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
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
Salvation as Deut. 29. 19. is it his duty to come though hee will apply Salvation and not Damnation by the Sacramen Is it his duty to come though he come presumptuously Much I confesse might be said for his comming absolutely Let his intentions be what they will were actuall receiving a converting Ordinance But of this in its proper place Pag. 38. He saies that unlesse a man use the Lords Supper as a common thing there is no peculiar eating damnation there more then at any other Ordinance Ans 1. This cannot be since the Sacrament is a complex Ordinance He that eats his Damnation at four Ordinances eats it more then he that eats it but at one Ordinance At the Sacrament Christ crucified is held forth by reading hearing prayerr and the Sacramentall Elements and Actions in all which Christ is murthered by the unworthy receiver Hee who murthers Christ four times sure is more guilty then hee who murthers him but once 2ly He that by eating Damnation seals Damnation eats Damnation more then he that eates it without sealing As a godly man at the Sacrament eats Christ more then at the word so doth a wicked man eate Damnation Object If this be true then a wicked man by presence at the Sacrament may murther Christ as well as by receiving Ans 1. True but not so much 2ly The three Ordinances of reading preaching and prayer are converting not so actuall receiving upon which account we dare not deny any the three former nor dare admit every one to the latter Pag. 39. He distinguisheth between eating and sealing Damnation That is the effect of irreverent unworthinesse this is a confirming of the truth of the Covenant to every man according to his condition which is a duty c. and of high concernment as they look to be converted and saved Ans He is too narrow in limiting the eating of Damnation onely to irreverent unworthinesse as if there were no other Sacramentall unworthinesse but that 2ly We must distinguish between Gods sealing and mans sealing God by the Sacrament seales Damnation as to state unto wicked men whether they receive or not Man at the Sacrament seales Damnation to himselfe wittingly or unwittingly Wittingly in Mr. Humphrey his sense when he receives the seale with an intent to apply the threat of Damnation to himself in order to his deeper humiliation unwittingly when being personâ—lly or relatively unworthy he laies hold of and applies the seales either rashly or presumptuously which ever seal salvation or damnation according to the state carriage of the receiver and if not the former then necessarily the latter as a man by inconsiderately sealing to a Bond may easily ratifie his own undoing though haply at the same time he dream of no such matter That we may call an intentionall this areall and actuall sealing The distinction being thus cleared and stated I believe that every unworthy receiver doth seal his own damnation really whether he mind what he doth or no. 2ly That if such a person in statu quo will venture to receive he ought to seal and apply to himself onely his own portion which is Damnation otherwise he were bound to seal a falsity But thirdly that any man is bound to receive for this very end that he may seal his own Damnation I desire a scriptum est from Mr. Humphrey Certainly were this a duty the Sacrament were more necessary for persons either de jure or facto excommunicate then for any other The proudest sinners have most need of sealing their own Damnation that thereby they might be driven to humiliation and repentance The comfort of poor souls who being sensible of their unworthinesse fear their Damnation is sealed and cannot be reversed lies in this 1. That the sealing in the Sacrament is not according to their Apprehension but according unto Truth Let men think themselves never so unworthy if they be Evangelically worthy not their Damnation but their Salvation is sealed 2ly Supposing their Damnation be sealed it s sealed but conditionally as to the Event however it may bee sealed absolutely as to their present State If therefore they keep not the condition of Damnation the sealing thereof shall no more prejudice them then the sealing of Salvation shall advantage Hypocrites who keep not the condition of Salvation His distinction of Actuall and Potentiall sealing is not so accurate since every receiver doth actually seal both parts of the Covenant namely both Salvation and Damnation only the one he seales absolutely the other conditionally according to his particular state and continuance therein Only the worthy Receiver hath this singular advantage That his Salvation is sealed absolutely both as to State and Event not so the Damnation of the unworthy Receiver I mean as to the latter Mr. Humphrey If the Sacrament be a Seal it doth exhibite and convey somthing to the Receiver and that to the Unregenerate must bee dangerous Here then let us know and arm our selves that Sacraments being only moral Instruments cannot convey any thing that is Real unto the Soul by way of Obsignation but onely that which is Relative making no change but as to our Estates and Relations to God c. Ans 1. If the Sacrament being only a Morall Instrument cannot convey any thing that is reall then the Word being also but a Morall Instrument cannot convey any thing that is Reall The Word Preached may work Knowledge physically but it cannot work grace physically Hee that looks at any Ordinance under Christ as more then a Morall Instrument of Grace doth at once debase God and Idolize the Ordinance 2ly If Sacraments can convey nothing Reall and absolute but onely Relative then Sacraments cannot convert and regenerate these being Real absolute priviledges as Justification and Adoption are Relative priviledges not to stand upon his opposition of Reall to Relative as if a Relative state were not a Real state 3ly Suppose they could convey no Real thing to the Soul by way of Obsignation yet they may by way of Signification The Sacrament is a Signe as well as a Seal and preaches Christ crucified to the eie as the Word doth to the ear 4ly As a Seal conveies an Estate to him that keeps the Conditions of a Covenant for Estate so the Sacrament conveies degrees of Grace to him that keeps the condition of the Covenant True the Seal is nothing without the Writing for it must have some what to seal to and that is the Covenant but as annexed to the Covenant it makes a compleat Instrument and doth not only signifie but also convey Christ with all his benefits to the worthy Receiver That is gives a Title to Christ as by exhibiting it gives possession in part and if so then not onely Relative but also reall and absolute Priviledges namely more degrees of Sanctification as well as further evidence of Justification and Adoption The Iron therefore hee complaines of pag. 41. will still stick in his Soul since neither
Cause and yet to dispute against it Mr. Humphrey Indeed if persons be Excommunicate as the Primitive Church did punish such with bare presence or men have their gathered Companies if they do not communicate with those who are present and hear their reason is open they own them not as their Members But as for us that are not yet convinced by them either we must maintain or new-mould our mixed Congregations Ans 1. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant that in the Primitive times persons excommunicated in this sense were not to be present at the Sacrament since the fourth degree of excommunication called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shut persons quite out of the Church where they were to stand with tears requesting those who entred in to pray for them and thence they were called Plorantes See Goodwin's Moses and Aaron They who were quite shut out of the Church could not be present at the Sacrament administred in the Chancell 2 ly It appears further by this Answer of Mr. Humphrey that in the Primitive Times suspension was a part or degree of excommunication since some persons excommunicated might be present yet not receive but others might neither be admitted to presence nor to receiving And this makes much for us and against himselfe who grants that persons excommunicated may be kept from the Sacrament But say we persons juridically suspended are excommunicated both in our sense and in the sense of the Primitive Church Ergo By Mr. Humphrey his own Principle they are to be kept from receiving 3 ly The ground of their separation from us who are in gathered Companies yet are not Brownists is it not because we admit pel-mel Church members visibly unworthy And had our Sacraments been kept pure their very pretence of separation had been cut off I mean as to the point of Communicants Besides some of those separated Congregations have admitted to their Sacraments our Church-members whom they apprehended godly when at the same time other Church-members of ours concerning whom they have not had sufficient evidence of their piety did not passe for current A clear evidence that they as well as we look more at visible worthinesse then at Church-membership D. Dr. Page 37. If the Sacrament have the same latititude with the Word then a Heathen may receive it as well as a Christian Mr. Humphrey Pag. 69. He hath left out my main caution within the Church The Word may be considered as a bare word and an Instrument in writing c. or as a Sealed word and instrument delivered to peculiar use The Covenant is a sealed Covenant only unto the Church c. Ans 1. We demand Scripture-proofe for all this Mr. Humphrey indeed quotes Rom. 3. 