whereas he thinks I attribute too much to a few dead acts of a natural man he mistakes for I attribute all to the power of Christs command and the efficacy of his quickning grace in the use of the means Page 160. Actual receiving is no act of God but of the creature and an outward act too and therefore hath not a converting power in it Answ A very mature and digested Argument Hearing is no act of God but an outward act of the creature and if you will too hath no converting power in it therefore it is not a means of conversion Tertius E coelo cecidit Cato As for his old close that the fruit of the visible and audible word may be attained here by bare presence it will not serve seeing the fruit that is to be here attained is not of the word onely as visible and audible but also as tactible and gustible while the Sacrament holds forth that word of life which we have not onely seen and heard saye John but also handled and of whose flesh and blood we must eat and drinke saith Christ himselfe And as for the custome of the ancient Church Ite missa est it is not to bee vilified because it is directly contary to him but to be weighed with the former grave judgement of our owne Church and the expresse text Drinke you all of it and they All that were present dranke of it Page 161. For what he answers to my second instance of an humbled soule to wit under the preparatory worke of grace yet no fully fashioned for the receiving the habits which are ordinarily infused per modum acquisitorum I shall say nothing but onely aske this great Doctor How was his soule infused in his body after it had its due time of disposition for it It is true as for all preparatory works nostris viribus as the meer issues of Free-will we disprove them but as they are the previous operations of the Spirit which through our fault it is they often prove abortions it is no more derogatory to attribute them to him in our Conversion then it was to God to take six dayes to the Creation I say then Can he tell me this How was his soule produced at first in his natural birth Can he tell me the way of the wind Joh. 3.8 If he cannot how will hee define mee the way of the heavenly Spirit If hee cannot tell mee the things that are with him How shall his vessel comprehend the wayes of the most High As for my instance of Luke 24.30.31 though I onely alluded to it Calvin hath these words upon it Augustinus plerique alii senserunt panem hunc poâ—rectum fuisse â—n sacrum corporis sui symbolum hoc dictu plausibile est Dominum in spirituali demum caenae speculo agnitum fuisse nam discipuli corporalibus eum oculis intuiti non cognoverunt Now what Saint Augustine and most others thinke true and what Calvin judges plausible though hee addes for his owne part simplicius accipio Master Drake answers It is a dictate so absurd that the very naming it is a sufficient confutation Page 162. By presence benefit may be gained but the danger of eating and drinking unworthily cannot be incurred without receiving c. Ans Methinks the man here speaks very carnally His Doctrine is this If you swear by the Altar it is nothing but if you swear by the gift upon it you are guilty If you partake of the Lords Table without Faith you are without danger but if you actually touch the bread upon the Table and ease you become a debtor I pray which is greater the bare Bread and Wine eating and drinking of the Institution it selfe and consecration which sanctifies the Elements For my part I never imagined but the words eating and drinking 1 Cor. 11.27.29 are spoken Synecdochically for the whole duty of the Receiver who can never be guiltlesse when Christ is offered to him and that he sayes is to all present though they onely looke on if he does not receive him by Faith So that if I may speak as I think It is not the bare eating and drinking we are to stand upon in comparison of his serious addresse unto Jesus Christ according to his condition Page 163 to 167. Whereas I say the Sacrament and all the Ordinances are primatily and directly means of grace and remotely means of conversion and confirmation He pretends as if I went about to blind my Reader with a conversion of our selves instead of Gods converting us and so pursues his trace Ans I must confesse to you here he is mistaken for this never came into my thoughts as my words following plainly declare which are This grace which he distributes as a most wise God works in every one as his state and need requires where he does ill p. 166. to substitute others and cry absurd in the regenerate for their strength and establishment in the unregenerate for their conversion Mr. Drakes weaknesse here then is apparent that cannot distinguish between gratia operans and operata I say the Ordinances are meanes whereby God works or the Spirit moves and though gratia operata is Regeneration or confirmation it felse yet gratia operans I hope lies indifferent between the regenerate and unregenerate as men come to seek to God for it in his means and is indeterminate to either effect So that this businesse is so clear I take it to any unprejudiced understanding that I am glad to be put to no more trouble by so many pages Page 168. As for his exceptions against our distinction of an outward and effectuall conversion the right conceiving the terms onely may satisfie and I will explain my selfe thus In the soule there is two faculties the Understanding and the Will There is accordingly a double conversion either unto the things which before