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
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
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
to seal the promise where he may erre seeing his visible Legatees really may not be such Answ 1. The Minister must seal what Christ would have him and that is both offer and promise they ever going together in the Sacrament nor is he at his own choice to seal whether he please What God promises in the Covenant that he offers by his Ambassadors both in the word preached and at the Sacrament onely at the Sacrament there is not onely a promise and offer but also a sealing of them both 2. The promise and offer are considerable 1. As to their real existence and thus the Sacrament seals that the promise and offer of Christ to all present yea wherever the Gospel is preached conditionally is no fiction but a fundamental truth 2. As to its attingency and efficacy and thus it s not promised or offered to all present or to all receivers My meaning is that at the Sacrament Christ with all his benefits is never so either promised or offered as that all present are assured thereby they shall either obtain infallibly the good things promised or accept the good things tendered Whence it follows that though the Minister may mistake as a man about the person of any receiver thinking charitably he hath grace when he hath it not yet he cannot mistake as to his office since he undertakes not to promise or tender Christ effectually to any that being onely Gods work though he groundedly hope God by him doth effectually promise and tender Christ to divers receivers namely where the Spirit is pleased to strike in effectually with the promise and tender sealed in the Sacrament by the Minister as Christs Ambassador Object How can the Minister seal absolutely to the regenerate when he cannot seal to them but upon condition of regeneration And since he knows none that are regenerated I mean as such must he not needs seal conditionally to all and so to the regenerate among the rest Answ As a promise may be both absolute and conditional so it may be sealed both absolutely and conditionally Now the promise is made to the regenerate both absolutely and conditionally therefore it may and must be sealed to them both absolutely and conditionally The promise of salvation is made and sealed to Timothy 1. Conditionally that is upon condition of his acting and persevering in faith c. 2. Absolutely because really the condition is and shall be performed by him The same promise is made and sealed to Judas onely conditionally because those conditions are neither performed nor performable by him whence the promise can no way be made or sealed absolutely to Judas as it is to Timothy Though therefore the Minister at the Sacrament seal conditionally to Timothy yet at the same time he seals absolutely also though haply unwittingly because the condition of eternal salvation is performed by Timothy not so by Judas Mr. D. Christ may be given to all at the Sacrament if you take giving for holding forth though they do not receive Page 190. M. H. What an unworthy shift is this to be made use of so often As Christ is held forth to all Sacramentally he is held forth to this end to be Sacramentally eaten and drunken Take eat this is my body that is thus taken and eaten it is his body and not otherwise The Sacrament then gives not out Christ or holds him forth Sacramentally but to those that receive it The fallacy lies in the term Sacramental At the Lords Supper you have Christ Spiritual and Sacramental At every Lords Supper Christ Spiritual is offered to all present and it s their duty to receive Christ Spiritual But it follows not thence that Christ Sacramental that is the Elements must be offered to and received by all present They are justly denyed the sign who visibly refuse the thing signified Answ I perceive M. H. hath a strong breath to blast a mans sense where he cannot convince it I dare not boast of any worthiness either in my person words or actions I hope the Lord hath made me truly sensible of my exceeding great unworthiness in them all However as I have I shall endeavor through grace to assert and vindicate truth though I must confess too unworthily As to the point in hand 1. It s false that Christ is or must be held forth to all present Sacramentally if by holding forth you mean an offer or tender Suppose one jure excommunicate be present must the Minister offer Christ Sacramental to him M. H. himself hath granted the contrary True he is held forth to all present Sacramentally by way of Declaration but not by way of Oblation or offer to all present All present may see Christ set apart and broken Sacramentally c. they may also see the Covenant sealed in the Sacrament to all present conditionally But it follows not thence that Christ must needs be offered Sacramentally to all present though he be always offered to some present Sacramentally and must be so received by them 2. It s false that unless the Sacramental bread be eaten understand proportionably of the Sacramental Cup as Christs blood it s not Christs body for 1. It s Christs body by consecration according to Christs institution before it be taken and eaten otherwise the Minister would utter an untruth in speaking those words Take eat this is Christs body c. 2. The not receiving of some present whether it be orderly or sinful cannot make void Christs institution but by vertue thereof the bread is Christs body so long as the solemnity of the Sacrament continues 3. Though Christ be not offered Sacramenttally to all at the Lords Supper yet he is offered Spiritually to all present and the promise of Christ spiritual is sealed conditionally to all present who seeing Christ crucified by them and for them may be much affected and wrought upon though they do not receive the Elements Gal. 3. 1. as well as the Communicants themselves who I hope are affected with the Elements set apart broken and poured out before their actual receiving May not a Look upon Christ crucified affect as well as a receiving of Christ crucified Zach. 12. 10. I do not say as much since both of these actions will affect more then one of them M. H. p. 191. As the Minister doth not onely loose but binde in the word so doth he in the Sacrament but conditionally in both Answ If his meaning be that the Minister looses and bindes onely conditionally then he looses the wicked as much as the godly and bindes the godly as much as the wicked the reason is because at the same time that he looses the godly conditionally he bindes them also conditionally and at the same time he bindes the wicked conditionally he looses them also conditionally Dare he say absolutely to a godly man Thy sins are remitted though thou repent not or to a wicked man Thy sins are bound though thou repent I pray what difference between Timothy