2. To them were committed the Oracles of God And Rom. 9. 4. To whom pertained the Covenants But 1. There is not one word of the Sacrament 2 ly If he will urge those places then Heathen must be excluded from the Oracles and Covenant whether sealed or unsealed there being not one word about that particular of sealing Suppose the Apostle had said To whom belongs the Oracles and the Covenants and the Sacraments If Mr. Humphrey will thence argue Therefore Heathen ought not to partake of the Sacraments is it not easie to retort out of the same place that then by the same reason they ought not to read the Scripture or to hear the Word Preached and the Covenant declared and published since all these were in some way peculiar to the Jewes Yea to some Sacraments Heathen were admitted namely to Baptisme under the Cloud to the Manna and to the Rock-Water to wit the mixed Multitude as well as divers uncircumcised Israelites in which there was somewhat extraordinary I agree with Mr. Humphrey that Heathen may partake of the Word yet not of the Sacraments but his proof thereof from Rom. 3. and 9. is not valid 2 ly He mistakes in saying the Word is not a sealed Instrument to Heathen and in thinking the Word is not sealed to Heathen by the Sacraments unlesse they partake of the Sacraments Shew me any Covenant in the World where the Seales doth not concern them whom the Articles of the Covenant doe concern If the Articles of the Covenant of Grace concern all the World and are published and tendered to all conditionally what absurdity is there in sealing the same conditionall offer to all in the Sacrament 3 ly The sealing of the Covenant is generall or particular on Gods part or on mans part In generall God seales the Covenant by every Sacrament conditionally to all the World Particularly he seales the Covenant to the worthy Receiver at the Sacrament Further whether I Receive or no God seales the Covenant to me as well as to others in generall but by Receiving I my selfe seal in particular which standers by do not We easily agree with Mr. Humphrey That every Church-member without a just forfeiture hath a publick right to the use of the Sacrament But the Question is Wherein this forfeiture lies We say the forfeiture lies in visible unworthinesse He saies it lies in Excommunication We answer That cannot be since forfeiture of a priviledge is grounded upon an offence but excommunication rightly managed is no offence The Church indeed by excommunication takes the forfeiture but the Church-member by the offence makes the forfeiture This offence known is nothing else but his visible unworthinesse upon which the Church may justly deny him the use of the Sacrament for all his publick right to it as a Church-member Herein indeed an unworthy Church-member is distinguished from an Heathen in that he hath a publick right to the Sacrament as a Jew when unclean had to the Passover and a Priest when unclean had to the holy Things which no Heathen have But the influence of that right is suspended as to his actuall receiving till he visibly repent of his visible unworthinesse D. Dr. There are some righteous persons in their own conceit many false justitiaries c. Mr. Humphrey Of all men I think such as these had most need of conviction but I finde not the Scriptures send forth any spirituall hue and cry to make search for them If it did I will not for any thing say who are the men c. Ans 1. That conviction they may have by presence at all Ordinances 2 ly A Scripture hue and cry for such hath been formerly noted and I shall not here trouble my Reader with repetitions 3 ly For any to professe They will not help to discover those after whom the Scripture makes hue and cry argues at the best very great weaknesse and is in effect to say I will not do what the Word of God commands me 4 ly For his reflection upon divers of our Ministers and Elders let Mr. Humphrey but discover in particular those whom he charges in generall and make good his charge we shall thank him for it and trust through mercy so far as our power reaches we shall not
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
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
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
to refresh their fainting hearts and as a seale to ratifie the Covenant of grace and to put it out of question to their consciences So that if we be rightly understood here is no sadning of those whom God would not have made sad nor any strengthing the hands of the wicked on the other side And for those whose portion is sorrow they had better be in the house of mourning then in the house of feasting As for the Objection Mr. Humphrey moves from Rom 14. last He that doubteth is Damned if he eat c. Ans 1. In things indifferent to act doubtingly is a sin but Sacramentall eating is not a thing indifferent to him that hath truth of grace 2ly What if he doubt hee shall sin by abstaining as well as by eating May not such a case possibly fall out when the faith of evidence is ballanced by an opposite doubting 3ly The word put for doubting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in the Originall a discerning or putting a difference as 1 Cor. 11. 29. Jude ver 22. which notes a positive act and not a bare hesitancy or neutrality between assent and dissent Let us now peruse Mr. H. his Commentary upon 1 Cor. 11. from pag. 32. to 38 for some ease as he termes it of the forementioned perplexities Pag. 32. he hath these words I would not have men think Saint Paul advances this Ordinance which he speaks but lowly of 1 Cor. 10. 4. above others as prayer the one being only Instituted the other Natural worship Ans 1. I think Mr. Humphrey is mistaken in saying Saint Paul speaks but lowly of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 4. I conceive it s no low expression to call the Manna spirituall meat the miraculous Water spirituall Drink and the Rock out of which it flowed Christ And though both Manna and Water were common they all ate and drank thereof this is no undervaluing of either since the choisest mercies are most common at least as to the tender of them witnesse God himself especially in the Church 2ly Whether the Apostle intended here to advance the Sacrament above other Ordinances which to me seems probable or not I believe it excells other Ordinances And that because it is made up of them all to wit the Signe the thing signified the word prayer besides the commendation it hath by our blessed Saviours institution at such a time and for such high ends And if all these Ordinances combined are better then any one of them single surely the Sacrament must have the preheminency 3ly Upon the same account instituted worship excells naturall worship because it includes it and superadds institution Particularly faith in the Mediator is instituted worship yet I hope it is not inferiour to naturall worship which it includes and superaddes Institution There is no Ordinance but hath its peculiar use and excellency for which wee have cause to blesse God and be thankfull nor need we trouble our selves with comparisons of this kind which are for the most part curious and too often odious Yet were actuall receiving a converting Ordinance I think wee might wel honour it as the Crowning Ordinance since it excells in point of Confirmation and represents Christ effectually to so many senses but I forbear Mr. Humphrey Pag. 32 33. Here is a Church-sinne that sin is making that common which was sacred the using of this Sacrament but as their Love-feasts c. Ans 1. Yea supposing they were joynned together as were the common Supper the Passover and the Lords Supper It s gratis dictum that they made the Lords Supper a common supper as their Love-feasts Nor doth he produce any argument or Classicall Author to avouch it The Apostle indeed blames their schismes intemperancy disorder and slighting their poor Brethren c. 1 Cor. 11. ver 18. 21. but where is one word of making the Lords Supper a common supper Pag. 33. 