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
own liberty of converting when and whom he pleases the Ordinances being not natural but arbitrary means of conversion in the hands of God Page 172. while Mr. H. would seem to be more accurate by way of distinction he faulters wofully and tells us That the Sacrament confirms not faith formaliter but onely consecutive and improperly as putting us upon the exercise of faith and thereby strengthening the habit Answ 1. By concession the Sacrament confirms faith consequentially Yet 2. It s true also that it confirms faith formally by ratifying those promises which assure the increase of faith as well as of other graces which promises are a special part of the Covenant Mat. 13. 12. Our Saviour tells us He that hath to him shall be given and he shall have more aboundance Is this promise a part of the Covenant or no I presume Mr. H. will not deny it If it be then increase of faith is formally sealed in the Sacrament or else the promise it self is not formally sealed If by formaliter he mean immediate as may seem by the opposite branch consequenter we grant the promise in that sense is confirmed formally that is immediately by the Sacrament and faith mediately the promise of saith is confirmed immediately faith inherent is confirmed mediately by the promise ratified by the Sacrament and that not onely by putting us upon the exercise of faith which may be done by the bare promise without a seal but 1. by giving faith greatersecurity by the seal annexed to the promise 2. by conveying farther degrees of faith to the worthy receiver upon his acting of faith in the Sacrament spiritual habits being confirmed not onely naturally by their acts but also supernaturally by divine infusion their growth being suitable to their birth Initial faith is infused not acquired gradual faith is got both by infusion and acquisition M. H. ibid. Whatsoever God doth properly ratifie by way of seal he attests the truth thereof but he doth not attest the truth of our faith by the Sacrament ergo The Sacrament is not the Seal of our faith Answ 1. It s enough to us that God attests the truth of the promise by the Sacrament and the promise undertakes for degrees of faith as well as for perseverance in it therefore to every worthy Receiver the Sacrament doth formally and properly seal increase of faith 2. God in the Sacrament doth attest by consequence to the truth of the worthy Receivers saith M. H. ib. The Sacrament is common to Hypocrites with Believers therefore it cannot ascertain any that he hath grace Ans 1. It s common indeed in use and practice but whether so by divine institution is the Question 2. The thing it self that is common cannot ascertain but the right use of it may Neither Providences nor Ordinances evidence grace of themselves but onely the right use of either or both of them The Worthy Receiver gets evidence of grace not simply by receiving but by worthy receiving M. H. ib. The Sacraments are not seals because they confirm our faith which is the error but they confirm our faith because they are seals And page 173. It s derogatory I think to say the Sacrament is onely a metaphorical or tropical seal whereas indeed it is a very proper formal seal to the Covenant Rom. 4. 11. Answ 1. Here are dictates indeed but what proof Dictates charging error upon others but where is conviction M. H. should blush to be so excessive in dictares so defective in proof who himself is so apt to censure others for the same fault and too often without a cause 2. What is a seal but an instrument of confirmation annexed to a Covenant and is not the Sacrament such a thing And if faith be a branch of the Covenant is not the Sacrament a seal of faith because it confirms faith 3. Let us spell out M. H. his meaning in those words of his The Sacraments confirm our faith because they are seals If they confirm faith because they are seals I pray what or whence is their sealing Is not their sealing-vertue in its very formality a confirming vertue And have they not this confirming or ratifying vertue from divine institution If he mean the latter we easily agree the Sacraments are seals because God instituted them to be such which makes nothing against us if he mean the former he speaks a meer tautologie telling us the Sacraments are seals because they are seals and confirm our faith because they confirm our faith and so by making onely a flourish abuses both me and the Reader unless his meaning be the same with ours That the Sacrament confirms faith promised formally and immediately but faith inherent consequentially and mediately but then it s still a truth in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least That the Sacraments are seals because they confirm our faith as well as its a truth in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they confirm our faith because they are seals by divine institution 4. He trisles in opposing tropical to proper as if that were not proper which is tropical It s not proper indeed as to the first notion or intention the first and second intention being not formally the same but its proper enough as to the thing intended or signified Do not we hold against the Papists that the Sacramental words Hoc est corpus meum are proper enough as to the sense though they be tropical as to the terms The Scripture indeed calls Circumcision a seal but where doth it deny it to be a tropical seal or where doth it say that a tropical seal is not properly a seal A seal in its native signification is a bodily substance graven and so apt to make a sensible impression of it self in a fit subject Will M. H. say the Sacrament is a seal in this native signification he will not be so absurd Then it must be a seal tropically yet properly also because it hath the essential use of a seal namely to confirm and ratifie which is all we contend for and M. H. opposes but in vain M. H. p. 173. If confirming or strengthening a mans faith were enough to denominate it a seal Then 1. Acts of grace should be the best seals 2. Then all other Ordinances should be seals too 3. Then Baptism should be no seal to infants 4. Then shall both the Sacraments cease to be seals when they are admitted who have not true faith Answ 1. By concession acts of grace are the best seals He that is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise is better sealed than he that is sealed onely with the Sacrament Eph. 1. 13. 5. 30. where you see a seal is applicable to persons as well as to a Covenant 2. It follows not that therefore all other Ordinances are seals though they confirm faith because it s not every kinde of confirmation makes a seal but a confirmation by way of authentick ratification which makes a deed good in Law or
more good in Law than otherwise it would be 3. That Infants who before Baptism have initial grace are not confirmed by Baptism by degrees of grace superadded is a truth M. H. will not be easily able to confute yet withal Baptism is truly called a seal as to them because of its aptitude to ratifie the Covenant to them as well as to elder Christians though they for lack of maturity cannot apprehend its ratifying vertue Hence 4. It follows that neither of the Sacraments cease to be seals though persons without faith be admitted to them they being denominated seals from their aptitude to confirm though the effect of confirmation do not follow A deed sealed is authentick in law though some concerned in it give not credit to it We grant that faith of Assent is confirmed by the Sacrament as a seal but are not of M. H. his judgement p. 174. That a true historical assent and particular faith of evidence are not divided in the regenerate if he mean as to their exercise since 1. In divers regenerate persons there is faith of assent and of adherence too yet without particular faith of evidence otherwise we must hold there is no true faith without assurance and thereby weaken the hearts and hands of many true Nathanaels Understand me here of sensible assurance 2. Historical faith is a direct act faith of evidence is a reflex act and the direct act may be divided from the reflex act yea often is divided from it Withal though degrees of grace are not properly conveyed by the Sacrament as a 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
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
187. Unto this M. D. shall first answer p. 84 of his Bar Though they transgress they do not renounce the Covenant 2. They are members of the visible Church till excommunicated Well now let him come to speak about the Sacrament p. 131. All who are visibly in the state of nature says he are visibly out of Covenant I pray mark it if natural men be members of the visible Church how are they visibly out of Covenant If they are visibly in Christ how do they visibly reject Christ Answ 1. I have answered this cavil formerly by comparing the Prophet Hosea with himself and with other Scriptures 2. Experience proves that some Church-members do in the very letter reject the Covenant instance in Witches therefore my first assertion must be understood indefinitely not universally 3. Were not the Jews visibly in Christ as Gods professed people yet they rejected Christ visibly in the letter before Pontius Pilate Acts 3. 13. Do not Arrians also visibly reject the Deity of Christ 4. The same person may own Christ one way yet visibly reject him another way Thus too many who own Christ by profession reject him by prophaneness attend upon him at the Ordinances but renounce him in their conversation Here is no contradiction as M. H. would make the Reader believe Does he think that Christ is not at all renounced unless he be universally renounced M. H. ib. So long as the Lord owns a people in Covenant the Minister may apply the outward seals of it But while men are Church-members the Lord does own them outwardly as his people Answ The Minister may own them as God owns them but God so owns a people professing his Covenant as at the same time he disowns them breaking his Covenant as hath formerly been shewed therefore so may a Minister own them as Church-members but not as worthy Church-members and fit Gommunicants M. H. ib. So long as men are not excommunicate I see no reason why Christ may not be offered Sacramentally as free as verbally to work them to repentance Answ 1. Why then doth not Mr. H. allow the suspension of persons jure excommunicate who are not yet actually under excommunication 2. When he can prove that Christ received sacramentally works repentance and conversion then he speaks something to the purpose for free admission For his similitude of a sealed pardon here repeated again we grant as the pardon is offered to all conditionally which general includes every particular so it s sealed in the Sacrament to all conditionally whether they receive or no. But what is this to their receiving the sign who visibly reject the thing signified As the Promise so the Sacrament is offered to all if they will believe and repent but unbelievers and impenitent persons must neither partake of the promises nor of the seals M. H. p. 188. Absolutely the Sacrament seals no mans interest as M. D. vainly imagines Answ 1. If it seal not the believers interest absolutely then the best Saint can take no solid comfort by the Sacrament This vain conceit of M. H. like the Philistims earth would stop up the well of comfort to Gods Isaacs 2. Therefore a thing is absolute two ways 1. When without condition 2. When the condition is performed but the condition of faith is performed by the worthy receiver therefore the Sacrament seals his interest in Christ absolutely M. H. ib. When other means will not work upon them there remains excommunication and let that content him Answ 1. Were M. H. serious in this particular he would not be so favourable to gross and affected ignorance which by his rule