tolerating of weeds His four Queries propounded page 269. have formerly been answered therefore I shall not trouble my Reader with Repetitions Mr. H. p. 269. And now if Mr. Drake shall have need to write again as I beleeve nature will work and his spirit cannot hold I shall desire him if he will go to vent that superfluity of maliciousness c. to take along with him that Text Deut. 23. 13. Answ How true is that saying of the Wiseman Prov. 27. 19. As in water face answereth to face so c. Mr. H. hath set me so fair a copy in his Rejoynder that he might well expect considering both our hearts have the same inherent principles of naughtiness I would undoubtedly write after his copy But I hope I have not so learned Christ As in placing the Bar if I know my own heart I was not acted by malice so now in fixing the Bar I have by the grace of God endeavoured to avoid the appearance of malice and shall beshrew my self if any passage have slipt from my Pen which may favour of that hellish leaven I would not only seek Truth but also follow after Charity especially with Mr. Humphrey Page 270. Mr. H. He concludes with a scruple to the Reader and tells us he hath done with Mr. Humphrey Thus Hiram hath finished the work he had to do the Pots and the Shovels c. Answ See a like close of his first part page 135 136. I will not dispute how pertinent those applications of Scripture are I am sure they are not very pious Pray Sir If you shall see cause of writing again however you may trample upon Mr. Drake do not abuse the holy Scripture It s ill jesting with such Edge-tools The Word of Salvation deserves better at our hands than to be made either an Object or Instrument of derision Soli Deo Gloria A TABLE OF THE Most remarkable Passages handled in the several Sections There being twelve Sections in the First Part and ten in the Second Part. PART I. SECT II. ALL put for many and the number twelve by roundness of number put for an inferior number Ib Luke neither in terms nor by necessary Consequence affirms that Judas was present at or received the Lords Supper Ib. Supposing Judas did receive it makes not for Mr. Humphrey Ib. That scandal wiped away That we give more power to the Presbytery than to Jesus Christ Ib. Church-tryal of any warrantable upon an holy jealousie about their knowledge and piety Ib. We go not about by Suspension to punish any for a future sin Ib. His Quotation out of Dr. Hamond makes not against us who deny not but Christian Professors whose hearts are full of villany may be admitted in case that villany be not visible SECT III. DIvers middle things between a visible Covenant-relation and truth of grace which may be a just bar to admission Ib. Mr. H. allows the Suspension of persons ipso jure excommunicate How grace may be wrought in Infants by the Ordinances or promoted Infants are naturally uncapable of understanding what is done in Baptism as well as in the Lords Supper Suspension owned both by the ancient and modern Church SECT IV. MR. H. acknowledges a signified Profession and what it is A word for tender Consciences who through scruple stand off from the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. About the Lords Supper and our address to it opened What it is to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. How any is bound to apply Damnation to himself at the Sacrament The distinction between eating and sealing damnation Comfort to trembling Souls about this particular Whether Moral instruments cannot Convey a thing that is real SECT V. MOral as well as Levitical uncleanness was a bar to the Passover All unclean persons must be kept from those holy things which cannot convert but prejudice them in statu quo Niddui a Bar to the Passover The Parallel between the Passover and the Lords Supper How far the Corinthians scandals were a bar to the Sacrament All not put for an absolute universal nor for all of a kinde 1 Cor. 10. 21. opened and vindicated 1 Cor. 10. v. 3 4 5. vindicated The right way of settling tender Consciences The Parable of the Feast Mat. 22. and Luk. 14 vindicated Mat. 3. about Johns Baptism vindicated Acts 2. 41 42 46. vindicated Who are federally holy or not Revel 22. 17. vindicated How the Covenant by the Sacrament is sealed to all the world How far men may be compelled to tryal and that tryal about the truth of mens profession rightly managed is no entring upon the throne or secrets of God SECT VI. THe latitude of the Covenant tender is no solid ground for free Admission to the Sacrament as received In what sense and upon what account a Minister may say to a Receiver of the Sacrament Christ is thine c. A Church-member may be visibly in the state of Nature The Minister doth not seal to a lye by giving the Sacrament to those who are visibly worthy yet really unworthy Mr. H. acknowledges presence at the Sacrament to be freer than actual receiving Rom. 2. 3. vindicated How the word is a sealed word to Heathen c. All may be present at the Lords Supper but all may not receive In what cases a Minister may admit or suspend from the Sacrament SECT VII SAcraments not essential notes of a visible Church Mr. H. allows a negative Suspension upon prudential grounds The Parable of the Tares opened 134 SECT VIII ARguments to prove Suspension is a Divine Institution backed with Humane Testimony SECT IX IT s neither vain nor impossible to select a people for the Sacrament Visible Worthiness as distinct from Church-Membership warranted by Scripture SECT X. ADmission to the Passover no warrant for Mr. Humphrey his Free Admission Mat. 5 vers 23 and 25. vindicated Doubting Christians in what cases they may and must receive though unregenerate persons ought not to receive Mr. Humphrey his stating of the Controversie for himself and for us examined SECT XI Mr. Humphrey his innocency in admitting all Intelligent Church-members tryed SECT XII THe Command Drink you all of it no Argument to prove Mr. H. his free Admission PART II. SECT I. MAt 7. 6. opened and vindicated SECT II. SAcramental tryal not so burdensome as divers make it Suspension far milder than the greater excommunication SECT III. WHat Mr. H. means by visible Saint and what we mean thereby SECT IV. MR. H. holds none are visible blanks within the Church How faith is sealed in the Sacrament Mr. H. Holds that God by the Sacrament ingaegs not to give a man faith Rejoynder page 71. whence it follows that the Sacrament doth not convert How the Sacraments confirm faith formally and consequentially The Sacraments are seals though they do not confirm every Receiver Historical and particular assent are often divided in the Regenerate In the Sacrament God seals to the Regenerate the condition as well as the benefits following upon the condition The difference between Gods and the Ministers sealing to a visible Blank Mr. H. is not for the admission of all Church-members de facto unless they be also Church-members de jure This Jus is the very foundation of Church-membership and what it is The Sacrament â—eals to the inward as well as to the outward Covenant How the Sacrament is a tropical yet a proper seal Mr. Calvin very zealous against Mr. H. his free Admission How the Sacraments are Gods Seals faiths Seals and the Covenants Seals Faith is given by virtue of the Covenant made with man The conditionality of the Covenant of grace is no bar to its absoluteness How the Assumption and Conclusion of the Syllogism of Assurance are in Scripture by Consequence One and the same thing may be an object both of faith and sense In what he must be lost who will be a worthy Receiver How the Sacrament is a Seal of faith subjectively SECT V. We agree all Church-members must be admitted without a known Bar but differ about this known Bar. SECT VI. THe confirmation of faith a primary end of the Lords Supper The Lords Supper no Converting Ordinance Mr. H. his twelve Arguments to prove it a Converting Ordinance answered and one example SECT VII IOhn 13. 