34. He seems to question whether the Lords Supper be first a seal 2ly Whether it be a signe of future things and particularly saies that Remcanbrance is of some thing only that is past Ans 1. Why should Circumcision be a seal and not every other Sacrament and so by consequence the Lords Supper 2ly Hath it not the Office of a Seal in ratifying the Covenant of grace as well as other Sacraments 3ly How doth the unworthy Receiver eat and drinkjudgement unlesse this Sacrament by sensible signes applied as in sealing there is First a signe Secondly Application thereof Thirdly Ratification thereby ratifie judgement to him without repentance 4ly Mr. Humphrey forgets himself in saying Remembrance is only of things past otherwise how can I remember the Sabbath to sanctifie it or remember my latter end c. 5ly Why should not this Sacrament be a signe of future things as well as other Sacraments Circumcision and the Passover were signes of future things Baptism is a signe of future things Namely of Regeneration Mortification and Vivification which in most baptised persons that attain them are future and why should not the Lords Supper be a signe of future as well as of past things especially upon Mr. Humphrey his principles who makes it a converting Ordinance Is not the comming of Christ future and how can this Sacrament declare Christs death till hee come and not remember the receivers of Christs comming that is future as well as of Christs death that is past 1 Cor. 11. 26. Pag. 34. In opening what is this eating and drinking unworthily he distinguishes between a worthy Receiver and receiving worthily This last he places mainly in comming with Reverence Ans 1. I deny not but Reverence is a part of worthy receiving and that he who receives irreverently receives unworthily with a witnesse 2ly Yet as it is competible to a naturall man he makes it lie very much in fearing his own Damnation which grant it be a duty in statu quo being but slavish fear is no part of Evangelicall worthinesse and therefore cannot be a main part of receiving worthily It s such a worthinesse as he that hath commited the sin against the holy Ghost may receive with 3ly If further by reverence he mean some inward awe and outward demure behaviour it s a very easie matter to receive worthily yea though a man neither have truth of grace nor make conscience either of examining or preparing himself Certainly when the Apostle said Let a man examine himself and so let him eat c. he apprehended that who ever of age received without self-examination received unworthily but Mr. Humphrey tells us the main of receiving worthily lies in reverence and this reverence a naturall man may have and receive with yet never so much as examine himself From such worthy receiving good Lord deliver me Not but that I think this reverence is necessary but it falls infinitely short of receiving worthily and he that receives no more worthily will eat and drink damnation to himself 4ly If receiving worthily lie
wickednesse he rejected Christ virtually compare 1 Sam. 10. 19. John 12. 48. Yet at the same time he was a Church-member and did not renounce Christ formally 2ly Therefore there is a twofold renouncing of Christ 1. Virtuall by wittingly acting or living in any known sin especially grosse and scandalous 2ly Formall and expresse by word and deed as Witches Jews and Turks do Both these a man may do yet be a Church-member in Mr. Humphrey his sence till Excommunicated The latter makes him faederally unclean not so the former at least presently Therefore the Children of the former are more capable of Baptism then the Children of the latter yea supposing the former were Excommunicated the latter not much more if the former be not Excommunicated A formall and expresse rejection of Christ and the Covenant contributes far more to Separation from Christ then a virtuall and interpretative rejecting of either By all hath been said it appears that by the two forementioned places compared which Mr. Humphrey would faine set together by the Ears I answer not my self but Mr. Humphrey My other three exceptions because he only Quibbles upon them but answers them not I passe as also his vapour in the close since my work is not to answer words but Arguments Mr. Humphrey For the close hereof I gathered up some Texts as Rev. 22. 17. c. that doth set forth the most free offers of Jesus Christ which though Mr. Drake make but light of c. Ans 1. I make not light of the offers of free grace but say those free offers are no ground for his Free Admission to the Sacrament since those offers are free to Heathen and excommunicate persons as well as to Church-Members who undoubtedly are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper 2 ly Add Church-membership to these free offers since persons jure excommunicate are Church-members and are also under these free offers yet may be kept away as Mr. Humphrey grants page 21. Is it not evident that free grace may be conditionally offered and applyed to Church members though they do not receive the Sacrament but are justly barr'd from it for the present 3 ly Whereas he addes Jesus Christ is proportionably gratious in his exrernall as he is in his internall priviledges c. What followes from thence but that as they who reject internall priviledges shall misse of and be kept from them so they who reject externall priviledges further then those priviledges are necessary in order to their conversion ought to be kept from them Object True if they reject them But we keep many away who desire the Sacrament Ans So Christ keeps internall priviledges from many who in some sense desire them Luke 13. 24. May not an Hypocrite desire truth of grace as a necessary means to free him from Hell c. who yet at the same time rejects and hates holinesse Now the signe and thing signified are Correlates and he that rejects either rejects both interpretatively He then that rejects Grace rejects the Sacrament the signe of Grace and therefore upon Mr. Humphrey his own Principle ought to be kept from it unlesse actuall receiving be a converting Ordinance c. of which afterwards What therefore Mr. Humphrey saies Pag. 59. What sense is there in this Jesus Christ is to be freely shewed forth to bring men home effectually to him and yet must the Receiver make out that right unto the Minister before we dare offer or conditionally apply him to them reaches not our case home We granting that Christ ought to be freely offered and conditionally applyed to all be they Church-members or not But is there no way of offering or conditionally applying Christ to all or to any but by his actuall receiving the Sacrament Mr. Humphrey We must not make the notion of sealing so dreadfull and bring so much blood upon our soules we need not fear to judge the Heathen visible Rebels c. Ans 1. If the notion of Sealing a mans own Damnation must not be made dreadfull I know not what must 2 ly What ever cavill may be made about the notion of Sealing he will not deny but to eat and drink a mans own Damnation is very dreadfull and that every one who receives unworthily doth 1 Cor. 11. 29. 3 ly We should not indeed bring so much blood upon our soules but they who receive unworthily do bring so much blood upon their own soules if the Apostle speak true verse 27. and they who admit such when they may be regularly kept away are accessary to this their blood-guiltinesse 4 ly Are Heathen visible Rebells who never profest subjection to Christ and is not he a visible Rebell who after yea under profest subjection acts open Rebellion doing the same and worse acts of hostility against Christ than Heathen do 2 Kings 21. 11. and 1 Cor. 5. 1. Was not Judas at the time of Christs apprehension for all his profession as visible an enemy of Christ as the Ruffians who came to take him 5 ly Should not all care and diligence be used to discover and make visible those Judasses who after and under profession are worse enemies of Christ than heathen are Matth. 19. verse 14 27. Rev. 3. verse 15 16. Mr. Humphrey Page 60. The word is no sealed word even outwardly but to the Church Ans This is gratis dictum In the Word Preached the Covenant is held forth conditionally to all the World instance Mark 16. 16. and John 3. 16. And if all the World be in the Covenant conditionally then when ever the Covenant is sealed as it is ever in the Sacrament it 's sealed to all the World conditionally and that whether they receive or no yea though they be not so much as present as a Pardon may be sealed conditionally to Traytors though they be absent yea in the height of their Rebellion Is Christs death shewed forth to all at the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. 26. and is it not offered to all at the Sacrament and sealed there to all conditionally Why may not open Rebells be present at the sealing as well as at the publication of a Pardon Here seemes to lie Mr. Humphrey his great mistake in that he thinks the Covenant is not sealed to me unlesse I actually receive Indeed by receiving I in a speciall manner put to my Seal and God doth more particularly seal to me but whether I receive or no God in the Sacrament seales to the Covenant in which I being comprehended as a party it s no more absurd the Covenant should be sealed to me being absent then it is absurd a Covenant of Indentures should be sealed to a person absent yea to a child unborn who likewise doth seal virtually though not formally As at every Baptisme grace redounds and the Covenant is by it sealed not only to the party Baptized but also to all present yea to all the world conditionally who are not hindred from presence at any Baptising And why