we did not know or to the right improvement of the things we do know or there is a conversion to a sincere Religion or to be sincere in our Religion The first of these must necessarily be wrought by teaching onely and perswasive Arguments unlesse by miracle but when we once are informed by the word then do all the other Ordinances conduce to bring that knowledge into the heart and life So that here does likewise arise that other distinction of mine of the principall converting Ordinance and subordinate which work by vertue thereof Now if you will suppose a heathen sufficiently knowing in the mysteries of our Religion I doe not doubt but this solemnity were apta uata to convert him because it shewes or holds forth that which is a means of Conversion But these two things we must know as sure 1 That it cannot beget any assent or reverential apprehensions but upon supposition of the vertue of the principal Ordinance to wit that he is informed before or at present in the meaning hereof For this bare knowledge alone is that which is neither encreased nor
asserted my ground the state of my question and my proofs I must come now to my Reasons where if I do not sometimes tye my self to every particle when there seems to me to be much repetition but little matter yet will I endeavour according to my small ability to give such satisfaction I have to every thing that is weighty if not to all in this businesse between us And I beseech the Lord Iesus to pity my infirmities and assist his weaker vessel who is even helplesse of all strength but in dependance on him My First Reason was from the Nature of the Sacrament It is the shewing Christs death a visible Gospel and so a firm ground of Free-admission Vnto this the summe of what he sayes over and over from p. 37. ad p. 52. comes but to this All may be present but not actually receive granting the foundation I shall begin with the last His words are these The Word and the Sacraments '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 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 and that is not of the Absolute Heb. 8. which is secret and belonging to Election but of the Conditional Covenant or the Covenant in its conditional capacity which is tenderable to all the world and that more especially applicable with a distinction of outward privileges or interesse to the Church Now look what is the tenour of the Covenant the Sacrament seals and nothing else for we both hold it is the same with the Word Now I pray what needed such a torrent of words in this plain case 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 sayes which he grants And doe not all understanding men know we cannot seal Jesus Christ and his benefits to any but on the Covenant terms which is conditionally Would one think Mr. Drake should ask me such a question p. 42. Dares Mr. Humphrey say to a person in the state of Nature Sir Be assured All the benefits of the Covenant are actually yours The language of every actual giving is Christ is thine in particular I answer This is a manifest error 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 a state of Nature conceiving we know it not and cannot judge thereof even as unto one in a state of Grace Christ is thine upon the same terms as he does to one visibly worthy yet really unworthy that is If thou do now resolve to accept of him For Let me ask him again Dare Mr. Drake say to the visibly godly nay to the most really holy Sir Christ is thine Absolutely as in particular I assure thee of it If he dare he enters upon the absolute Covenant and the Ark of God and sayes what no Mortal may say But if he can say only Christ is thine in particular upon the condition of the Covenant Here is no more than may be said unto others If this will not suffice but you still think though where a man is visibly to be admitted you can safely say to him Christ is thine in particular whether he be in the state of Nature or the state of Grace seeing indeed you know it not yet you dare not say so when you find which thing I utterly renounce to be visibly undertaken that some are yet in their natural estate I answer In my opinion for all this you may only take the language of the Covenant wholy aright which is thus Here is Christ If thou sincerely acceptest of him to save thee if not to condemn thee unlesse thou repentest and all is safe neverthelesse The solidity of this answer may appear the more by this mans weaknesse to salve that objection p. 48. which otherwise cannot be don It is this Does not the Minister seal to a Lye if he seal to the unworthy He answers most miserably He does but seal to an untruth not to a lye 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 Here his untruth must be a lye again It is not his pleading an admonition or that he cann't help it will serve him if it be possitively a lye 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 on necessity come over to us and then he may know how neither to commit an untruth nor a lye neither by saying He offers or applies Christ but conditionally or upon his own terms and then the door is open for our Free-admission The truth is seeing that the Minister is Gods Embassadour and what he does is by his Commission we may as soon say The God of Israel can lie as that the Minister ever seals an untruth or lie either in doing his office but you may sit down by my Expression hereof p. 49. The Sacrament seals generally the truth of the Covenant freely and absolutely to all