page 10]report upon the Church where they reside, but also declare themselves resolved against the termes or duties required in that Covenant, that this Ordinance sealeth; may well be­lieve that this prudence is to arise to a necessity (for the right discharge of their duty) of their present non-ad­mission. And for Reasons that I have given, I still be­lieve that such have little comfort in coming; nor their Pastors in admitting, unlesse they be brought to acknowledge­ment, and promise of amendment; And in such cases, where there is any such work or willingnesse professed, this is a further engaging Ordinance, and layes yet a greater tie upon mens spirits, though happily it may be justly feared, that a through change through grace, is not as yet wrought, What others have seen I know not, I believe that I have through Gods mercy seen much fruite to my comfort, in this way of engagement of such men, rather then to have waited till I could say, I fully believed a through sanctifying work.

There is one assertion which M ^r H. often reiterates, The same qualifications are required to effectuall prayer, and other parts of Gods worship, as to the Sacrament; and as the want hereof puts no barr to the one, no more does it to the other; It is manifest that the same grace is required of a person to be ac­cepted of God in one part of Gods worship, as in another. There is the same outward priviledge, and the same inward qualifica­tion held forth alike in the Scripture unto this and other Ordinances. Pag. 47.102.105. Those Phrases of [effectuall prayer, acceptation of God] seem to be put in for a blind. If it be understood of efficacy, to present prevalency in prayer, or acceptation of God to salvation, then it is not to be doubted, but the grace of faith and repentance are required in our attendance on all Ordinances appointed of God. But will M ^r H. say, that like qualifications are required in all Or­dinances for the attainment of any benefit or profit in them, which is the thing in question, he will then meet with many dissenters: If this be his judgement, then as soon as he puts his Child to his Catechisme, he must take him to the Sacra­ment: And as soon as with his approbation any Child comes [Page 11]to be chatechised; he must call on him, or his Parents for him to come also for this Sacramentall Communion. Will he affirme that the same qualifications are required in one that feeds on Milke, as in him that feeds on strong Meate: I am sure that the Apostle was not of that minde, Heb. 5.11, 12, 13, 14. Nor yet our Saviour Christ, Mark. 4.33. Christ did prudentially consider the qualifications of his Disciples, and upon account of their deficiency held them off for a time from some higher duties, Mat. 9.15, 16. Luk. 5.37.38. And S ^t Paul adviseth the like prudence, Rom. 14.1. If there be no more expected in a Communicant then is of each person in their respective addresses to all other, even the first leading Ordinances, and all Ordinances call for equall abilities in eve­ry one that profits by them, I think most Pastors have hither­to much erred in their judgement, and more is needfull to be spoken then yet hath been said by M ^r H. for the rectifying of them: and till that be made known, a further care I think is required in Pastors, then as yet by him is willingly confessed.

In the meane time M ^r Humphrey's candour is by all to be acknowledged, and much magnified, in giving so much re­verence and respect to those whom he judges in this thing to be his greatest adversaryes, Which by them indeed is so highly deserved, and especially his tender respect had both to such Pastors that differ from him in opinion; and the people com­mitted to them, expressed in his Postscript Sect. 9. Professing himself to reverence the piety, zeal, and paines of many Ministers that prudentially take this occasion to looke into the state of their Flocks, for their admonition and institution, And bewayling as he saies the frowardnesse and offwardnesse of most unto so easie a submission, utterly disliking at the bottome of his heart the spirits of such Christians, who either out of consci­ousnesse of their own ignorance, or haughtinesse of their minds, will be contented to be deprived of the Sacrament, rather then give an account of their Faith to those that aske it in the spirit of meeknesse for their edification. This I cannot but note for his honour, heartily wishing that all that approve of his judgement would be followers of him in [Page 12]this likewise. Taking to heart his pious advice, that they do not runne their Souls upon their great spirituall disad­vantage. Thus I have endeavoured, as briefly and plainly as I can to satisfie your desires. Let all due respects I pray you, as you have opportunity be tendred to him from