his Brethren as going about to abolish the remembrance of Christs death because they cannot admit all as Receivers whom yet they are willing to admit as Auditors and Spectators at the Lords Supper be they Church-members or no And I think in so doing we make better provision for the Publishing and declaring of Christs death then Mr. Humphrey doth by admitting onely Church-members and shutting the Chancell-door against all others as if men might not see Christ crucyfied and hear a crucified Saviour speak because they may not feed Sacramentally upon a crucified Saviour Mr. Humphrey I shall begin with the last His words are these The word and the Sacrament t is true must go hand in hand together but the Covenant of grace or the Word is not visibly applicable to all therefore not the Sacrament Mr. H. For my answer to this which is all his weight with but a very few grains more We must know The Ministers of Christ are the Ministers of the New-Covenant to be revealed that not of the absolute Heb. 8. which is secret and belonging to Election Pag. 62. but of the conditionall Covenant or the Covenant in its conditionall capacity which is tenderable to all the World and that more especially applicable with a distinction of outward priviledges and interest to the Church Now look what is the Tenor of the Covenant the Sacrament seales and nothing else May not I say to all and every Intelligent Church-member If thou believe thou shalt be saved and may not I seal to such what the Word saies Ans 1. Granting we are Ministers of the conditionall Covenant how doth that exclude us from being Ministers of the absolute Covenant Is not the absolute Covenant revealed in the Word as well as the Conditionall Covenant and ought not Ministers to declare unto people the whole Counsell of God Acts 20. 29. Is not the writing of the Law in the heart part of the absolute Covenant Heb. 8. 10 and is not the whole Covenant of Grace sealed at the Sacrament Are not Ministers Instruments of Conversion and Edification and thereby of applying the absolute Covenant 2 Cor. 3. 6 Is the Sacrament in Mr. Humphrey his profest judgement a means of Conversion and yet hath it nothing to do with the absolute Covenant 2ly If the Conditionall Covenant be tenderable to all the World as Mr. Humphrey rightly asserts will it not follow he building his Free-admission upon this Principle that all the World ought to be admitted to the Sacrament To use his own words May not I say to all not onely to every intelligent Church-member If thou believest thou shalt be saved and may not I seal to such what the Word saies Christ is tenderable to all conditionally be they Church-members or no and that in every Ordinance therefore even Heathen may be present at prayer hearing Baptism c. and why not proportionably at the Lords Supper c in all which the conditionall tender of Christ is universally held forth But doth it thence follow that Christ is or must be applyed to all by way of promise or Seal in either of these The Latitude then of the Covenant-tender is no ground for the Latitude of Mr. H. his Free-Admission 3ly Nor will the Latitude of the Covenant Tender prove it should be apply'd by the Sacrament to all Intelligent Church-members for then it ought to be applyed to persons jure Excommunicate who yet according to truth and Mr. H. his own grant may be suspended Might not Theodosius have pleaded the Latitude of the Covenant when Ambrose denyed him the Sacrament divers months together for his cruelty in Massacring thousands of Thessalonians upon the Theater Yea might he not have pleaded that considering his great guilt he had more need to receive the Sacrament that thereby he might seal Damnation to himself for his deeper conviction and humiliation yea if Mr. Humphrey his Doctrine in this particular be true ought not persons jure excommunicate of all others to be admitted to receive that thereby they may seal damnation to themselves D. Dr. page 42. Dares Mr. Humphrey say to a person in the state of Nature Sir All the benefits of the Covenant are actually yours The Language of every actuall giving is Christ is thine in particular Mr. Humphrey I answer this is a manifest errour The Language of the Sacrament is the Language of the Covenant and that is not Christ is thine but Christ is thine if thou wilt believe And who doubts but I dare say so to one in the state of Nature conceiving we know it not and cannot judge thereof Ans 1. That the Language of the Sacrament is Christ is thine and that in a saving way Let our Saviour be judge Luke 22. verse 19 20. This is my Body which is given for you not against you And This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you and for what end see Matth. 26. 28. for the remission of sins Which words we use as an Argument to prove Judas did not receive since our Saviour could not say to Judas who was to Christ visibly in the state of Nature This is my blood which is shed for thee for the remission of sins And that it is otherwise with any receiver is accidentall by reason of his unworthinesse which unworthinesse if it may be discerned why ought not Church-Officers by Suspension to prevent the sin and misery of such a person at least in part 2 ly Mr. Humphrey wrongs my Answer by leaving out a very materiall word in it My words are these Dare Mr. Humphrey say to a person visibly in the state of Nature Be assured c But in quoting my Answer he leaves out the word visibly to my no small prejudice We dare say to persons in the state of Nature where we have not clear evidence against them or good ground to suspect their sincerity from the fair account they give us of the truth of grace in them All the benefits of the Covenant of grace are thine By which assertion we do not exclude Mr. Humphrey his supposition Christ is thine if thou believe but declare our perswasion about such a person namely that we believe he hath the condition which entitles him to Christ as 2 Tim. 1. 5. which perswasion we cannot have of any who is visibly in the state of Nature and therefore dare not say to him Christ is thine yea we dare in the Name of the Lord command them to believe so where we have no ground to suspect the absence of the Condition in them but have very good evidence of the condition of the Covenant performed in them and by them through grace If upon tryall we have ground to suspect them then we can speak those words to them only conditionally But when we have evidence they are in the state of Nature and know they have not the Condition it 's in vain to say to them in that estate Christ is thine if
thou do believe And it 's all one as if I should say to a proud and insolent Traytor acting in the height of Rebellion Sir Pardon is yours if you do come in and submit taking the words in their Grammaticall construction I may assure him he shall be pardoned if he will presently come in and submit But it 's incongruous to say Sir Pardon is yours if you do submit since at present he is visibly neither an object of pardon nor a subject of submission Upon which account I apprehend those expressions of Mr. Humphrey not so congruous Christ is thine if thou wilt believe I may say Christ is thine if thou do believe where I have not clear evidence of the dominion of unbeliefe Or Christ shall be thine if thou wilt believe where I have never so clear evidence of unbeliefe in dominion But to apply the Promise de praesenti upon a condition de futuro I think is neither Grammaticall Logicall nor Theologicall Some truth there may be in it if understood Rhetorically but Rhetorick is fitter for an Oratour then a Disputant 3 ly Mr. Humphrey himselfe scruples to use these words to a person visibly in the state of Nature witnesse those expressions of his VVho doubts but I dare say this to one in the state of Nature conceiving we know it not and cannot judge thereof Where therefore we know and can can judge a person to be in the state of Nature Mr. Humphrey will not encourage us to say Be assured all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are actually thine Pag. 63. To answer therefore Mr. Humphrey his retortion I dare say to the visibly Godly what Christ said before me in the Sacrament The Body of Christ is broken for thee the Blood of Christ is shed for thee for remission of sins But these words I dare not say to one against whom I have evidence by his grosse ignorance or profane conversation that he is in the state of Nature However therefore page 63. Mr. Humphrey utterly renounces the very undertaking to make any Church-Member visibly in the state of Nature Yet that herein he is heterodox is evident by clear testimony of Scripture Matth. 7. verse 15. to 20. our Saviour there teaching us that as a Tree so a Person may be known by his fruits And Acts 8. 