must neither be suspended nor excommunicated and how then shall that damnable sin be cured 2. If there can be content in so sharp a remedy we are content with excommunication as the last refuge provided all other means be first used among which we look at suspension as a very considerable one how ever M. H. is pleased to overlook it M. D. The Sacraments are Gods seals as relating to Gods Covenant c. M. H. p. 188. A good confession Then they are not Gods seals as relating unto faith and instituted formally to ratifie faith They are not seals of faith for righteousness c. Answ Is not this strange Logick The Sacraments are Gods seals as relating to the Covenant therefore they are not Gods seals as relating unto faith He may as well argue Isaac was Abrahams son as relating to the promise therefore he was not Abrahams son as relating to his faith or Isaac was a childe of the promise therefore he was not a childe of faith I hope God Faith and the Covenant are not at such a distance but that each of them may have a propriety in one and the same seal Besides if faith be a part of Gods Covenant which hath formerly been proved then the Sacrament must needs be faiths seal as well as the Covenants seal Is the Covenant Gods Covenant the Sacrament Gods Sacrament as the Author thereof and is not my faith also Gods faith as the Author thereof and why then may not Gods seal be my faiths seal as well as the Covenants seal We dispute not about formalities but realities it s enough for us that the Sacrament is truly faiths seal as well as Gods and the Covenants seal though in some respect it may be faiths seal in which respect it is not Gods seal M. D. Is not faith and every saving grace promised in the new-New-Covenant unless M. H. will turn Pelagian M. H. ib. We neither make faith the birth of mans free-will nor yet to be given by virtue of the Covenant made with man which the Sacrament seals but to be Gods most free gift that proceeds from election and discovers the mysteric thereof Answ 1. I am glad M. H. is so Orthodox as to acknowledge faith to be the birth not of mans free-will but of Gods free electing grace This agreement in fundamentals is comfortable though we differ in superstructures 2. That in general faith and other graces are promised in the New-Covenant is to me unquestionable for proof whereof I shall intreat M. H. to turn to Jerem. 31. v. 31 32 33. See likewise Ezek 36. v. 25 26 27. And 1. There you have a Covenant 2. A future Covenant I will make a Covenant as distinct upon that account from the eternal Covenant made with Christ which even then was a Covenant past 3. A New Covenant and that either in opposition to the Covenant of works made with Adam or which is the proper scope of the place in contradistinction to the Legal Covenant made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai compare ver 32. 4. A Covenant expresly made with man even with the house of Israel and Judah ver 31 and 33. 5. Mark I pray what is given by vertue of this Covenant thus made with man ver 33. I will put my law in their hearts and write it in their mindes c. And what
I pray is the Law written in the heart but faith and other graces This is the more considerable as prest by the Apostle twice Heb. 9. v. 8 9,10 and 10. v. 15 16. 3. He mistakes in opposing a free gift to a Covenant since the same thing may be a free gift and yet a covenanted mercy and that two ways 1. When covenanted absolutely instance in Gods Covenant against a future universal deluge Gen. 9. v. 9. to 17. 2. When covenanted conditionally yet so as the condition is promised in the Covenant God therein undertaking for our part as well as for his own And such is the Covenant of Grace to all that are elected and effectually called but to none else To illustrate this by Sampsons covenant with his thirty Companions Judg. 14. v. 11 12. Had the agreement been that as many of them as could declare his riddle should have each of them a sheet c. and at the same time Sampson had resolved to declare the riddle to three of the thirty before the seventh day undoubtedly that Covenant with the three though conditional in form yet had been absolute in reality And if a conditional proposition be not absolute the condition being supposed or performed then there is no absolute proposition in the world Instance If M. H. be a rational creature then he is a man this is a conditional proposition yet I hope the consequent That M. H. is a man is an absolute proposition Why Because the condition is really in M. H. In lake manner if Peter believe he is justified c. this is a conditional proposition yet upon the same account the consequent Peter is justified is an absolute proposition Why Because the condition is really performed by Peter And thus its easie to make the most absolute propositions conditional by an hypothetical demonstration of any subject by its properties 1 Kings 10. 21. If the Lord be God follow him this is conditional yet I hope to follow the Lord is an absolute duty Why Because the condition of Deity is in him and in him alone For further explication note A proposition taking it here in a large sense may be 1. Absolutely true and conditionally false as Judas shall be damned and Though Judas repent he shall be damned 2. Absolutely true and conditionally true as Peter shall be saved and If Peter believe he shall be saved 3. Absolutely false and conditionally true as Judas shall be saved and If Judas repent he shall be saved 4. Absolutely false and conditionally false as Peter shall be damned and Though Peter believe he shall be damned It s evident then that Conditionality is no bar to Absoluteness That which is conditionally true may be absolutely true and that which is absolutely true may be conditionally true And thus the Covenant is both conditional and absolute to the Elect but only conditional to the Reprobate It s conditional to both because a condition is required of both its absolute to the one because the condition is purposed and promised to them and wrought in them namely saving faith and repentance And as the Covenant is so it s sealed in the Sacrament It s evident then that faith is the fruit not only of Gods free gift but also of Gods Covenant Mr. D. If the Covenant be Gods if the Seal be Gods and faith promised in it be Gods also is it not apparent that Gods Seal must needs be faiths Seal also Mr. H. ib. and p. 189. If he count this apparent which is a very Chaos you may guess what light to expect from him The truth is as faith is our condition it is not a branch of the Covenant that God seals which puzled this man for if it were every man should unquestionably come and ingage the Lord by his own Seal to undertake for his condition and consequently if God perform what he ingages every one should be saved Ans 1. If Mr. H. his ipse dixit be enough how suddenly can he turn an apparent light into a Chaos Now to dispel this Chaos of his makeing not with words but arguments Note the ground of the fore-mentioned hypothesis opposed by Mr. H. is the neer relation between God the Covenant and Faith which are so inseparably united in the matter of grace as that which is the Seal of the one must needs be the Sea◠〈◊〉 the other and that which is a Seal to the one must needs be a Seal to the other Thus if the Sacrament be a Seal of and to God it must needs be a Seal of and to the Covenant and of and to Faith They must needs be sealed as they are promised but they are all promised together and they must needs seal as they promise but God the Covenant and Faith promise together therefore they must needs both seal and be sealed together particularly that the Covenant is promised See Jer. 32. v. 31. c. 2. It s an untruth That faith as our condition is not a branch of the Covenant that God seals He may as well say That the Law written in the heart is not a branch of that Covenant and that perseverance which also is a condition is not a branch of that Covenant Sure the Prophet was of another mind Jer. 32. v. 39. 40. where you see God undertakes for the condition it self as well as for the good things promised upon that condition 3. His argument to prove the former assertion is absurd if his should relates to execution not to obligation We grant every one under the Gospel should come in point of duty and humbly and seriously ingage God to perform the condition in him and by him upon which God would perform what he ingages and every such person would be saved undoubtedly but we deny that in point of execution every one can or will come and thus ingage God excepting only those who are elected and effectually called taught and drawn by the Father Joh. 6. v. 44 45. Compare Jer. 29. 12 13. 21. 9. Ezek. 36 v. 25 26 27 37. Zach 12. 10. Joh. 6. â—… True salvation is promised to all conditionally if they beleeve and faith is required of all that live under the Gospel but faith is not either promised or given to all that are planted under the means of grace but only to the Elect Matth. 13. v. 13 14 15. Joh. 6. 64. and 2 Thess 3. 2. Rom. 11. v. 7 8. Joh. 6. v. 44 45. Mr. H. p. 189. This Mr. D. sees p. 134. 135 and is quite lost in his very first particular for while he supposes the Covenant promises initial grace to the Elect and the Sacrament seals that Covenant and the Seal secures what is in the writing which are all his own terms he must necessarily take upon him to judge who are Reprobates which is sinful to do or all must be admitted For though men are visibly yet in the state of nature they may be elect Answ Mr. H. his necessary consequence
know themselves to be in the state of nature and have no resolution at the present to come up to the terms of the Gospel but are under the Regal power of sin especially of some bosom corruption and that sensibly 2. He that is lost really but not sensibly as thinking himself converted when unconverted is I conceive with submission to better judgements in the condition of one who thinks a sin to be a duty ligatus but not obligatus bound by conscience misinformed to receive but not obliged to receive yea obliged by the precept to abstain or as he who thought himself clean but was unclean was bound and obliged in order to the Passover 3. He that is sensibly lost as thinking himself unconverted when really converted seems bound by conscience to abstain but is obliged by the command to receive and in order thereunto must endeavor to get his doubts satisfied He that is both really and sensibly found as having sensibly evangelical preparation of which self-loss and self-unworthiness in a Gospel sense is a chief part is both bound and obliged to come unless detained by a just occasion What M. H. addes page 201. I shall go along with him as far as I can and be glad of his company too And therefore grant 1. That the Sacrament is a seal of faith Consecutivè 2. Objectivè 3. Conditionaliter 4. Obligatoriè as obliging the receiver to believe 5. That the Sacrament is not properly a seal of reason and experience and therefore in a strict sense doth not seal the Conclusion as it depends upon the minor which speaks experience but as it depends upon the major which speaks express Scripture But whereas he addes ibid. But if you say it is a seal of faith subjectivè properly to confirm and ratifie faith or any way so to assure or evidence faith that God shall be made to set his seal to a lye if any come without saving faith this must be denied and rejected and answered that the Sacrament is not thus a seal of faith to wit formally directly properly but of the Covenant c. Answ 1. If I may but crave to be candidly understood it s no such monster as M. H. would make it to assert That the Sacrament is a seal of faith subjectivè namely that by Consequence the Sacrament seals to Peter that he believes The reason whereof hath formerly been given because it seals the major proposition upon which the Conclusion of