engaging them unto it but the interest of single persons in the benefits as in the threats is alway conditional or according to the tenour of the Gospel With my Readers leave though this be both what is partly received and sufficient I shall speak a little more The very body of our Religion consists in the knowledge of the Covenant and Application of it Vnder the Covenant comes in the knowledge of our selves our states our Mediator and what he has done for us And under the Application the Spirit and his office The Ministery and the Church For what concerns us here About the Covenant we are to know the tenour of it and the seal of it The tenour of it is apparent Mark 16.16 For the seal Let us consider It is either the Real true effectual Seal that ratified this Covenant between God and Christ and that is his blood Heb. 9. or the Symbolical External seal which is only a representation of this unto us and that is the Sacrament Concerning the Application we must know two things the Applyer and the Subject to whom it is applyed Both are likewise External or Internal The Internal Applyer is the Holy Ghost whose work is therefore call'd the seal of the Spirit This glorious person cannot be called a seal otherwise but by a Metonomy of the effect as he is the inward Minister to apply the Covenant both in
Ordinance and therefore whereas some do prevaricate and make use of this Text which is a sign they have nothing else to say against the day-light of Free-admission in other places to this Passeover and yet urge it so often with such eagernesse of belief as if they would convince all others by it they seem to me as men Baptized into the old Sextons Spirit that will have their own clock be right their own opinions true howsoever the Sunne goes My second proof was from 1 Cor. 10.17 These Corinths were scandalous many of them and yet says the Apostle We being many are all partakers of one bread Against this M. Drake has three exceptions p. 25 26 27. First He extenuates their crime and counts it no bar to their Receiving Secondly He confutes this himself and proves they were guilty of grosse sins by 2 Cor. 12.21 and so will not allow them to be admitted Thirdly He supposes this too and questions only Paul's allowance of it Thus you see how playfull the man is that at one breath he can blow his bubble out and in and out again For the First it is manifest that these Corinths were Fornicators 1 Cor. 5.1 Contentions 6.1 Carnal 13.3 Unchristian Uncharitable Disorderly c. 11. c. For the Second the Text is full to the point St. Paul says they were all partakers of this bread Mr. Drake says But how will he prove notwithstanding they were admitted Mr. Drake says They had only a right to it in actu primo St. Paul says they all partook of it whom shall we believe Master Paul or Saint Drake For the Third That he allowed of this practice that is manifest too 1. In that he doth not forbid it which if it had been sin he must have done 2 In that he urges their very coming as a means and argument to reclaim them from Idols 3 In that he does as it were even give his assent in a plain precept for it 1 Cor. 11.33 Wherefore when you come together tarry one for another Hereof I appeal to the judicious for this meaning that their coming was good and their disorders to be reformed A tender Christian may here object v. 20 21. against our mixt Communion I would not have you have fellowship with Devills you cannot partake of the Table of the Lord the Table of Divils I answer the Apostle speaks not of divers persons in the whole Ch. going to one Table but of the same persons going to divers Tables and he plainly reasons from their partaking of the one against the other From whence I argue Those that were engaged from going to Idolls partook of the Lords Supper but it was not the regenerate only but all their intelligent Members were hereby engaged from Idols Ergo All their intelligent Members partook of the Sacrament and were to partake of it if the Apostles argument be sufficient As for his mollifying the word Drunken I disapprove not and if any man be quite so I hold him unintelligent and fit for the present to be turned away from all Ordinances My third proof was from 1 Cor. 10.3 4 5. which I think if it be well laid to heart might ease us of our scruples Read Calvin Inst. l. 2. c. 10. sect 5. 6. who agrees with my explication of it His objections are two p. 28. 29. 1. He says I speak gratis in saying they were admitted to our Sacraments Ans I pray see the words does Saint Paul speak gratis They did all eat the same spiritual meat and drank of the same spiritual drink and Rock which was Christ Mark it he says the same not only the same thing signified but the same symbolls the same meat and drink or the same Sacrament So that Mr. Drake is mistaken and his arguing from their Elements being not the same is very low as if because we have sometimes Sack sometimes Claret we had not the same Sacrament Calvin tells us they enjoyed iisdem symbolis as the Text doth which I conceive herein that there was specifically the same Sacramental union between the signs and things signified in their as our Elements They all drank of the Rock which was Christ they did not all drink really of Christ but symbolically and so do we symbolically then they are the same that is the same symbols or Sacrament Whereas he urges here The uncircumcised and Infants again which is now thrice were admitted his Argument will but ever come to this because our