23. Peter by that wicked offer of Simon Magus knew he was in the state of Nature See also Tit. 3. verse 10 11. the Epistle of Jude 2 Pet. Chap. 2 and 3. and 1 Cor. 6. verse 9 10. and Ephes 5. verse 5 6. But I will not trouble the Reader in so clear a case And indeed if grosse ignorance fundamentall errours obstinately maintained open profanenesse scoffing at holinesse if these I say lived in especially after due means of conviction be not palpable evidences of a person at present in the state of nature then the forementioned texts must be rased out of Scripture and Ministers as to this particular must learn a new Gospell of Mr. Humphrey Mr. Humphrey The solidity of this answer may appear the more by this mans weaknesse to solve the objection page 48. which otherwise cannot be done It is this Doth not the a Minister seale to a lie if he seal to the unworthy He answers most miserably He does but seal to an untruth not to a lie so long as he comes in to the Elders and is thought visibly worthy by them Well but what if the Elders should admit one visibly unworthy and the Minister judge him so to be yet the Major part carrying it what shall become of him then â—…g 64. Here his untruth must be a lie again It is not his pleading an admonition or that he cannot help it will serve him if it be positively a lie or a sin to admit any that is visibly unworthy he may not offend his Conscience and presume upon God though he lost his place and life too So that he must of necessity come over to us and then he may know how neither to commit an untruth nor a lie neither by saying He offers or applies Christ but conditionally c. The truth is seeing the Minister is Gods Embassador and what he does is by his Commission we may as soon say the God of Israel can lie as that the Minister ever Seales an untruth or lie either in doing his Office c. Ans This charge being heavy and managed with a very high hand by H I thought it needfull to recite his words more carefully lest by altering of them as he hath done mine I should seem to wrong him 1. Therefore in propounding the Objection he takes not my words but frames it for his own advantage and my prejudice My words are these But doth not the Minister Seal to a lie by giving the Sacrament to those who are visibly worthy yet really unworthy pag. 48. Mr. Humphrey propounds my Objection thus Doth not the Minister Seal to a lie if he Seal to the unworthy The Objection thus propounded may bear a very foul sense as seeming to include persons both really and visibly unworthy whereas my Objection clearly hints a distinction between persons visibly worthy yet really unworthy and between persons both really and visibly unworthy Besides that in the latter branch also I use not the terme of Sealing but of giving the Sacrament And however he may possibly agree with me in sense yet the termes altered may occasion a foule mistake in the Reader But to passe that Let us scan his exceptions against my answer to that Objection And 1. He corrupts my Text in the answer as he did in the objection Mr. Humphrey frames my answer thus He does but Seal to an untruth not to a lie so long as he comes in to the Elders and is thought visibly worthy by them page 63. This Answer thus framed is obscure absurd and little better than nonsence Obscure the second Person thee being there applicable either to the Minister admitting or to the person admitted Absurd c. as making the Reader believe we hold That the Minister without danger of a lie may assure that Communicant of a saving interest in Christ who he is assured hath no part in Christ and all because the Elders have approved that Communicant against the vote and certaine Knowledge of the Minister Besides That expression He is thought visibly worthy is little better then nonsence For I pray what is a person visibly worthy but one that is thought and judged worthy at least upon evidence of competent knowledge and vacancy of scandall So then to think a person is visibly worthy is to think I think such a man worthy which for my part I think is little better then non-sence either in Grammer Logick or Rhetorick Thus you see how Mr. Humphrey propounds my Answer I will not say faithfully but I dare say very prudently My answer to the Objection is this pag. 48. He may possibly Seal to an untruth but doth not
be willingly partiall in Gods Law but be ready to throw the first stone at our selves And as we have cause to thank God where he hath kept any of us from breaking out into grosser abominations so we desire at all times especially at the Sacrament to lie low in the sense of our own great unworthinesse to renounce our own righteousnesse as well as our unrighteousnesse Psal 15. 4. and to pitty not presently to despise the greatest offendors whether they fall under the sentence of suspension or of excommunication And this we hope is not Pharisaisme Luke 18. verse 9. to 14. D. Dr. Pag. 70 71 72. All may be present but not actually partake c. Against this Mr. Humphrey hath foure Exceptions To the first I answer he wrongs me in making the World believe I make nothing of the whole Administration but only of actuall Receiving I have formerly shewed that they who hear and see unworthily at the Sacrament are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as well but not as much as those who receive Yet because hearing and seeing may be means of Conversion not so receiving therefore all may hear and see but not receive I determine not here whether seeing the Sacramentall Elements do convert but am very inclinable to believe that the observation of the humble devotion of the Communicants may be effectuall for such a purpose as 1 Pet 3. vers 1 2. And as the courage of divers Martyrs have been means to change some Persecutors To his second Exception VVe hold not that Baptisme is to be repeated nor do we believe that Christ hath commanded absolutely all intelligent Church-members to receive But as a Circumcised Jew might be kept from the Passover when Legally or Morally unclean so may a Baptized Christian be kept from the Lords Supper when Morally unclean Doctor Rivet upon Exod. 12 notes 1. That Women were admitted to the Passover as well as men 2 ly That profession of their faith was required of adult Females before they were admitted to the Passover A clear evidence of visible Morall purity requisite as well as Leviticall purity To his third Exception we answere An unregenerate mans undisposednesse doth no more frustrate Gods precept of receiving the Lords Supper than an unclean mans indisposednesse did frustrate the command for all the Congregation to keep the Passover Exod. 12. 47. For his fourth Exception That we go contrary to the expresse command Drink ye all of it we answer 1. If Judas received not which is probable then it is evident the command reaches only those who are really and visibly worthy 2 ly Supposing Judas did receive 1. Let Mr. Humphrey peruse Mr. Timson's Answer page 3. and 4. who though zealous for free Admission yet lookes at this Argument as very weak 2 ly I have answered formerly that in Judas his Admission Christs dispensation was extraordinary and so not imitable by us 3 ly We admit all to the Marriage Feast as well yea more then himselfe but not to cat the Feast in every Dish yea we admit all to the Sacrament but not to every Sacramentall action 4 ly If putting the ignorant upon knowledge the carelesse upon diligence to prepare the hard-hearted upon repentance be to make them more secure carelesse and hard-bearted we must confesse our selves guilty of Mr. Humphrey his charge otherwise not And certainly if our suspension from but part of one Ordinance do harden as he apprehends what will his excommunication from all Ordinances do 5 ly For his charging us To afflict tender Consciences We see not how any such Conclusion can flow from our Principles rightly understood or that our Principles tend to lay wast the Ordinance of the Lords Supper We desire that every Ordinance may be used in every Congregation particularly the Lords Supper where there are any Church-members capable of it Nor do we believe the Administration of this Sacrament doth absolutely depend upon the being or acting of the Elders who are not necessary to the esse but to the bone esse of the Church and to the more regular Administration of the Sacrament We believe the principall care of Soules lies upon Ministers who therefore ought to do their duty whether they have Elders or no in fitting their people for and then admitting them to the Sacrament Nor do we apprehend what there can be in this carriage of ours to afflict tender Consciences whom of all persons we shall most willingly admit If indeed we forced any to approve and own tryall before the Eldership there might be some plea against us in that kinde but that there should be any such thing in giving an account of our faith before any especially to our Minister who without all controversy is charged with our Soules as he that must give an account to God for them is to me a very strange paradox Yet further Suppose one be kept from the Sacrament yea unjustly kept from it what is there here to scruple his conscience It may indeed grieve his spirit and cause him to reflect and that to his great and spirituall advantage but the sin is theirs who do unjustly detain him For our part if we know any thing of our selves our great care is to invite and encourage tender Consciences to partake of not to keep them from the Sacrament and such we are assured will never put us against our Consciences to admit all pel-mel A tender Conscience is tender of other mens Consciences as well as of its own Page 72. to 74. Mr. Humphrey thinks I wrong his Simile and take hold of it by the left handle Ans Let the Reader peruse my Answer page 40 and 41. and compare it with page 14. of Mr. Humphrey his Vindication he will easily perceive Mr. Humphrey wrongs himselfe by it but I wrong neither him nor his Simile God is the Prince wronged Christ is the great Favourit upon whose intercession Grace is proclaimed to all the World conditionally and sealed in the Sacrament Now mark what Mr. Humphrey addes page 15. of his Vindication Can it be imagined there is any the Proclamation belongs to without the seal is not the seal publick as the contents of it Is not here a free Admission for all the World and thereby even for Heathen to the Sacrament That grace is proclaimed conditionally to all the World see Matth. 