Assurance doth partly depend For as no Conclusion depends onely upon the major or onely upon the minor but upon both premises so the Conclusion of the Prossyllogism That Peter believes depends not solely upon the major He that receives Christ c. believes nor solely upon the minor Peter receives Christ but upon both And therefore so far forth as this Conclusion Peter believes depends upon the major which is express Scripture and as a sign discovers to Peter that the act of adherence he produces is not counterfeit so far forth it s sealed in the Sacrament it being sealed in the Covenant onely as it is in the Covenant namely by Consequence as is that Conclusion That Peter shall rise which depends upon the major That all men shall rise as well as upon the minor That Peter is a man 2. Whereas M. H. hints that by this means God shall be made to set his seal to a lye if any come without saving faith this is a most false gross and uncharitable inference and imputation it being far from my judgement or argument to hold forth that the Sacrament seals to all receivers that they have true faith but onely unto those who have saving faith indeed Suppose now Judas did receive the Sacrament which seals to Peter that he believes seals no such matter to Judas but the quite contrary namely That he doth not believe and that because it seals That he who doth not receive Christ rightly doth not believe But Judas never received Christ rightly therefore by consequence it seals to Judas his unbelief and so his damnation in statu quo 3. Therefore If by formally directly properly M. H. mean expresly we grant the Sacrament is not so a seal of faith subjectivè for it can seal nothing thus expresly but what is in express terms in the Covenant and that is onely the major yet this is no bar but that the Sacrament may seal that consequentially which is consequentially in the Covenant and such is this Conclusion Peter believes as well as that Conclusion Peter shall rise As for his vapor therefore in the close of this Section I shall say but onely this to it However my arguments be but earthen ware yet God can use them to break his conceited bar of iron SECT 5. THe fifth Objection is The Covenant belongs not to all therefore the Seals neither Page 202. M. H. first states his answer to this Objection and in the same breath overthrows it in these words The state of my answer then lies plainly that all those to whom the Covenant belongs by way of interest in it though but according to title are in Covenant so far as the external seal belongs to them without some known bar otherwise Answ Grant the whole it will not much prejudice either us or the Objection Not us who easily yield that all Churchmembers are to be admitted without a known bar the term known being rightly understood Nor the Objection since the seals cannot belong to any but as the Covenant belongs to him speaking now of the visible Covenant but the Covenant cannot visibly belong to any who visibly reject it and this with us is one of the principal known bars Mr. D. The Sacrament belongs conditionally to all but absolutely to the worthy Receivers M. H. p. 203. If there be any sense and validity in this he must argue thus The Sacrament is not to be delivered to all it belongs conditionally but to those onely to whom it belongs absolutely But it belongs onely to the worthy receiver absolutely therefore it must be delivered onely to the worthy receiver Now this you see is apparently false seeing he admits some onely visibly worthy to whom he himself counts it belongs not absolutely Answ 1. To shew the fallacy let us put the same case about the Passover and the receivers thereof thus The Passover belongs conditionally to all Israelites but absolutely to the clean Israelite Suppose now Mr. H. reply as above mutatis mutandis If there be any sense and validity in this he must argue thus The Passover is not to be delivered to all it belongs to conditionally but to those onely to whom it belongs absolutely But it belongs onely to the clean Israelites absolutely therefore it must be delivered onely to the clean Israelites absolutely Now this you see is apparently false seeing he admits some onely visibly clean to whom himself counts the Passover belongs not absolutely Is not the first branch now evidently false namely That the Passeover is
conversion of assent which alone reaches so far as to ingage one to the Covenant is necessarily prerequisite to adult Church-members and both the Sacraments not so the conversion of Consent which he opens well and page 210. concludes That in order hereunto God uses this Sacrament especially where is a more vigorous confluence of all the Ordinances Answ 1. By concession of both Propositions in relation to admission which is Mr. H. his own term though I do not beleeve that receiving mentioned Act. 2. 41. fell short of saving grace in most of them The Minister must sometimes admit him who at the same time ought not to receive 2. If the fore-mentioned Conversion of assent be necessarily pre-requisite to adult Church-members and both Sacraments which is the very truth and acknowledged here by Mr. H. then those Church-members who cannot give such an assent ought not to be admitted to the Sacrament I might adde by Mr. H. his present doctrine they ought to be excommunicated though we rise not especially at first to that severity but this is the condition of many grosly ignorant adult Church-members whom if you ask Whether Christ be a woman They are as like to give their assent as if you ask them Whether Christ be God-man And so of other fundamental truths 3. We grant The Sacrament as having a more vigorous confluence of all Ordinances may be singularly useful in order to conversion of consent as he expresses it and therefore judge none should be hindred from presence at it any more than from presence at Baptism where by presence they may be converted though they partake not with the childe or Catechumenus of Baptismal water and the rather because the Lords Supper as well as Baptism Prayer or Preaching is a publick Ordinance and therefore may be honoured with universal presence though not abused by universal partaking Whereas p. 310. Mr. H. pleads humane testimony Answ With due respect to the Authors Mans testimony is either 1. Ambiguous in this point Or 2. may be ballanced by opposite testimonies of man Or 3. at best is not authentick Mans testimony may suadere but only Gods testimony can persuadere As for his distinction about real and relative grace here repeated The latter branch thereof hath been formerly answered which therefore I pass Page 211. He thinks its unsound to hold the Sacrament conveyes real grace morally by way of Obsiguation Why I pray Because moral instruments cannot exhibit any thing real Answ 1. If this be true then how can the Sacrament convey grace by way of signification since the Sacrament himself confessing is only a moral instrument And if it convey grace neither by way of signification nor of obsignation nor of exhibition it conveyes grace no way Thus by Mr. H. his principles the Sacrament conveyes no grace at all and if so then it neither converts or edifies which how absurd yea pari ratione how doth the word convert since it also is but a moral instrument 2. Grace is not strengthned but by super-added degrees I mean ordinarily but grace is strengthned by the sealing as well as by the signifying virtue of the Sacrament therefore degrees of grace are morally conveyed by the sealing power of the Sacrament The major is firm till Mr. H. can shew some other way of strengthning grace immediately for of that strength I now speak besides superadded degrees The minor is proved by instance the Sacrament is a Seal assures the Covenant to faith by this assurance faith is confirmed as was Abrahams by the Seal of Circumcision Rom. 4. 11. Faith is not confirmed but by intention an habit is not intended but by degrees superadded The conclusion then will follow That degrees of grace are conveyed by the sealing power of the Sacrament and because the Sacrament works only morally therefore they are conveyed by it morally I doubt not but the Sacrament may beget grace but the Question in dispute is whether every Sacramental action doth so and particularly the act of receiving for till Mr. H. proves this he is still at a loss and while he would charge me p. 212. as being injurious to poor Christians disvaluing this means of grace bringing in question how it can beget any degree of grace at all a charge to which I trust I can groundedly plead not guilty himself is found guilty of his own charge by denying the Sacrament conveyes real grace morally as I have shewed in the foregoing Paragraph Mr. H. p. 212. I agree with him as for Infants but for the intelligent Johns Baptism may convince him whom we finde admitting all to it and then exhorting them to amendment as the use or end of it c. Answ 1. If Baptism be a converting Ordinance I see no reason why Mr. H. should suspend Infants any more from its efficacy than from its use And to what purpose are Infants baptized if they are in statu quo capable of no good by it especially those of them who dye within few hours or dayes after Baptism They were relatively holy and so members of the Church in the right of their parents before Baptism 1 Cor. 7. 14. as in hereditary Kingdoms the Heir upon the death of his Father is King before his Coronation His argument drawn from their non-intelligence seems as strong against their edification or confirmation by Baptism as against their conversion and regeneration by it since the baptized Infant can understand no more in order to his edification than in order to his regeneration by his Baptism Therefore with submission I rather apprehend That Baptism being a Divine Ordinance doth undoubtedly attain all its ends for good in the elect vessels of mercy be they Infants or grown persons and that either in their Infancy or when they come to riper years Upon supposition that it is a converting Ordinance I see no absurdity in it if we say it may at the very moment of Baptizng be morally instrumental to convert the Infant-baptized not by way of signification to the apprehension of the Babe who can understand nothing of it nor is it necessary he should understand man cannot get into the heart but by the head God needs not that porch or threshold but by way of supernatural concourse with this as with other Ordinances when ever they become effectual Christ at the very moment when the Minister baptizes the Babe with water can baptize it with the Holy Ghost and powr grace into its heart as the Minister powrs water upon his face the childe being equally passive both in the sign in the thing signified and understanding nothing of either If an Infant may be bewitched by a Diabolical Ceremony used by the Devils ministers and that Witchery be removed by a spell or the like which the Babe cannot understand and if he could the understanding avails not to its efficacy why may not the same Babe be regenerated by a Divine Ceremony applyed to it by Gods Minister the Devil in things of