Scriptures sometimes seem to prove more therefore they cannot prove the lesse 2. He brings in the ordinary shift That this was necessary to preserve their lives and so they were admitted c. Ans This I prevented by shewing that to this very scope and purpose doth Paul parallel these Sacraments of theirs with ours to let the Corinths know that they had no other than the same privileges with the Iews in their Fre-admission If he should say I make no more of your coming freely hither than of the Iews all drinking of the Rock it were no plainer to me than what he has spoken He doth acknowledge it so in finding such a large instance to compare with it For the difference he makes between our Elements and theirs which he says is manifest namely theirs was to nourish their bodies as well as their souls c. It is grosse and fit for none to say but the Papists that hold there is left only the qualities of bread that cannot nourish in transubstantiation And whereas he says They must have choaked and starved else I say if it be necessarily sin to Eat of Christ Sacramentally unlesse men are regenerate as Mr. Drake holds there is no doubt but they should have rather dyed than be guilty of the blood of Christ which he phrases murdering him and have sooner famisht their bodies than damn'd their Souls If it be not a sin but accidentally Here is a good reason indeed for their eating and drinking All of them but what reason is there St. Paul should parallel our eating and drinking with theirs unlesse it be true likewise that we are to eat All of us it is not his bare saying The parallels do not run on four feet will serve for you may see he won't let the Apostle so much as stand on one if he denies our Free admission Before I passe I have two things heer for tender Christians 1. That to Eat Christ Symbolically is no such dreadfull thing as is made of it I mean above other Ordinances it is as sinfull to use them unworthily as this for Paul makes no account to say they all drank Sacramentally of him provided always you come with reverence both in regard of the nature of the institution and your own condition 2 That the want of grace is no just hinderance or excuse from our profession There is a general profession of God in opposition to all Idols in which sense I take it the whole people only could so commonly be said to
to the Hypocrite with the true Believer cannot bring any evidence to me So that this arises onely from the testimony of my own conscience and Spirit of God If this man were lesse confident he might come to know more and be better informed To the Fourth It is true the Gospel may occasion divisions as the Bridge doth the tumults and noise of the Waters but I think it no way of the Gospel that goes about to make them Let the wise peaceable and godly mark the cause and avoid it As Factions are in State Separations are in the Church you shall never unite so long as you maintain the ground of them â—t is a little thing will raise up the spirits of men when we know not how to allay them again and you shall sooner divide them into more Schisms to ruine both the Minister and the Church than reduce them to what they were For the spirit of Division being once up will be still fetching in more and more fewel to our opinions Even as the Magician in the Fiction Camerarius Hist Med. lib. 3. c. 15. that was wont to take a stake of wood and speaking certain words to it it would become a man he bids it fetch him fire and water and when it had done his work with some other words turns it into a stake again A certain Friend over-hearing these words would needs do the same He takes a stake speaks those Words It turns to a Spirit fetches him fire and water when he had enough he bids it cease and bring no more but having not the Words to charm it back into its self that continues He fearing takes an Ax cuts it in two upon this instead of one there is two men fetching fire and water never leaving till they had almost brought both him and the house unto confusion Sect. 7 MY second Reason was drawn from the visible Church and the Notes of it The visible Church is a number of such as make profession of Iesus Christ This I take to be the very nature thereof and profession of Christ reciprocal with it The Essential notes that is I count those things wherein this profession is set forth are the Word and Sacraments I know many grave Divines do adde a third note of Discipline and some include it under them but I think this rather conduces to the well-being than the being of the visible Church I do not doubt but our Churches where we have no discipline establisht are yet true Churches but if we should not have the administration of the Word and Sacraments though the invisible Church might be amongst us yet not the visible Nos asserin us says Calvin Ecclesiae formam non externo splendore sed longè aliâ not â contineri nempe purâ verbi Dei predicatione Sacramentorum administratione Now what does competere essentially to the Church as visible must competere to every Member in status quo so that so long as a man is a Church-member he cannot be debarr'd this profession in the publick marks of these Ordinances Onely let me here desire my Reader once for all whensoever I speak of Church-membership as our ground and common right to the Sacrament whether before or after to take it alwayes with the known and yeelded limitations of our admission that is unlesse men be unintelligent as Infants and the Distracted c. or excommunicate whom for the present I account no Members and to avoid all future cavill unlesse there be also some manifest occasion on a civill account as sicknesse infection or the like that are granted impediments to it Upon this he has four particulars p. 52 53 54. 