28. 19. and Mark 16. vers 15 16. Mr. Humphrey addes in the forementioned words The Seal is as extensive as the Proclamation therefore by his own Principles they must be admitted to the Lords Supper since they are part of the World yea the greatest part Nor will his following words be a salvo for this wide gap That as we offer the conditions thereof to any so likewise may we and must we the seal upon their desire c. page 15. of his Vindication Unlesse we have good evidence at least in the judgment of charity that their desire is reall Acts 8. verse
Judas to make a bargain of Christ at the Supper To be a young Scholler or Divine is no reproach but for such a one to censure an Assembly of such Senators and Divines as he doth I thinke is shamefull if it be not I shall willingly ask Mr. Humphrey pardon for saying so As I deny not Pag. 77. but the Word and seal must go together so I am assured they do both go together in every Sacrament and that the Covenant is sealed conditionally in every Sacrament to all the World though the greatest part of the VVorld do not receive But it followes not from thence that all may receive Nor can Mr. Humphrey bring any Scripture-evidence That men must come to the Sacrament to seal their own damnation Yea probably such Doctrine Preached would be a greater bar to his free Admission then the Tryall before the Eldership which yet he so much decries I perceive the instance of Infants and scandalous persons troubles him which though he snarle at will not budge or move their place But that I passe as having been formerly cleared He is also displeased that we go by a rule of visibility in admitting Church-members to the Lords Supper But let Mr. Humphrey answer himselfe and either admit all Church-members or give us a better rule then the rule of visibility to wit That such members as are visibly capable of the Sacrament should be admitted others not His rule of visibility is naturall intelligence when Church-members have the use of Reason Our rule is spirituall intelligence and vacancy of scandall when persons have some competent knowledge of Divine and Sacramentall mysteries and live unblamably Will Mr. Humphrey in one breath cry up and cry down the rule of visibility If yet he ask Where is there any ground to try Church-members whether they be ignorant or no c. Let him answer himselfe Where is there any ground to try Church-members whether they have the use of reason or no Or where doth Christ forbid the admitting of distracted persons If the ground be because they cannot examine themselves the same ground will reach ignorant persons in the Church whose inability for selfe-examination is so much the worse as it is willfull Mr. Humphrey For his answer to my four Considerations I reply as briefly 1. An Historicall Faith suffices to Baptisme Acts 8. 13. Ans What is this Reply to my Answer page 42 my words are these Those whom we would not Baptise had they bin to have been Baptised at years of discretion those we cannot admit to the Lords Supper though Baptized c. To this all he answers is that Historicall Faith is enough to Baptisme As 1. its utterly impertinent So 2 ly it s false since not only an Historicall Faith but also profession of Repentance is necessary to Baptisme which is therefore called The Baptisme of Repentance Mark 1. 4 5. 3 ly Profession of Faith and Repentance cannot stand with conviction of grosse ignorance and with scandall We refuse none who make a charitative profession of Faith and Repentance And here once more let Mr. Humphrey remember his own rule Adultis cadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti Mr. Humphrey Pag. 78. A Church-members outward Acceptance is his Receiving as for any other the Scriptures he pleads as abundant enough are none at all Ans In my answer to his second consideration I do not quote Scripture therefore Mr. Humphrey should either have mentioned those Scriptures or referred the Reader to them But to come to the point Will Mr. Humphrey stand to that assertion of his That a Church-members outward Acceptance is no other but his Receiving What thinks he of publick Prayer Hearing the Parents confession of Faith at the Baptising of his Children c. are not each of these an outward acceptance Then sure Receiving the Lords Supper is not the sole outward or visible acceptance How many Church-members will scarce come to Church from years end to years end who yet would think themselves much wronged if the Sacrament be denyed them Is their offering to Receive once a year acceptance enough who all the year after will scarce come to the publick Ordinances Do not they as visibly reject Christ by neglecting to Hear c. all the year long as they do accept Christ by comming once a year to the Sacrament 2 ly True Receiving is an outward acceptance of the Sacrament but is it a sufficient outward acceptance of Christ and Grace offered in the Sacrament Then persons jure excommunicate cannot be suspended Suppose a Church-member publickly renounce Christ and yet desire to Receive this Wretch by Mr. Humphrey his rule must have the Sacrament if outward acceptance be enough For his charging me here again with foul language why did not Mr. Humphrey transcribe it as a further evidence against me Let the Reader peruse page 43. 44 and 45. of my Bar he will easily unvail the mysterie The truth is in those pages I lay open his foul slanders and this forsooth is my foul language Mr. Humphrey To the Third where are many things I say 1. Though conviction is not enough to convert without grace what then Is it not a means therefore with it Ans 1. Sure Mr. Humphrey forgot his own words page 16. of his Vindication Let a man be fully convinced of the free grace of Christ his heart can stand it out no longer against his conversion Is it not here evident he makes full conviction alone a meanes of conversion yea a sufficient means If a man cannot stand it out against full conviction then full conviction is a sufficient means of conversion This was it I excepted against To which in his Reply he Answers Conviction with grace is a means of conversion For my part I believe it 's a means of conversion either with or without grace but not a sufficient means An Horse is a means to draw a million of weight but I hope not a sufficient means but if a horse alone could draw it he were a sufficient means If Mr. Humphrey his first assertion to which I answered be true then full conviction even without grace must be a sufficient means of conversion Mr. Humphrey 2 ly Conviction of the truth of the Covenant comes directly by sealing it and conviction of the generall offer by applying it to every single person Ans There is a double sealing in the Sacrament 1. By application of the Seal to the Covenant it selfe 2 ly By application of the Seal to particular persons in their receiving In the former sense we agree conviction comes by sealing the generall offer even to those who do not receive but may be present But it followes not immediately nor directly that because the Covenant is particularly applyed to some persons therefore it is offered to all It 's bad Logick to argue from a particular to a generall unlesse upon a generall reason And hence the consequence from a particular to a generall is not immediate