a joynt virtue of the word and discernment which children have not may as well exclude them from Baptism of which they have no more discerning than of the Lords Supper Page 224. M. H. grants 1. That the Lords Supper is instituted for edification 2. That this edification refers to the whole Church Whence I infer from M. H. his five principles That those intelligent Church-members who are warrantably suspended instance in his jure excommunicate at least may if not must be present in order to their edification to which in his sense the Sacrament refers How can I edifie by an Ordinance if I be not present at that Ordinance He that is absent in reference to place is further from edification than he that is absent in understanding 1 Cor. 14. v. 17 24. His conceit of making regeneration to be edification hath been formerly answered We dispute not about the latitude of the word edification but grant that in a large sense he who lays a foundation edifies if the foundation be a part of the building yet I hope in precise speaking the terms and notions of founding and building are distinct both in the Civil and Spiritual Edifice 1 Cor. 3. 10. and that an Ordinance or part of an Ordinance may be effectual to edifie which is not effectual to found in a precise sense Besides edification must be proportionable to the foundation therefore edification in common grace follows and suits with the foundation of common grace and edification in saving grace follows and suits with the foundation of saving grace which is regeneration Common grace founds but upon the sand saving grace founds upon the rock which are two distinct foundations and must have two distinct edifications But of this formerly M. H. p. 225. In that word fancy he wrongs me for his sense is answered A vital Ordinance can beget life Answ Then M. H. wrongs himself the word Fancy being his own word page 63. of his Vindication An Ordinance may be called Vital not onely as it begets but also as it preserves and increases life Christ indeed is vital food but not before he be vital seed and in the Sacrament he is received as vital food not as vital seed Page 170. of my Bar I blame M. H. for saying That confirmation of the Covenant is a primary end confirmation of faith a secondary end of the Lords Supper Page 225. of his Rejoynder M. H. tells me scoffingly That I blame him for saying but what I say my self For confirmation whereof he quotes page 126. of my Bar. Answ I say there indeed That Sacramental seals confirm 1. The Covenant 2. The faith of the worthy receiver But where do I say that confirmation of the Covenant is the primary end confirmation of faith the secondary end of the Lords Supper Is not that generally first in time which is last in intention Confirmation of the Covenant as a means is first in order of time or at least in order of nature before the confirmation of faith as the causa synechtica is before the effect but the confirmation of faith as the end is in order of intention before the confirmation of the Covenant That is first in order of existence which is last in order of intention and contrà In order of existence the confirmation of the Covenant is before the confirmation of faith as the means are before the end but in order of intention or design the confirmation of faith is before the confirmation of the Covenant as the end is before the means I say the confirmation of the Covenant is in order of existence before the confirmation of faith M. H. says it is in order of intention before the confirmation of faith Let the Reader judge whether these two propositions are all one and whether M. H. does not violate the Law of Moral Philosophy as well as Divinity in holding That the confirmation of the Covenant is the primary the confirmation of faith the secondary end of the Lords Supper Who knows not that the Covenant is confirmed by the seals as well as by Gods oath Heb. 6. v. 17 18. in order to the confirmation of our we ak faith As Gods oath so the seals by confirming the Covenant do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in order to the confirmation of our faith as the end And if so then the confirmation of our faith is the end of the confirmation of the Covenant whence it follows necessarily that the confirmation of the Covenant cannot be the primary end of the seals and confirmation of our faith their secondary end as M. H. would have it M. H. p. 226. Let me help him out here There is the end of the Ordainer and the end of the Ordinance It may be true that the Churches edification is primarily the intention of the Ordainer But the primary end of the Ordinance must be that which goes into the institution and the secondary that which flows from it Now the end that is thus express in the institution is for to be a memorial of Christs death and so outwardly to seal solemnize or confirm the Covenant and then the confirming a mans faith as begetting it in others is plainly a consequent effect result or concomitant thereof By this one passage well considered you may have a guess at the man Answ In the former branch of his answer M. H. is pleased to make himself and his Reader merry with me with the rehearsal whereof I shall not waste and defile paper but give him leave to make up in frothy wit what he falls short of in solid argument Now he profers to make amends by helping me rather himself but I fear his help will prove as unserviceable as his jesting is unsavory 1. Therefore its false that an effect or consequent of another end is not or cannot be a primary end yea on the contrary it s most certain that the last effect or consequent is the first primary or highest end and so by proportion this being a sure maxim in morality Finis ut in executione ultimus est ita in intentione primus 2. It s likewise untrue that the primary end must go into the institution of a Sacrament I mean expresly for at that Mr. H. drives as is evident to go no further by the Passeover of which Christ and salvation by him was the primary end yet not so much as mentioned in the institution thereof Exod. 12. 3. Supposing his rule were true that the primary end of the Sacrament must go expresly into the institution Then 1. The confirmation of the Covenant by Mr. H. his own rule is not the primary end of the Lords Supper since the confirmation of the Covenant is not expresly mentioned in the institution though the Covenant it self be Or 2. The confirmation of our faith is as evidently mentioned as the confirmation of the Covenant and therefore by M. H. his rule though against his dictate may be a primary end of the Sacrament For proof
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
but remote It followes not that because pardon is by the seal applyed to some Traitors therefore it is offered to all Traitors No more is it true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that because grace is sealed by particular application to some persons in the Sacrament therefore it is offered unto all The consequent indeed is true not so the consequence In the last clause Mr. Humphrey is ambiguous If by every single person he means every man woman and child in the world then undoubtedly conviction of the generall offer flowes properly and immediately from such application But there never was nor will be such an application If by every single person he means some single persons of all sorts neither is there such an application at the Sacrament even in Mr. Humphrey his own judgment who excludes not only Ideots but also Heathen and excommunicated persons If by every single person he mean only every person admitted to receive here his every person notes but some persons in the World nor will it follow that because the Covenant is applyed to some persons by actuall Receiving therefore it is offered unto all My assertion then holds thus far true That conviction of the generall offer of the Covenant comes by signification and generall obsignation not by personall and particular obsignation and application which was the thing I drove at and which Mr. Humphrey must evince if he will speak to purpose nor is the distinction between offering and applying so nice as he would make it Mr. Humphrey 3 ly Conviction that Christ is mine in particular as to faith of particular evidence comes not at all by the Sacrament 1. Because the Sacrament seales nothing but the Word which speaks not particularly I believe 2 ly What is common to the hypocrite with the true believer cannot bring any evidence to me c. Ans 1. Let the Reader mark it Mr. Humphrey denies that faith of evidence comes either by the Word or Sacrament 2 ly He denies it upon a Popish ground because the Word speaks not particularly 3 ly We grant the Word saies not particularly Thou John Humphrey shalt be saved no more doth it say Thou John Humphrey shalt rise from the dead or Thou John Humphrey shalt have no other Gods but Jehovah Cannot Mr. Humphrey therefore attain to a faith of evidence that he in particular shall rise and that its his duty in particular to have Jehovah only for his God 4 ly We grant the Sacrament seales nothing but the Word but doth not the Sacrament by sealing ratifie the Word And then if the Word conduce to faith of evidence doth not the Sacrament also Take for instance the syllogisme of Assurance He that believes shall be saved I believe therefore I shall be saved The Conclusion I shall be saved is faith of evidence This Conclusion depends necessarily upon both Propositions The Major is Scripture in terms Mark 16. 26. The Minor we say depends partly upon Scripture in respect of the signes of true faith laid down therein According to Mr. Humphrey here with whom we also agree the Minor depends upon the testimony of my own Conscience and the Spirit The Conclusion flowes necessarily from both If so then Assurance depends in part upon Scripture and particularly the Promise this Promise is ratified by the Sacrament as by a Seal and how then can Mr. Humphrey his Assertion hold Water That faith of evidence comes not at all by the Sacrament If my evidence for a Possession depend upon a Deed and that Deed be ratified by a Seal is it not clear my Evidence depends much upon the Seal Is not a Deed cancelled by pulling off the Seales and doth it not then depend much upon the Seales True Gods Word considering his infallibility is as good as his Bond yet to strengthen our weak faith he is pleased to annex Seales c. that by strong assurance we might have strong consolation Heb. 6. 17 18. His second Argument as it makes further discovery of Mr. Humphrey his judgment so it shamefully laies open his weaknesse It discovers his judgment that he believes no outward Ordinance can bring any evidence it discovers his weaknesse in asserting That nothing common to hypocrites with believers can bring evidence to any which though true in some sense is false in his sense and he may as well say Nothing common to hypocrites with believers can convert and thereby deny the power of Conversion to the Word preached Can the Word convert and can it not evidence conversion Can it convince me to be in the state of Nature and can it not as well convince me to be in the state of Grace Can it do the greater and can it not do the lesser True nothing common to hypocrites with believers can be a formall cause of evidence but divers things common to both may be efficient causes of evidence I mean as instruments to wit Prayer by impetration the Word by conviction the Sacraments by obsignation and conscience by reflection all back't by the Spirit as the Principle who by the Word c. convinces of righteousnesse and judgment as well as of sin John 16. 8. For his Reply to my Answer of his fourth Consideration Pag. 79. illustrated by the Magitian and his Friend it may indeed take the Reader with its pleasantnesse but is altogether impertinent unlesse Mr. Humphrey can prove that Suspension is not only the occasion but also the proper cause of Church-division I wonder Mr. Humphrey doth not cry out of all Church-censures and excommunication it selfe upon the same account See my Answer to his fourth Consideration page 49 and 50. of my Bar which Mr. Humphrey only plaies with in his Reply as well knowing it will bear jeast better than earnest Sect. VII Pag. 80. In defence of his second Reason he makes the Sacraments essentiall notes of the visible Church Ans I grant the Sacraments rightly administred are infallible notes of the Church visible but I question whether they be essentiall notes because such notes hold both negatively and affirmatively An essentiall note of a man proves the subject where it is to be a man and the subject where it is not to be no man Upon which account I dare not say the Sacraments are essentiall notes of the Church visible since a Church may be truly visible though it have them not for a long time Such was the Church of those Israelites who were not Circumcised in the Wildernesse Josh 5. ve s 5 7. which answers our Baptisme Nor do I doubt but Constantine the Great was a true member of the visible Church even before he was Baptized The like may be said of Abraham's family before Circumcision was instituted and likewise of the Catechumeni who were members though incompleat of the Church-visible yet were admitted to neither of the Sacraments which however necessary necessitate praecepti yet are not necessary absolutely necessitate medit so their absence proceed not from contempt The