1. opened SECT VIII WHat is meant by Self-examination 1 Cor. 11. 28. Mr. H. hesitates whether common grace differ gradually or specifically from saving grace It s no harsh expression to say the Sacrament is poyson to the unworthy Receiver SECT IX A Digression to tender Consciences Not the accidental good effects of sin or bad effects of duty but the natural shall be imputed SECT X. MR. H. his relative cutting off from Ordinances examined FINIS ERRATA in the first part Page 22. in the Margin read page 22. p. 60. l. 9. for six r. ten p. 67. l. 9. for Pouls r. Pauls p. 80. l. 15. for he r. the p. 85 l. 19. r. Adultis p 105. l. 13. r. Mr. H. p 155. l. 31. for own r. one p. 131. l. 10. for principle r. principal p. 103. l. 27. del in and the Comma p. 96. l. 27. for to so r. so to p. 205. l. 13. r Bar. ib. l. 26. for thus r. this p. 214. l. 13. r. unintelligent p. 220. l. 11. for there r. therefore p 221. l. 32. for is grace r grace is ERRATA in the second part PAge 353 line 13. for si r. is p. 389. line 22. read medius p. 420. l. 24. r. Baptizing p. 463. l. 18. for is r. in p. 468. l. 22. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 472. l. 2. for 12. r. 22. WHereas page 22. towards the latter end I say there is no mention of Excommunication jure or facto in the 24 page of Mr. Humphrey his Vindication nor to my remembrance in any part of his Vindication I perceive now upon better information that those terms are used page 4. of Mr. H. his Vindication but the page being misquoted by his Printer occasioned my mistake which therefore I thought my self bound here to give notice of
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 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 Church-relation 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 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 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 It s 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 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
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 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 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 it s 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 it s 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 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 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
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 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 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. It s 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 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 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
being guilty of Christs Body and Blood or of eating and drinking Damnation to our selves 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 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 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 it s 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 it s 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 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 It s 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 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
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 Chancell-door 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 words are these The word and the Sacrament t is 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 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 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 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 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 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 â—…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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 Church-members 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 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 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
faith eyes the promise Heb. 11. Be willing to bear the gates of Gaza at Gods command and he will give thee 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 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 Church-member or not is to be debarred presence at any Ordinance provided he be not a disturber of the Administration 2. It s 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 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 it s 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 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 Church-state 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 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
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 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. 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 it s 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 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. It s 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 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 it s not a physical but a moral instrument Both Word and Sacrament are real Instruments of sanctification the word both to
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 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 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 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 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. It s 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 it s 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. 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
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 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 It s 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 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 self-judging 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 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 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
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 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 it s 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 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 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 it s a branch of the Covenant unto which the Sacrament is an appendix Secondly As wrought active and growing in us and so it s 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 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