the regenerate and unregenerate the Sacrament only to the worthy receiver I mean quantum ad praesens Page 177. Mr. H. charges me to be censorious but why or in what nè gru quidem Is not this really to prove himself censorious Further we grant the tenor of the Covenant is seald to all present that is the good things of the Covenant are conditionally sealed to them whether they receive or no which therefore is no argument to prove free admission but only free presence or attendance at the Sacrament But whereas he adds ib. There can be no seal to a blank so long as there is truth and writing in the Gospel This in some respect is a truth but not to the purpose Did I ever affirm the seal was put to a blank as to the Gospel sealed We grant there is no real blank at the Sacrament but there are many personal blanks The seal of the Sacrament and of the Spirit should ever go together and how can I seal him with the Sacrament whom I have ground to beleeve the Spirit hath not sealed Hence principally flows evidence in the Sacrament because the Spirit together with the Sacrament seals the worthy receiver and doth not only seal to him In Circumcision not only the Covenant but also the person was sealed Gen. 17. 13. Rev. 7. many persons were sealed The promise secures not only good things for beleevers but also beleevers for those good things 1 Pet. 1. v. 4 5. and what the Covenant holds forth that the Sacrament seale True as Mr. H. notes p. 178. God hath commanded us to baptize all Infants within the Church and to admit all visible Saints all which yet have not the benefits of the Covenant exhibited in a right sense But what is this against us who are bound in charity to judge or hope they are real Saints till they contradict this judgement of charity by visible prophaneness c. 2. True Christ submitted to the Sacraments and there that was sealed to him of which he was capable as to Adam in innocency but neither Adam in innocency nor Christ ever needed pardon and as by Adams fall the Covenant of works was broken so had Christ finned in the least the Covenant of grace had been broken 3. True Christ was baptized to fulfil all righteousness but is it a fulfilling of righteousness to receive unworthily 4. True As relative grace is sealed to the worthy receiver so relative judgement is sealed to the unworthy receiver But 1. Relative judgement is sealed to some unworthy persons whether they receive or not 2. For my part I shall neither counsel nor easily admit any to murther Christ and thereby to seal relative judgement to themselves 5. True To some unworthy abstainers the Sacrament is a savor of death But I hope Mr. H. will be more charitable than to assert that all who abstain at present are unworthy abstayners Mr. H. ib. By way of inquiry I question how Gods establishing his Covenant by way of seal does import this exhibition of the effectual benefits to those he seals Ans 1. It must convey them necessarily if sealing and exhibition be all one as Mr. H. makes them to be p. 176. 2 With us Gods sealing of the Covenant doth not alwayes import exhibition of the benefits of the Covenant we holding that sealing and exhibition are two distinct Sacramental actions The Covenant may be sealed to all present though divers of them receive not but the benefits of the Covenant are exhibited to no receivers but those who are Evangelically worthy His inference p. 179. hangs upon the premises like a rope of sand Therefore Mr. Drake must affirm here that God seals to a blank which he most desperately doth or that this Objection comes to nothing Ans Here indeed are rash and desperate expressions Mr. D. never said God seals to a blank as to the Covenant but he sayes Mr. H. pleads for sealing to a blank as to many receivers 2. The Objection stands good because divers Ministers who admit all pell-mell and amongst them Mr. H. professedly seal to personal visible blanks where Christ hath given them no such Commission Mr. H. ib. A scrupulous Christian may receive the Sacrament as a sign though haply he cannot receive it as a seal Ans This scrupulous Christian is Evangelically worthy or not If the former he both may and must receive it as a sign and as a seal yet withall he must endeavour to get his doubts resolved If the latter then being present he may learn by the Sacrament as a sign though he do not receive it as a seal Mr. H. p. 180. Here is Mr. Drakes great error to confound the outward and inward Covenant the external and internal sealing Ans Here is Mr. H. his great error to mistake union for confusion Mr. Drake thinks that on the receivers part the inward and outward Covenant and sealing should go together and that he who wants the inward seal should not dare to meddle with the outward seal He doth not confound the inward and outward seal as Mr. H. doth sealing and exhibiting by making them all one but unites the inward and outward seal together in point of duty on the receivers part Mr. H. ib. If the seal be set to a blank until Gods Law is written in the heart then no mortal can apply the seal to any seeing that cannot be discerned by any Ans This is a meer non sequitur A Minister may without sin set the seal to a blank where in charity he is bound to judge or hope that person is no blank and this he is bound to hope of all that have competent knowledge and live without scandal The receiver must act by the rule of reality the Church by the rule of visibility I do not then contradict my self when I say p. 72. of my Bar That truth of grace in the heart is not the rule of our admission Grace real is the rule of an intelligent Church-members receiving but grace visible is the rule of the Churches admission whether it be real or no. Mr. H. ib. Now I pray note it If Mr. D. apply these texts 2 Cor. 3. 3. Heb. 8. 10. which speak only of the inward writing to confirm the Objection that the Seal is set to a Blank if all be admitted then the world must know that the truth of grace is his rule or else the new Covenant written in the heart is not truth of grace with Mr. Drake Ans 1. It s apparent by my text I brought the fore-quoted places for illustration not for proof of the Objection Mr. H. therefore might well come with an if But what if Mr. Drake did not bring those places to prove the Objection let the Reader consult my text p. 123. of my Bar where he will easily perceive Mr. H. his foul play with me in this particular who to fasten an absurdity upon me would fain confound the rule of Admission with the rule
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
M. Drake does often tell you of my contradictions when he onely goes about to make them but I need not tell you he hath any Ans Let the Reader but consult my Text p. 129. of my Bar and he will easily perceive how M. H. abuses first my self and then his Reader in this particular 1. Therefore note That by proper in the former branch I mean a litteral seal in the Grammatical sense as is evident by my explication of my self in the forequoted place of purpose to prevent this captious mistake in these words In a proper sense a seal is an artificial thing fit to make a visible representation or impression In this sense I say the Sacrament is not properly a seal For 1. It is not an artificial thing 2. It makes not a visible impression either upon the Covenant or upon the receiver Let me ask M. H. is the Sacrament a litteral seal I have heard in this sense of a golden or silver seal c. but never of a Breaden seal By Proper in the latter sense I mean a real seal in opposition to a feigned and counterfeit seal or the picture of a seal This is known by the effects hence we prove the Sun to be fire because it hath the effects of fire though it differ much from our culinary fire Now the main effect and use of a seal being to confirm and ratifie and this being the proper effect of the Sacrament we conclude that the Sacrament is properly a seal though it be not litterally a seal 2. M. H. mistakes grosly in opposing tropical to proper whereas tropical and figurative is not opposed to proper but to litteral Christ is properly a vine yet tropically a vine but not litterally a vine He is the true bread Joh. 6. 32 His flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drink indeed ver 55. Surely that which is true bread that which is meat and drink indeed is properly so yet it need not be so litterally it being enough that it is so tropically and metaphorically The mistake of this distinction was the ground of that Capernaticial error John 6. 63. of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation and is the ground of M. H. his topical mistake and perverting of my present Text. M. D. Nor will his instance of Circumcision help him which was applyed to none but visible Saints c. M. H. That is the whole Jewish Nation Josh 5. v. 3. 6.8 when of age without examition and profession which declares both that all Church-members are visible Saints and that that alone gives a right to be admitted Answ 1. It s evidently false and against the very letter of Scripture that all the Jewish Nation were circumcised at Gilgal see Josh 5. v. 5 7. the text tells us that onely they who were born in the wilderness by the way were circumcised the rest having been circumcised in Egypt Object Were not all who were born in Egypt destroyed in the wilderness Answ No such matter but onely those who were twenty years old and upwards at their coming out of Egypt Caleb and Joshuah onely excepted compare Numb 26. v. 64 65. and 14. v. 29 30. and 1. v. 2 3. 