1. He addes to this description a combining to Church ends which indeed is virtually included but does suppose it to be my meaning though not exprest so well as he has done it Ans A discreet Lady being upon Marriage to a worthy man but not rich and perswaded against it by some interest friend in the words of the Apostle It is good to marry but better to be unmarried Truly says she I have always studied only to do well must leave it to you that can to do better So say I I have endeavoured to set down only what serves my turn and is to my purpose but leave it to Mr Drake to be more curious if he please in his additions 2. He asks me Whether all Professors or Saints by calling may be admitted to the Lords Supper I answer directly eo nomine with our due cautions they ought for they are herein only called Saints as separated from the World unto this very Communion in Gods Ordinances And now you may expect some weighty Argument to convince us to the contrary let us heart it If so then why doth he shut out Infants and Distracted persons It s apparent then c. Ans Would you ever imagin this same six times repeated thing and ever provided against should be all now he has to say and yet tell us it is apparent when as to us poor mortals it seems nothing at all Let me therfore here certifie you once again that when St. Paul enjoyns us to examine our selves and discern the Lords body it doth not excuse any of age but they are both to do so come both to prepare and eat We must do what we can still when we cannot do as we ought and if we receive no good by it it will be our sin but as for Infants c. we manifestly know there is no such thing it is no sin of theirs if they are not fit to come For ignorance then and scandall if it be not such as makes us forfeit our Church Membership that is become excommunicate it cannot contradict our outward profession for a visible professor and Church Member I think are tearms convertible and that very Church Membership and profession lies in the communion of these Ordinances 3. He grants my Notes but objects the keeping off Children and Servants till they can give some tolerable account c. Ans There is a difference between what is done juridically by compulsion and what is done only as prudential by advice Between forbearance and exclusion I think a man may conscionably forbear his coming sometimes upon many occasions and much more upon pious ends regarding preparation My ground is because affirmative precepts oblige us semper but not ad semper so that there may be much of Christian prudence used in the ordering our more solemn duties upon which account only I take it are Godly Parents and Masters to be commended in this thing so long as they follow them with instruction and so may those Spiritual Fathers that go no farther in the like admonitions 4. He would have the World think I go to deceive because my Syllogism should run thus The Word and the Sacraments are essential notes ergo without them there is no true visible Church but this concludes nothing against him Ans Not to
in the Church are in some sense in Christ and sanctified by him as I quoted those Texts Jo. 15.2 2 Pet. 2.1 Heb 10.29 c. From whence I argue that those who are in a Church-state in Covenant or visible communion so that thereby they are said to be in Christ redeemed and sanctified are to bee admitted accordingly to the seal and badge thereof unlesse such as the Scripture gives ground to except But all Church-members are in Covenant Deut. 29.1.10 11. visible Saints c. and the Scripture allows no bar to any unlesse unintelligent or excommunicate Ergo. Unto this seeing it concerns the maine Mr. D. gives us two answers 1 Then Infants againe may be admitted this is fourteen times 2 In short He is confident against it A very masterful argument which confidence yet without proofe whosoever trusts to shal finde but as a broken tooth and foot out of joynt And here I desire the Reader to take notice when he still comes to this point which is the foundation whether it be sufficient satisfaction only to vilisie me and slight it off For as for this passage with which he hath filled so many sheets about children it is good for nothing unlesse they had happily been in parchment and then it would have served well to make them Drums and sounded prettily by the emptinesse Page 122. How grosse is that assertion that there is an historical visible faith that gives an out ward Church right unto the Elements Answ Nay rather how cleare and firme a truth doth it appear by the former Argument That faith which serves to enter a man in external Covenant and engage him to the termes thereof wil serve to admit him to the Sacraments but a faith onely accepting the true God in opposition to all other Religions doth serve for that appears by the Covenanting of the whole body of Israel Deut 29.10 12. Ergo All Professors or Church-members that have but a common general historical or visible faith for any of these termes serve me I say are in Covenant but the Covenant is the foundation of the Sacraments Ergo neither will the right understanding hereof doe any hurt to the Church I hope so long as we presse neverthelesse a solid saving faith to interest them in the effectual