of Receiving Mr. H. cannot be ignorant that our principles are these Real Blanks must not receive visible Blanks must not be admitted by the Church and that the scope of thâ— Objection was to dispute against the admission of visible not of real personal Blanks Mr. D. This Blank is either visible or invisible to God all Blanks are visible and he may use his liberty to set his Seal where he pleases M. H. p. 180. In what a sad case hath be brought himself through his former error when he must lay this for his foundation That God who cannot lie may set his seal to a visible Blank If the Minister who is Gods Ambassador seals to a visible Blank it is such an heinous sin he says as murdering Christ and yet does he affirm that God sets his seal to a visible Blank without scruple It is no wonder the man deals so coursly with me that uses such rude and uncivil language towards God Answ Such absurd and unreasonable imputations as these make it too suspitious that M. H. disputes rather for victory than for truth I hope he will not dare to say in cold blood that those expressions of mine vent any thing of rude language to God but that in the very letter as well as in their sense they give unto God the glory of his Soveraignty who is not bound but where himself pleaseth to the rules by which he bindes his creatures Object If it be irregular in the Minister to seal to a visible Blank why not in God also If the Minister murther Christ by sealing to a visible Blank how is God free who doth the same thing Answ The Minister is guilty because it pleased God to make it murder by consent in him to seal to a visible Blank but who can give law to God and make it murder by consent in God to seal to a visible Blank It s murder in me to take away my neighbors life at pleasure I hope M. H. will not infer that therefore its murder in God to take away any mans life at pleasure Object But doth not God by sealing to a visible Blank testifie that such a person hath truth of grace Answ Absurd When God knowingly and professedly seals to Blanks how can it be imagined that his design in sealing is to testifie they are no Blanks God indeed by sealing to a Blank bindes that Blank to labor for the writing but it s contradictio in adjecto to say that sealing to a Blank makes that Blank no Blank It s not the seal but the writing makes a paper or parchment no Blank nor is it the seal of the Sacrament but the writing of the Spirit makes a Church-member a real Saint or an Epistle of Christ 2 Cor. 3. 3. Object But then why may not the Minister by sealing to a visible Blank binde that Blank to labor for the writing as God doth Vnderstand a sealing here by way of admission for otherwise the Covenant is sealed in the Sacrament conditionally not onely to the receivers but also to all present yea though they be very Heathen who yet are not sealed by receiving the Sacrament Answ Because he hath no warrant to seal to that Blank in that manner the rule being that persons must 1. Be Church-members And 2. Visibly worthy before the Minister seal to them by admission But who can binde God to this rule Object But is not this the very language of the Sacrament Christ is thine c. And how can God seal this to a person that hath no part in Christ Answ The natural language of the Sacrament as well as of the Covenant to whomsoever it is proclaimed is Christ is thine c. This gift is mine 1. By way of tender 2. By way of acceptance That Christ is theirs by way of tender God seals by the Sacrament to all present whether they receive or not That Christ is theirs by way of acceptance and possession God seals to no receiver but the worthy receiver The Sacrament says to all present Christ is thine conditionally and by way of offer but to the worthy Communicant it says by way of evidence Christ is thine as sure as the outward elements are thine being received by thee and that because he performs the condition of believing which condition yet is promised in the Covenant and wrought instrumentally in the Sacrament which acts faith objectively as a sign and seal but effectively as an instrument faith apprehending Christ through the Sacrament as the eye doth an object through a Perspective-glass yea the Sacrament doth not onely clear the object but also strengthens the visive faculty of the soul by drawing a fresh supply of visual Spirits from Christ the head My meaning in all hath been said is that God by the Sacrament applied to any doth not testifie to such a receiver that he hath truth of grace though by receiving every Communicant be obliged to act grace But the Minister by giving the Sacrament to any testifies his perswasion or hope that such a one hath truth of grace which perswasion or hope is grounded upon that competent knowledge and good affections accompanied with immunity from scandal that he findes upon tryal or other good evidence to be in such a Communicant Page 181. M. H. doth onely make a flourish by abusing the homonymie of a visible Saint To which I briefly answer A person may be said to be a visible Saint two ways 1. Relatively as he is a Church-member born and bred in the Church 2. Absolutely as he walks up visibly to his profession Now that God would have all relatively visible Saints which are M. H. his visible Saints though they be absolutely visible Devils admitted is 1. Against the truth 2. Against the practice of the ancient and modern Church 3. Against M. H. his own profession since persons ip so jure excommunicate are such visible Saints yet he allows their suspension That root of bitterness Heb. 12. 15. was relatively a visible Saint as being a Church-member but absolutely he was a visible Devil The Lord keep me from giving my vote for the admission of such visible Saints M. H. ib. It s M. Drakes error to say there are any visible Blanks in the Church for how then can we baptize all children A visible Blank is one visibly out of Covenant But to be in a Church-state is to be externally or visibly in Covenant c. Answ 1. Then its M. Drakes great error to say there are any visibly profane in the Church 2. We baptize all children in the Church among others upon this account because none of them are visible Blanks knowledge we expect not from them nor are they guilty of any scandal Besides we look at their foederal holiness in either of their Parents 1 Cor. 7. 14. or in their grand Parents right who may undertake for their Christian education c. 2 Tim. 1. 5. But of this formerly 3. The same person at the same time though
to the matter immediately under debate I speaking of the absoluteness of the promise to a believer and he answering of the Sacraments sealing to a believer Now the promise is absolute whether the Sacrament seal or no yea though there should be no Sacrament or Seal at all 2. There is a twofold assurance 1 Real 2. Sensible The Sacrament gives to Peter real assurance of his faith though not always sensible assurance for which not the Sacrament but Peter himself is to be blamed who fails haply 1. In a direct act not considering the nature and use of the Sacrament 2. In a reflex act not observing his own faith of adherence whereupon he may well fall short of sensible assurance The Sacrament can seal but what is in the Covenant and the Covenant doth not undertake so absolutely for faith of evidence as it doth for faith of adherence 3. There is an ambiguity in the words I believe The Sacrament doth not seal I believe de praesenti unless actually I do believe de praesenti for then it should seal a falsity which how absurd But it seals 1. That every true believer hath saving grace 2. That he hath believed and shall believe by intervals till he dye And this it doth by consequents namely by sealing the Covenant and therein the truth of those marks and signs which accompany the act of adherence produced by a Believer at the Sacrament or at any other time M. H. ib. Again That proposition that contains the Covenant is sealed But the major contains the Covenant not the conclusion therefore the major not the conclusion is sealed Answ 1. The major of his Syllogism is not sufficient to infer the conclusion unless the term onely or alone be added to it 2. I deny the second branch of his minor and affirm the contrary proposition namely That the conclusion is in the Covenant to wit remotely and by consequence though not immediately as is the major M H. will not deny that all solid consequences from Scripture are virtually in Scripture otherwise our Saviour could never have proved the Resurrection from that text I am the God of Abraham c. Let us compare the Syllogisms 1. Syllog If God be the God of Abraham c. then there is a Resurrection God is the God of Abraham therefore there is a Resurrection 2. Syllog If all believers shall be saved then Peter shall be saved All believers shall be saved therefore Peter shall be saved The Antecedent in each Syllogism is express Scripture and virtually includes the Consequent Nor is it material as to the present Conclusion whether Peter by a reflex act knows that he doth believe the conclusion of certain salvation flowing from the presence and acting of faith in Peter not from Peters knowledge thereof Peters comfort indeed depends upon the knowledge of his faith but that is the minor of the first Syllogism of assurance of which anon not the conclusion M. H. p. 195. M. D. p. 143. undertakes the minor although before p. 128. he tells us He knows none so simple as to assert that God doth attest our faith Yet here he is grown so wise as to assert that God doth seal to this proposition I believe Answ In these expressions M. H. doth not carry himself as a fair and candid Adversary but mangles and corrupts my text thereby to slur me My words p. 128. of my Bar are these I know none so simple as to assert that God doth in terminis attest our faith in the Sacrament And to prevent what in me lay all possibility of cavil I have these words in the margin My meaning is The Sacrament doth not say in express terms Thou Roger believest no more than the word doth but onely by consequence Now M. H. more prudently than honorably leaves out those words in terminis and withal takes not the least notice of my marginal explication that thereby he might make the Reader believe I speak here a contradiction whereas if both my assertions be candidly presented there is no shew of contradiction For proof let the propositions be compared 1. Propos The Scripture says not in express terms Thou Roger believest 2. Propos The Scripture says by consequence Thou Roger believest I hope it s no contradiction to affirm The Scripture says that by consequence which it doth not say in express terms But enough of this cavil which I leave at M. H. his door and proceed M. D. What the Covenant assures the Sacrament seals The Covenant assures me that I believe therefore the Sacrament seals that I believe The minor is proved because the Covenant gives me clear evidence of my faith by infallible signs of faith c. M. H. p. 195. You may see here how much prejudice will blinde a man The mistake is manifest in reckning that to the minor which belongs to the major for when the word says If I