compare Matth. 26. 28. This is the blood of the Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins Luke 23. 20. This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my body which is broken for you Those words for you and for many evidence that Christ in the Institution as expresly minded the confirmation of his peoples faith as the confirmation of the Covenant which is subservient thereunto and that therefore by M. H. his rule it may be a primary end of the Sacrament That compared with the Confirmation of the Covenant it is a primary end hath been formerly proved which is also more evident by the words of institution in the fore-quoted places Should I now for a close return M. H. his Epiphonema upon himself and say By this one passage well considered you may have a guess at the man I suppose the Reader could not blame me But I forbear In the same page M. H. mentions some exceptitions I make from page 171. to page 175. of my Bar and confutes them with a dash or two of his pen saying That I carp snarl my exceptions are not worth any further answer what pittiful things are they as if I envyed him a bare expression c. Answ 1. The Reader cannot expect I should spend time in vindicating those five passages which M. H. doth not answer but onely vilifies with reproachful terms If this be to answer and confute the Ladies of Billinsgate are excellent Disputants We have had too much heat already on both sides I had rather bring water than fuel to this fire I beseech you Sir think not that I envy you any expression I think too many of your expressions and of mine also deserve rather pitty than envy Can we not seek the light of truth without the heat of passion Page 227. He presents his Jury of Arguments to prove the Lords Supper a Converting-Ordinance His first Argument is Argument 1. It is the duty of every intelligent member to frequent the Sacrament But officium est propter beneficium ergo Answ 1. I deny the major if by frequenting the Sacrament he mean actual receiving otherwise it militates nothing against us who grant universal presence 2. Supposing some benefit did accrew to all receivers must that benefit needs be initial Conversion Studying to know by the Creation is a duty required of Heathen and no doubt but it was eo nomine beneficial to them but doth it thence follow they were converted by this study of nature or were the Sun Moon and Stars their Gospel This for the minor 3. He asserts untruly That mans benefit is not the ground of duty He had as good say The Promises are no ground of obedience Shall Self be no ground of duty because it is not the sole or principal ground M. H. ib. A thing is not good and our duty and therefore God wills it But God wills it and therefore it is good and our duty Answ I assent fully to the latter but question the former branch if universally understood Some things are essentially good and therefore necessarily our duty as rational Creatures instance in the duty of Loving God this is good and our duty though there had been no positive command to enjoyn it Other things are our duty meerly because required by a positive Law instance in Sacrifices Sacraments c. Hence the distinction of natural and instituted worship with which latter God often dispenses not so with the former M. H. ib. That the Sacrament can do an unregenerate man good I have formerly proved Answ And that proof hath been formerly answered which therefore I pass Hence it follows That no unregenerate man is bound to eat and drink his own damnation because he is not bound to eat and drink the Sacramental elements I have given M. H. more than one Text to prove that persons Evangelically unworthy must not receive and have also proved That every natural man is Evangelically unworthy I hope therefore M. H. will be as good as his word in this place in yielding to me That receiving is not the natural mans daty as eating the Passover was not the unclean mans duty M. H. p. 227 and 228. Let the pious Reader underst and this point and that is through mans impotency to make void Gods Authority Answ When a duty in thesi is therefore every mans duty in hypothesi then M. H. speaks somewhat to purpose Are there not many duties which binde not all persons in every state but this or that person as his state and relation varies instance in the fifth Commandment and in duties of institured-worship of which nature is the Sacrament That may be a married mans duty which is not a single mans duty and that a godly mans duty which is not a natural mans duty I hope here is no intrenching upon Gods Authority but onely an explication how Divine Authority applies it self to binde one man where it doth not bind another Argument 2. Page 228. M. H. his second Argument All Gods Ordinances within the Church are means of grace whether first or second to beget or encrease it ergo Ans The Antecedent is true in sensu diviso not in sensu composito Among all Gods Ordinances some are means to beget grace others to encrease grace but the thing to be proved is That every Ordmance yea every part of an Ordinance is a means both to beget and to encrease grace nor can M. H. prove that the act of receiving is a way God would have natural men to walk in He that says Receiving is a Converting-Ordinance must produce 1. A command for all natural men within the Church to receive 2. A promise of Conversion annexed to that command M. H. ib. You must produce some Text where converting grace is denyed peculiarly to this means If any say This is a negative which ought not to be proved I answer though it be so in the words yet materially in the thing it is an affirmative for he that excepts out of a general affirms a limitation and must prove it Answ Here M. H. his Logick fails him Himself as Opponent in this place undertakes to prove That receiving is a Converting-Ordinance I as Respondent deny his Antecedent That every Ordinance is Converting and particularly those Ordinances which have no promise of Conversion annexed to them doth it not apparently concern M. H. to prove if he will make good his minor or Antecedent that all Ordinances have a promise of Conversion annexed to them It lies indeed upon the Respondent to grant a true Proposition to deny a false one to distinguish a doubtful one but it lies onely upon the Opponent to prove what he undertakes unless he mean to yield up his cause which in my poor judgement would be more for M. H. his comfort and honor Suppose M. H. would prove the Sun Moon and Stars to be means of Conversion because they
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