benefits of them both His Exceptions are 1 Then the Excommunicate have a right for they have stilan historical faith Answ How vaine is this who knowes not the state of the question supposes us within the Church 2 Some excommunicate may also have a true saving faith See how fairly instead of opposing me he checks himselfe I pray marke his strength in both because neither an historical nor saving faith gives a man a right that is excommunicate and thereby made no Church-member therefore they cannot give him a right when hee is not excommunicate and is a Church-member 3 As historical faith gives not a right to Christ but faith of adhesion so a visible faith of adhesion gives right to Christ sacramental Answ 1 I might returne to him Why may not some excommunicate persons have such a visible faith of adhesion as an historical saving one But. 2 An historical faith is suo genere a true faith as the Eunuchs I beleeve that Christ is the Sonne of God Act. 8.37.3 An historical saith which was barely so and not saving gave Simon Magus admission unto Baptisme Act. 8.13 and here Adultis eadem ratio holds firme 4 Faith of adhesion I take to be an assent with application and that is special faith which I question whether it may be termed visible as distinguished from saving 5 It is sufficient to mee that a faith which generally assents to the truth of the Covenant and engages to it and yet falls short of justifying entitles to the Sacraments for otherwise we shal quite confound the worke of the Minister and the Spirit the symbolical and effectual Seal and then no man can be admitted at all without presumption 6 When the Papists prove that historical faith justifies because it sufficed unto Baptisme Act. 8.37 Some of our able Divines answer It is true Profession of faith gives interest to Baptisme yet it is not sufficient to Justification Dr. Slater on Rom. 3.22 There is a manifest difference between a title to the Sacraments and interest in the saving benefits A general faith gives title to one a special to the other Regeneration is like David that enjoyes Michal when Profession like Phaltiel comes along behinde weeping to Bahurim A general faith hath some union with Christ as a special a saving union Profession like Orphah may kisse Naomi when a saving faith like Ruth cleaves unto her Sect. 4 THe fourth Objection is The Seal is set to a Blanke if all be admitted My answer was from consideration of what is sealed It is generally said the Sacrament is the seale of faith wherein lyes the difficulty I say onely it is a Seale of the Covenant The Gospel is the writing the Sacrament as the seale to that writing the Writing is true and the Seal true whosoever is admitted I must confesse there is so much confusion in this businesse especially in Mr. D. who is usually most assertive when least advised that it will be in vaine to dispute Andabatarum more with termes blindfolded These termes then sealing to a blanke sealing to our faith and sealing the Covenant I judge are ambiguous when we differ onely in termes we may reconcile in our meaning but where we differ in our matter one of us must be reformed First then Sealing to a blank may relate to the thing or person when I say there is no sealing to a blank I mean as the thing sealed for it is not the unbelief of man can make the Covenant of God of no effect Now when here he takes a blanke as relating to persons he sayes nothing and is presently answered we hold none are visible blanks within the Church but when he refers it to the thing as I do here arises our difference Secondly Sealing of faith or to faith we either meane as the thing sealed or the condition required to the exhibition thereof When I say the Sacrament is not a seal of faith I mean it still as the thing sealed to wit on Gods part A Seal is an Appendix to writing the Sacrament is not an Appendix to faith but to the Gospel Now againe If he meane here by this expression It is a seale to our faith onely that faith is the condition upon which alone Christ and his benefits are conveyed it is what none doubteth and for words we contend not But when he sayes It is the seale of Faith referring it as I doe to the thing sealed our controversie here must continue and there is but one thing to looke into to wit the sense wherein or grounds whereon he thus holds it which I shall satisfie after I have laid downe these other distinctions likewise about sealing the Covenant as necessary
be performed A man must come and he must come worthily the case is the same as in all Ordinances there is the substance of a duty and the manner of performance If the manner be evil it must be amended and the matter still must be done He has three Objections page 181 182 183. 