believe I shall be saved it is all one with If I receive Christ for righteousness and have these and these marks whereby it describes this faith to me All which go to the major Now the minor or Assumption is But I have these marks signs or that true faith thus described And this is no where affirmed to me in the word and consequently not sealed Answ 1. If this Logick of M. H. be good there is no minor or Assumption but the proof of it belongs to the major Take one instance I would prove my self by Philosophy to be a man the very same way I have proved my self by Scripture to believe Observe now how the argument and answer run parallel with my argument to prove I believe and M. H. his answer applyed thereto by which comparison the absurdity of M. H. his answer will evidently appear The argument stands thus If I am animal rationale I am homo I am animal rationale therefore I am Homo The minor is proved because Philosophy gives me clear evidence of my animality and rationality by sure signs thereof May not M. H. here with as much shew of reason argue The mistake is manifest in reckning that to the minor which belongs to the major for when Philosophy says If I am animal rationale I am homo it is all one with If I am a sensitive body indued with a reasonable soul and have all other necessary signs and marks whereby it describes animality and rationality to me then I am Homo all which go to the major Now the minor or Assumption is But I have these marks and signs or that true animality and rationality thus described and this is no where affirmed to me in Philosophy for Philosophy doth not say in express terms Thou Roger hast the true signs or marks of animality and rationality therefore Philosophy doth not say Thou Roger art a man and so it cannot be proved from Philosophy that I am a man You may argue as absurdly from Scripture if you please The Scripture doth not say in express terms Thou
evidence the absurdity let us argue proportionably about the Command as we have done about the Promise I ask Mr. H. then Whether the Scripture doth not say I Roger must not commit adultery I prove it doth thus The Scripture sayes No man shall commit adultery Therefore it says I Roger must not commit adultery The minor of the Enthymeme I Roger am a man is thus proved He that hath the necessary marks of a man is a man I have these marks therefore I am a man Object I but the Scripture or Philosophy no where say That I Roger have those marks of a man therefore it cannot be proved from them that I am a man and by consequence it cannot be proved from Scripture that I am forbid to commit adultery Would not such an answer be both ridiculous and prophane Yea by such a loose argument might not all obedience be waved as also the especial commands of the Gospel If the Word and Covenant do not assure me that I must repent then it cannot be proved from Scripture that I must repent But this the word doth not assure me ergo The minor is proved because the Scripture no where sayes Then Roger must repent ergo How will Mr. H. now convince me but by arguing thus The Scripture sayes Every man must repent Acts 17. 30. Thou Roger art a man ergo suppose now I should return the Scripture no where sayes Thou Roger art a man or hast the marks of a man understand the same of Philosophy therefore it cannot be proved that I am a man and by consequence that I am commanded in Scripture to repent Would not such a reply deserve a Cudgel rather than an answer It s evident then that the Scripture doth by consequence though not in express terms assure Timothy That he doth beleeve which is the minor of the syllogism of assurance And what the Covenant assures that the Sacrament seals namely That Timothy doth beleeve c. Mr. H. ib. p. 196. Again if it were in the word it were an object of faith but it is no object of faith Probo That which is seen is no object of faith for sense takes away faith 2 Cor. 5. 7. and faith is an evidence of things not seen Heb. 11. 1. But the minor I beleeve is an object of sense spiritual experience or thing seen Ans 1. It is in the word by consequence and so an object of faith That Timothy beleeves 2. Mr. H. his argument to prove the contrary is invalid since the same thing may be both an object of faith and an object of sense and such was Christs resurrection both to John and Thomas Joh. 20. v. 8. 29. both which saw and beleeved that Christ was risen Christs resurrection then was the object both of faith and of sense Object How then shall we reconcile the Scriptures quoted by Mr. H. Ans Very easily thus Faith and sense are not always opposite in order to the object but in order to the maner of apprehending the object Both faith and sense may at the same time apprehend the same object but not in the same maner Thus faith assents to Christs resurrection as a thing revealed by divine testimony sense assents to it as a thing seen and felt Joh. 20. 27 29. Faith assents not properly upon the principles of sense nor doth sense assent upon the principles of faith The proper object of faith is a thing not seen the proper object of sense is a thing seen and the same object in one sense is considerable as not seen in another sense as seen Thus heathen by sense assent to a Deity Rom. 1. 20. Christians both by faith and sense whence the Deity is said to be both visible and invisible in the fore-quoted place and Heb. 11. 27. invisible to sense visible to faith invisible in its essence visible in its effects It s evident then that in some respects sense doth not take away faith and that therefore this proposition I beleeve may be an object both of faith and sense It depends upon faith in order to evidence by Scripture signs it depends upon sense in order to experience by an act of reflexion Thus the major in the syllogism of assurance depends purely upon faith the minor partly upon faith partly upon sense The Conclusion flows necessarily from both Mr. H. his illustration if rightly stated will favour us in order whereunto I shall reduce Mr. H. his Thesis to an hypothesis Thus Josh 2. The Spies treat with Rahab about articles of peace and safety upon condition of her constant friendship to them which is the qualification How is Rahab now assured of her preservation Ans By being assured of her constant friendship How is she assured of her constant friendship Ans By the sure marks thereof given by the Spies namely if she continued to keep their counsel and to keep them safe from the King of Jerico his danger c. Is it not here then true that the evidence of her friendship to the Spies depended upon an act of humane faith That the forementioned hiding of the Spies c. were sure signs of her friendship and partly upon experience by reflection that she had these signs In like manner in the spiritual treaty Timothy is assured of his salvation by being assured of his faith He is assured of his faith by the infallible signs thereof held forth in the Covenant Suppose which is M. H. his illustration Articles are granted and sealed to a Town upon such and such qualifications here it concerns me if a Townsman to evidence that I have the right qualifications For evidence hereof I must appeal not onely to witnesses but also to the Covenant of Articles where there is any controversie about the rectitude of my qualifications else might not the General say Friend you bring witness of such and such qualifications but you are mistaken in the manner of them or in some necessary circumstance about them must not I now appeal to the Covenant of Articles to make out that the qualification thus evidenced is right for manner and all requisite circumstances And doth not my evidence then depend partly upon my witnesses and partly upon the Covenant Now in proving the minor That I believe it seldom falls out but there is some dispute within me against this act of evidence which may arise from temptation without from the opposite corruption within and from the weakness of my faith c. upon which account I must to the Covenant for the clearing of those objections and exceptions And otherwise why do Ministers take so much pains in laying down tryals signs and evidences of faith and other graces but to help my faith of evidence which is the minor of the Syllogism of assurance A godly man will easily assent to the major That all who believe are justified by Christ this being express Scripture Acts 13. 39 but the difficulty is to bring him to say confidently I believe which
is the minor of the Syllogism of assurance Now to produce this assent you must clear it by Scripture-evidence that his act of adherence is conformable to the rule of the covenant In order whereunto two things are necessary 1. An assent by reflexion that I have produced an elicite act of adherence upon Christ 2. An assent of faith in my understanding that this act of adherence is not an act of presumption but a regular adherence according to the minde of the Covenant Both these concur to make out the minor which therefore depends partly upon faith and partly upon inward sense and experience Now so far as my faith of evidence depends upon Scripture so far its evidenced by the Covenant and sealed in the Sacrament which is all I drive at And here I must intreat M. H. to take heed lest by opposing the truth I bold in this particular he turn not too much aside to the Papists who upon this very account deny faith of evidence without an immediate revelation because it s no where said in Scripture Thâ—… Jâ—… or William believest If I mistake not this is a good maxim in Divinity The act of Grace is seen by reflexion the truth of grace in that act is known by comparing it with the rule of tryal Evidence is the beautiful childe of a direct and reflex act married together It s possible some evidence may be like Christ a virgin birth but ordinarily that evidence which hath not both the forementioned parents is a Bastard presumption instead of faith Mr. D. The marks and signs which Conscience makes use of to evidence the minor are in Scripture therefore the minor is consequently in Scripture M. H. ib. That is because the medius terminus is both in the major and the minor therefore whatsoever proves the major must prove the minor Answ That M. H. wrongfully fathers on me so absurd a Consequence I shall endeavor to evidence by clearing his misty expressions which must be done by instance and example thus The Syllogism of Assurance is He that believes shall be saved I believe ergo The minor I believe is thus proved He that receives Christ for righteousness believes I receive Christ for righteousness ergo The middle term or argument in the first Syllogism is believing the middle term in the second Syllogism is receiving Christ for righteousness Whence its evident I prove not the minor of the first Syllogism by proving its major for the argument that proves the major is pure Scripture in express terms If any should say its false That he who believes shall be saved will you bring receiving of Christ for righteousness as the medium to prove it He will still deny That he who receives Christ for righteousness shall be saved and so in infinitum Therefore to prove the major irrefragably you must argue thus That which the Scripture says shall be that shall certainly be The Scripture says He that believes shall be saved therefore he that believes shall certainly be saved The major holds forth the connexion between faith and salvation the minor holds forth the assertion of my faith which as they are very different propositions so they are proved by very different mediums The way to prove the minor is not pure Scripture in express terms for no Scripture says in express terms Thou Roger believest c. But partly Scripture and partly Experience namely Reflexion upon an Act compared with the rule of Scripture and therefore cannot be the same way of proof with express Scripture unless simple and