1. How assuredly doth Mr. H. make that the principle duty which is the carkasse and forme onely Answ Methinks Mr. D. should not speake so lightly of Christs owne words Do this who dares not know Doe this includes matter and manner to wit in faith love thankfulnesse as wee ought and if this be not the principal duty to which self-examination is subservient let all judge Even as the Feast though it lasts but an hour is the principal the whole week of preparation accessory to it As for his words then that follow they are but a pen full of inke spartled in my face while his peevish spirit like a troubled sea is still casting up mire and dirt 2 True He that is bound to come is bound to come worthily but he that is bound to come worthily is not bound to come absolutely Answ I know not how he may straine the word absolutely but I say a Church-member is as absolutely bound to come hither as so pray and heare as the Apostle sayes Let a man so eat Christ sayes Take heed how you hear so pray and so give almes But are they therefore ever the lesse absolute duties There is no doubt but the manner as well as the matter comes under the same absolute command so that a man is bound I say still to come and come worthily and both absolutely though not Ad semper to either And therefore whereas he askes p. 178. Every man is to examine himselfe and so to eat but where is it said absolutely Let every man eat It may suffice him that Christ sayes expresly and absolutely to all present Let every one drinke Doe this Drinke you all of it But let me aske him again Where doth the Scripture say any where Let a man not eat or not drinke where doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so signifie not As for his instances then about Legal purifications they are answered in their place They may serve to be alluded to if he will for pressing preparation but ought not to be made any ground to omit duty because no legal uncleannesse could have excused a man from Gods service but that it had an expresse law for it which if Mr. D. can produce here we shall yeeld to him 3 Sinful unpreparednesse will not exouse a man from guilt but it will excuse him from receiving Answ I judge this must be taken very warily so far onely as a man may in Christian prudence dispense with affirmative precepts for his soules better advantage Provided his abstinence serves to humble him and put him upon greater eare to prepare for the next Sacrament as hee cautions well over the leaf and if it will not otherwise this may silence himselfe Page 184. He comes to my three Queries The first is Whether the very receiving be a sin incurring damnation in him that is unworthy and here I carefully distinguish between the very receiving which is a mans duty and the unworthinesse which makes the sinne onely This unworthinesse is either in the person which will condemne him nevertholesse for his staying away and therefore I judge hee should rather come and condemne it Or in the Act herein is the matter which is good and the manner which is amisse Now the sayling in the manner of a duty I must still inculcate doth not abrogate the matter If Mr. D. can keep an unregenerate man from the obliquity in the manner and yet let him doe the matter I shall like him but he may not cause him to neglect that which is his duty in the substance to avoid evill in the performance Our disobedience is total in not doing but onely partial in doing it otherwise then we ought Indeed Mr. D. sayes here these cannot bee distinguished There is no sinful act but notionally you may abstract sinfulnesse from it but really you cannot when it comes to bee acted Answ Let him remember if hee cannot distinguish Receiving and unworthy Receiving then can he not distinguish Hearing and unworthy Hearing Praying and unworthy Praying And if he cannot really and not notionally only sever these how can he make them means of grace Can sinne be a means of grace Can that which is a cause of death be a means of life If hee say it may be an accidental occasion it is true but it must be intentionally a means with him seeing he tells us A man may hear and pray unworthily page 186. there is a sinful act which cannot hee sayes be abstracted really in the duty from the sinne yet be converted by it there it is a means of grace and instituted for it I thinke this must be a plaine conviction upon Mr. D. 1 Hearing and Praying are means of conversion 2 To heare and pray unworthily is a sinne 3 Yet must a man heare and pray neverthelesse 4 Sinne cannot be a means of grace 5 A man must not doe evill for any good effect Now if you can abstract really in no sinful act the sinfumesse from it when it comes to be acted 1 Then must sinne be a means of conversion 2 Then must it be our duty to sinne 3 Then must we contradict St. Paul and say a man may doe evill that good may come of it As for what he farther addes A man is not bound to receive till he be Evangelically worthy but is prohibited in statu quo I desire him to shew me that prohibition which is indeed Mr. Drakes eleventh Commandement that makes all his strength being without the support of any Text to become but as a bowing wall and tottering fence My second Query is whether receiving unworthily is other wayes damnable then hearing and praying unworthily and if it be not why should not we receive still as pray and heare He answers It is otherwise damnable 1 Because not a universal duty where he brings in Infants the eighteenth time 2 Not converting Ans 1 This is untrue for as to every intelligent member it is an universal duty and a means of conversion 2 It is vaine and grossely inconsequent for There are some duties belong onely to men in such and such relations Is the neglect hereof ever the lesse damnable because they are not universal Again A natural man cannot convert himselfe by his moral works are his sinnes therefore ever the less sinful As the precept onely is that which makes an action to bee good so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Transgression alone not any thing else makes it damnable My third Query is Whether an unregenerate man must never come to the Sacrament Mr. D. holds he must never because in will not convert him I hold the case is still the same with the word and