compound be the same Therefore I do not prove the minor I believe by the same medinus terminus by which I prove the major He that believes shall be saved Where a thing consists of more terms than one it must be proved by more terms than one Faith of evidence doth nor depend upon a simple or double direct act as do sundry other proofs drawn from Scripture but upon a direct and reflex assent combined which holds so long till the reflex assent be as evident to me as it is evident that I see or hear c. for if there be the least doubt or scruple it must be removed by Scripture else the reflex assent cannot be firm undeceiving Suppose I would prove that Paul had faith of evidence or affurance I must use this Syllogism He that by producing regularly a direct and reflex act assents to grace inherent in himself hath assurance Paul did this ergo he had assurance Here you see the medium proving Pauls assurance is a direct and reflex act regularly united or he that assents directly to this proposition He that receives Christ believes reflexly to this proposition I receive Christ hath assurance that himself believes Paul had both these assents ergo he had assurance But faith of evidence consists of more terms than one namely a direct and reflex act and therefore must be proved by more terms than one which terms yet being united make one compound medium or argument You may prove Gabriel to be an Angel by one simple term of spirituality but you cannot prove David to be a man but by two terms of Spirituality and Materiality united Why Because David is compounded of spirit and matter and therefore must be proved by those terms united in one medium or argument In like manner faith of evidence consists of two terms namely a direct and reflex act united and therefore must be proved by two terms united not so the faith of general assent But two terms united are not the same with one simple term And if proof by two terms united be not the same with proof by one simple term then the medius terminus proving that I believe is not the same with the medius terminus proving that He who believes shall be saved M. H. ib. Though the evidence in actu signato be in Scripture this is nothing seeing that goes to the major proposition But his evidence in actu exercito is the business and that is no where I hope in Scripture by his own Confession Answ 1. If by going to the major he mean an Identity with the major its true the evidence in actu signate is the major or the same with the major the evidence in actu exercito is the minor But I pray may I not prove a weak and trembling evidence in actu exercito such are generally our evidences by a strong and firm evidence in actu signato If by going to the major he mean proving the major of the foregoing Syllogism which he must mean or he speaks not to purpose then its false that the evidence in actu signato goes to the major which I must evidence by the former instance of the Syllogism of Assurance thus He that believes shall be saved I believe ergo The minor I believe is thus proved He that receives Christ for righteousness believes I receive Christ for righteousness ergo In the second Syllogism which
man I grant for the most part it is not so evident that John is a beleever as that he is a man and that therefore it is not so easie for him to beleeve that he shall be saved as to beleeve that he shall rise but still its a truth That both these Conclusions flow from Scripture by consequence and therefore are in Scripture by consequence which is the thing here opposed by Mr. Humphrey He might therefore well have spared himself the labour of his merry Tautologies he that is in the right is in the right c. but that he hoped to catch his Reader by a frothy expression rather than to convince him by a solid Argument Had he closed with this Syllogism If Mr. D. be in the right then Mr. H. is in the wrong but Mr. D. is in the right ergo he had done both himself his Reader and his Antagonist more right than now he doth Page 198. Mr. H. mentions an Objection of mine about the Sacrament supposing assurance and faith unto which he sayes I can make no solution when at the same time my solution is laid down p. 147 148. of my Bar only he tells the Reader that he is not of my mind That we must forbear the Sacrament till we have effectual faith And truly I think he is not of my mind in that particular nor is it material what is his mind or what is my mind but what is the mind of truth Ib. Mr. H. grants That a general faith and acknowledgement of the Gospel or Covenant of Jesus Christ as the only means to be saved by is prerequisive to adult Church-membership and so to the Sacraments Answ Then 1. What will become of all grosly ignorant Church-members that know nothing of Faith Christ or the Gospel He that blames us as too severe for suspending them is here so severe as to excommunicate them and make them no Church-members 2. We accept as to the latter branch his good confession which makes strongly against the free admission of grosly ignorant Church-members Again we grant with Mr. H. ib. That the condition is not absolutely prerequisite to ingage to the condition but the Question is whether a natural man be bound to ingage all manner of wayes to the condition He may ingage to the condition and so to the Covenant though he do it not by receiving the Sacrament Page 199. Mr. H. tells us The receiver seals not to his condition necessarily in esse but in fieri Answ What then Our present debate is not what the beleever seals to God but what God seals to the beleever in the Sacrament and God at the Sacrament may seal to the beleever the condition in esse when the beleever cannot seal to God that himself hath the condition in esse In the same page Mr. H. pins upon me another contradiction by mis-quoting my Text p. 147. of my Bar which sayes not the Sacrament is but may be the means of initial assurance and its one thing to say the Sacrament is another thing to say it may be the means of initial assurance I beleeve if God please the Sacrament may be the means both of initial grace and of initial assurance I do not say it is the means of either Besides initial assurance is real or more sensible The word that works conversion works real assurance at the same time it works grace which yet is not then so sensible as being hid and over-born by much corruption till the beams of grace have in some measure dispelled the cloud but the first sensible or prevailing assurance may be wrought at the Sacrament Grace as light brings its own evidence with it though a person diverted haply minds neither for a while He wrongs me therefore in saying p. 200. That I affirm the Sacrament is sometimes the means of initial assurance whereas my express words are The Sacrament may be sometimes the means of initial assurance and à posse ad esse non valet consequentia I hope he that sayes Mr. H. may be mistaken doth not therein say Mr. H. is mistaken Mr. H. If the Sacrament work further degrees in the same kinde why not the kind it self Ans If food work further degrees of life why not life it self Must every thing that strengthens a weak man needs raise a dead man Acts produce moral habits but no act of the will works in it self supernatural habits yet I hope acts of the will may and do promote supernatural habits therefore that may further degrees which cannot produce the kinde Nor is the first grace wrought effectually either per modum obsignationis or proponendo objectum or per moralem actionem or mediante significatione for then all would be converted who have these but per creationem infusioonem since the first grace as some think of mans soul creando infunditur in fundendo creatur Understand me here that initial grace is not wrought by any or all of these joyned regether if abstractedly considered as moral habits may be but as assisted in an especial manner by divine concourse which concourse amounts to a Creation Not opus operatum but spiritus operaus acts eminently for the production of initial grace And God may annex this creating act to what Ordinance he please Now the great controversie between us is whether God do thus infuse initial grace by the Sacrament as a moral Instrument thereof as he doth by the word This Mr. H. seems to affirm but we deny M. H. p. 201. For this we thank him and if a man may come as lost and undone then he may come while he judges and humbles himself though he is in doubt of his regeneration Answ 1. I am glad of any agreement between us in this unhappy controversie especially in a point of this nature which tends so much to the binding up of bruised reeds Yet 2. There is some ambiguity in that expression of M. H. If a man may come as lost nor are they my express terms p. 148. of my Bar. A man is lost three ways 1. Really when in the state of nature I mean he is in a lost condition 2. Sensibly and that either in himself and thus we must ever be lost if we mean to be saved or by mistake thinking he is in the state of nature at that very time when in truth he is in the state of grace 3. Both ways when clearly convinced by the Spirit of bondage that he is in a natural estate and so under the work of Legal humiliation which is ever accompanied with reigning pride till evangelical humiliation melt the rock and level the mountain By legal humiliation a person is humbled but by Evangelical humiliation he is made humble by legal humiliation God humbles him by evangelical humiliation he humbles himself the one is humbled passively the other actively To apply the distinction 1. He that is lost really and sensibly ought at present to abstain Such are they who
is a meer non sequitur in both branches True the Covenant promises the Sacrament seals the seal secures grace absolutely only to the Elect and effectually called When I say initial grace is sealed in the Sacrament to the Elects I would not here be mistaken I do not mean that initial grace is sealed to an elect person now in the state of nature as progressive grace is sealed to a person effectually called For illustration Suppose Paul before conversion receive the Sacrament or be present at it c. I do not think the Sacrament can assure Paul though elected that he shall be converted but that it assures only in the general that all the Elect shall be converted who indeed are the Seed and the true Israel Rom 9. v. 6 7,8 compare Jer. 31. 33. And this at present I cannot but assent to till I be convineed that the whole Covenant of grace is not sealed or confirmed in the Lords Supper which in its very institution was a sign and seal of Christs blood shed not only for the Apostles but also for many for the remission of fins compare Matth. 26. 28. and Luke 22. 20. And why that many should not include all the Elect as well as some of them I know not yet I will not be peremptory but shall very willingly learn of Mr. H. or any other that will inform me better But how doth it thence follow that I must necessarily take upon me to judge who are Reprobates or else all must be admitted Mr. H. gives the reason because men may be visibly in the state of nature and yet elected A pitiful reason which I shall endeavour to evince by these Arguments 1 Did I infallibly know a person to be elected yea effectually called It follows not that therefore I must presently admit him to the Sacrament for he may be notwithstanding actually unworthy as lying under the guilt of some scandalous sin c. much less then must all be admitted upon a supposition that possibly they are elected Nor on the other hand doth it follow That I undertake to judge who are Reprobates For though it be true that initial grace is promised sealed and secured in the Sacrament only to the elect and though it be also true that I dare not admit all Church-members to the Sacrament yet it cannot flow from these two propositions that I undertake to judge who are Reprobates since we neither look at admission of any as an infallible evidence of their Election nor at suspension of any as an infallible evidence of their Reprobation Nay we beleeve in thesi that many persons admitted are Reprobates and that divers persons suspended are elect vessels of mercy the rule of Church-admission being not electing grace but visible worthiness and the rule of Church-suspension being not Reprobation but visible unworthiness 2. Yet further to convince him from the conditional Covenant which he grants is sealed in the Sacrament It follows not though the Covenant be sealed conditionally to all Church-members that therefore all Church-members must be admitted or else I must take upon me to judge who are in the state of nature since the ground of suspension is not simply mens being in the state of nature but their actual unworthiness as visible whether they be in the state of nature or not Now if it follow not from the conditional sealing of the Covenant in the Sacrament that I must either admit all or undertake to judge who are in the state of nature why should it follow from the absolute sealing of the Covenant that all must be admitted or I undertake to judge who are Reprobates And this is the more considerable because the conditional Covenant is sealed to all not so the absolute Covenant And if the conditional Covenant sealed to all be no ground for universal admission much less is the absolute Covenant sealed only to some Church members a ground why all Church-members should be admitted Again if denying the Sacrament to divers to whom the Covenant is sealed conditionally be no argument to prove that I judge them to be in the state of nature much less is the denying of the Sacrament to any an argument that I judge them to be Reprobates My suspension of any argues indeed that at present I judge such a person to be visibly unworthy at least actually but it argues not necessarily that I judge him to be in the state of nature much less that I judge him to be a Reprobate Mr. H. ib. Had not the man so much contemned me he might have found how to distinguish between what comes from Gods undertaking with man or the conditional bosome of the Covenant and what comes from his undertaking with Christ or the free absolute bosome of Election I perceive here the man is troubled as apprehending that I contemn him which is a fond and groundless jealousie I hate his errors but I honour his person Withall he twits me as not distinguishing between what comes from Gods undertaking with man and what comes from Gods undertaking with Christ I confess I am too dim-sighted and therefore shall willingly be instructed by Mr. H. or any other provided they will suffer me to see with my own eyes and not take things upon bare report and trust I shall therefore crave leave to distinguish between Gods undertaking for man and Gods undertaking with man For man God undertook with Christ from eternity to call some effectuality With man God undertakes two wayes 1. With all at least to whom the Covenant is proclaimed to give them salvation by Christ upon condition of their faith and repentance 2. With some that is the effectually called 1. To give them perseverance in the condition which himself hath already wrought in them partly of free grace and partly by virtue of the Covenant made with Christ on their behalf And 2. In the issue to give them eternal salvation upon the forementioned account of Christ and free grace And why Gods undertaking for man may not be sealed in the Sacrament as well as Gods undertaking with man as yet I must confess I see no convincing reason M. H. ib. I pray compare M. D. his third particular with this first The Sacrament he says there is for nourishment and that I hope to the Elect So p. 147. it seals not initial but progressive grace and yet here the Covenant he counts promises initial grace to the elect and the seal secures what is in the Covenant So that what need I to dispute with Mr. Drake when his own particulars have an opponent and defendant among themselves c. Answ 1. The Sacrament seals not nourishment at present to the elect unregenerate in sensu conjuncto as the Covenant promises not growth to them before they have life As the Covenant promises so the Sacrament seals orderly 1. Life and initial grace 2. Nourishment and growth M. H. therefore might have spared his parenthesis but that by it he hoped to slur me
2. To slur me yet more M. H. corrupts my text page 147. of my Bar my words are these The Sacrament as received is not a means of initial but of progressive grace doth not beget grace at first by regeneration but increase and strengthen grace by nourishment and confirmation c. There is no such words in that page as M. H. fathers upon me namely that the Sacrament seals not initial but progressive grace Object What the Sacrament seals that it begets But the Sacrament Dr. Drake confesses seals initial grace ergo Answ Absurd if understood universally The Sacrament seals Christs death and satisfaction I hope it doth not beget them It begets some things it seals namely progressive grace and evidence but it doth not beget all things it seals amongst which initial grace is one True p. 135. of my Bar I have these words for omitting of which I do not thank M. H. his kindeness The 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
order thereunto he distinguish the Covenant into its Condition Benefits Tenor which consists of both For still I ask him Whether the Tenor of the Covenant belong to all by way of Tender If he hold the affirmative as he seems to do I disprove him thus The whole can belong to none further than as both parts belong to him But both parts of the Covenant belong not to all by way of tender therefore the whole namely the tenor belongs not to all by way of tender The major is firm as I shall clear by instance Let homo be the totum its evident homo cannot belong to Socrates farther than materia forma hominis which are its parts belong to him The minor That both parts of the Covenant belong not to all by way of tender is as evident upon M. H. his principles since according to him the condition which is one part is not tendered but required The Condition then belongs not to all by way of tender but onely by way of duty and obligation And though it be a truth that the benefits of the Covenant are tendered to all upon condition of faith yet because M. H. holds that faith is not tendered but required in the revealed Covenant sealed in the Sacrament of which we now speak he cannot say the tenor called by him the Covenant is tendered to all without contradicting himself but must say if he speak uniformly to his own doctrine that the tenor of the Covenant is partly required of all and partly is tendered to all the tenor consisting as himself declares of the condition required and of the benefits tendered and he may as rationally say the tenor is required of all as say the tenor is tendered to all both being false in his sense and contradictory to his Doctrine Page 152. and 153. of my Bar I oppose four things to M. H. his universal obligation of receiving 1. Infants c. and because this infant-passage offends him now seventeen times I shal put in the room of it his ipso jure excommunicate 2. I say there All have a mediate but not an immediate right He tells me page 205. This distinction is in vain because all must prepare as well as come Answ True yet 1. I hope a person prepared hath a more immediate right than a person unprepared 2. If he sin who prepares but doth not receive when he may why doth not he sin also who receives but doth not prepare when he ought Let not M. H. separate where himself confesses that God hath joyned My illustration from the Passeover he tells me That one Text 2 Chron. 30. 18 19 20. may convince Answ True when M. H. can prove that one extraordinary dispensation makes a rule and command to be void The third Mr. H. sayes is answered somewhere else Answ And I hope that answer is confuted somewhere else 4. I say That in a strict sense actual receiving is no more an act of worship than preaching is c. Mr. H. answers I should say they are no duties neither else it will not adde one cubit to my stature Answ Mr. H. did prudently omit my third answer which but mentioned had stopt the mouth of this Objection There I shew that affirmative precepts binde not at all times nor in all cases therefore though receiving be a duty yet being an affirmative precept it bindes not at all times nor in all cases For his flouting Simile in the close of this Section I forgive him and confess that in some part of it he speaks too true I being no bigger than my shadow that is an empty nothing and so very unfit to compare with him or any of my brethren and fathers in the Lords work The Lord send me more humility and him more charity Sect. VI. THe sixth Objection is The Sacrament is only for the regenerate it is no converting Ordinance c. From page 206-212 Mr. H. is large by way of preamble before he come to down-right blows And 1. He sayes Suppose the Sacrament convert not yet it must be received by all because God commands all to receive it Answ 1. Is not this the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether God command all to receive 2. Mr. H. knows I dispute against a natural mans receiving not only upon the supposition that it cannot convert him but also because it can do him no good in statu quo but evil which answers his instance of Alms-deeds commanded a natural man though it be not converting And this argument doth no where cross Gods revealed will but highly commends his rich and free grace which commands nothing but what is profitable to the creature as well as what is honourable to his Majesty I grant God may command without respect to the creatures profit but I deny that in the Covenant of grace he doth command any thing the performance whereof is not of its own nature and by divine institution advantagous to the creature It s a slander therefore that by this argument I advance my benefit above divine authority c. as Mr. H. would make the Reader beleeve p. 206. yea I joyn together Gods authority and my benefit in saying That in the way of duty I am ever in a possibility yea probability of spiritual good 1 Tim. 4. 8. and that act which imports no such possibility or probability is no duty Yea Mr. H. himself confesses in the same page That there is no man but so far as he doth his duty it shall tend to his good which if true then that which tends not to my good is not my duty If therefore this doctrine be a tradition Mr. H. is guilty of it as well as my self Page 208. Mr. H. makes the Sacrament a converting Ordinance not for Heathen but for Church-members Answ 1. I desire a Scripture proof for this distinction 2. I perceive Mr. H. is not clear in opening this distinction but confounds Conversion and Edification together in these words The Sacrament as it serves to edifie unregenerate Church-members it must be a means of their regeneration p. 208. I had thought Conversion was the Foundation Edification the superstructure and that as there is a double Conversion 1. To profession 2. To truth of grace so there is a double Foundation the one upon the sand the other upon the rock Matth. 7. v. 24 26. and proportionably a double Edification one of the house upon the sand the other of the house upon the rock which doctrine if true then surely the house upon the sand is not properly edified by saving Conversion but is new founded upon the rock Page 209. Mr. H. layes a foundation in two Propositions 1. That the same faith which served to admit men to be Church-members served to admit them to the Communion 2. That a faith that falls short of saving to wit the very receiving of the Apostles doctrine served to make men disciples and adde them to the Church With all he grants there That
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