2. That all these were not onely visible Saints but eminently visible Saints should M. H. deny it the Scripture would convince him Deut. 4 v. 3 4. Josh 24. 21. Judg. 2. 7. 3. That the Israelites circumcised at Gilgal were not at all examined nor made any profession of their faith and piety is more then M. H. can prove his argument for it at best is but negative because it is not recorded Josh 5. 4. That they did make profession of their faith before this circumcision is evident enough by another place Deut 26. 17. and that probably within a week before they were circumcised and divers times the whole Nation were put upon it to make profession of and ingage for God and Religion Josh 24. and 2 Chro. 15. and 34. v. 32. 33. which last is the more remarkable because it was done just before the Passover that answers out Lords Supper So Ezr. 10. and Neh. 10. and 11. and particularly its noted Ezra 6. 21. that not simply all Church-members but such as had separated themselves from the filthiness of the Heathen to seek the Lord did eat the Passover which is also remarkable in Hozekiahs Passover where moral pollution was looked at as a greater bar than Levitical pollution 2 Chron. v. 18. 20. 5. Whither will not men fall when once they are sliding if God leave them to themselves We had though before M. H. had been onely for free admission of persons baptized unto the Lords Supper now he is for the free admission of all persons at years born in the Church of Christian parents unto the Ordinance of Baptism without either examination or profession Here he falls an Ace below the Anabaptists who will not admit the Children of Christian Parents to Baptism without profession of their faith c. must we indeed baptize the children of Anabaptists Quakers Ranters c. being at age without any tryal of their faith and piety without any engaging of them to profession of Christ or obedience to him All this laid together will abundantly discover the vanity of M. H. his conclusion and prove that bare Church-membership is not enough for admission to the Lords Supper M. H. ib. To the simile that follows I have spoken and I refer you to M. Calvin who pleases himself with it in shewing the same point to wit Sacramenta non desinere esse testimonia gratiae Dei Licet impiis quoque porrigantur Just l. 4. cap. 14. sect 7. Answ 1. His similitude I convince of weakness page 130. of my Bar to which it will be hard for M. H. to speak to purpose argumentatively though I know he can speak fluently The similitude I grant is good if rightly applyed at which application I hope I may speak it without offence M. Calvin is better than M. Humphrey and he is far enough from applying it to M. H. his purpose 2. We deny not what M. Calvin asserts That the Sacraments are testimonies of Gods grace even when they are offered to the wicked The essence of an Ordinance is not changed by mans wickedness But what is this to the justifying of their practice who offer the Sacrament promiscuously against which Calvin is so zealous that he calls it 1. An ataxie or disorder 2. Sacrilege 3. A prophanation of the Sacrament 4. A prostitution of the holy treasures 5. A gross injury done to God 6. So great an evil that after all means used in vain to redress it a Minister may warrantably forsake such a people as incorrigible yea ought not to stay with them All this you have in one Epistle page 438. and 439. of Calvins Epistles printed at Geneva An. 1617. M. D. How dare a Minister by word and seal apply the Covenant of grace to those that visibly reject it M. H. Page
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-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
and Judas as to this particular upon M. H. his principles Timothies sins are loosed if he repent and bound if he repent not Judas his sins are bound if he repent not and loosed if he repent Is it not evident here that Judas is loosed as much as Timothy and Timothy bound as much as Judas if the binding or loosing be onely conditional on both sides Therefore say we the Minister looses the wicked conditionally when he bindes the wicked absolutely he looses the godly absolutely when he bindes them conditionally yea when he loose the godly conditionally he looses them absolutely and when he bindes the wicked conditionally he bindes them absolutely and that because the conditions upon which the first is loosed and the second bound are in them absolutely or are performed by them And a conditional loosing or binding where the condition is performed is absolute as before The Minister acting clave non errante bindes the wicked absolutely as to his present state but looses the godly absolutely both as to his present and future-state because the godly hath performed the condition of loosing and shall certainly persevere in the performance of that condition but many wicked men do not persevere in the condition of binding namely unbelief and impenitency therefore the Minister cannot binde them absolutely for the future Now as the Minister looses and bindes not onely conditionally but also absolutely in the word so he doth in the Sacrament And so he seals my loosing or binding whether I receive or not since the Sacrament seals the whole Covenant of Grace made with man whereof loosing and binding are a great part Nor is it material the Minister should know as such the persons whom he bindes or looses absolutely the binding or loosing being as sure and effectual though he do it ignorans as though he did it sciens volens Only the Minister must take heed he lose not either pastorally or juridically where he thinks in his conscience he ought to bind nor bind where his conscience tells him he ought to loose whether it be with the key of Doctrine or of Discipline Mr. H. ib. The word is a sealed word only to the Church the seal is delivered only for her use and therefore is to be applied only to her members Ans 1. He may as well say The word is a sworn and written word only to the Church God hath not only written but also sworn and sealed in the Sacrament the salvation of all beleevers and the damnation of all unbelevers whether they be Church-members or no And do we think the oath and seal shall not take hold of them as well as the writing 2. Cannot the word be a sealed word unless the Seal be applied to persons as well as to the writing I hope a Will is a sealed Will though the Seal be not applied to the Legatees but only to the Will it self Had God appointed the elements only to be broken and powred out I hope those very actions had sealed the Covenant though no person present had received and even now they do seal the Covenant before any person doth receive The Sin-offering did both signifie and seal pardon to the penitent offerer though he are not one bit thereof and so doth the baptizing of a child seal the Govenant to the whole Congregation though baptismal-water be applied only to the Babe Mr. D. Not only the tenor of the Covenant is sealed absolutely to the worthy receiver but also his interest in it And though the word speak not particularly of any mans single interest by name yet it doth by signs c. Mr. H. p. 192. If a mans particular interest depends upon these signs and marks then is his interest only conditional and must be sealed as it is and the rather because the word doth no where tell me that I have these signs and marks Answ 1. I deny the consequence as propounded by Mr. H. my interest indeed upon the supposition is conditional which is no bar to absoluteness as hath been formerly shewed But that it is only conditional is Mr. H. his mistake For where the condition is performed as it is in the worthy Receiver there his interest is absolute and is sealed absolutely yea though neither the Minister nor the Receiver know the condition to be performed God ratifying his Covenant absolutely to them that keep Covenant though neither the Minister nor themselves know they keep Covenant 2. The word doth no where tell Mr. H. in particular that he hath the signs of a man yet I hope the general That all men shall rise at the day of judgement doth as certainly prove that Mr. H. shall rise as if the word had said particularly John Humphrey Minister of Froom Anno 1653. shall rise at the day of judgement In like manner The word never sayes Thou Timot by shalt be on Christs right hand at the day of judgement but it sayes All the sheep shall be then at Christs right hand therefore it sayes absolutely Timothy shall be at Christs right hand Why Because Timothy is a sheep for the condition being performed makes the promise or prediction absolute and otherwise it s not an absolute truth that Mr. H. shall rise at the last day Set the propositions together 1. If Mr. H. be a man he shall rise at the last day 2. If Timothy be a sheep he shall stand on Christs right hand at the last day Here both the propositions are conditional in terms yet I hope they are absolute in sense Why I pray Because the conditions are performed in each of them for Mr. H. is a man and Timothy is Christs sheep Mr. D. visible interest is sealed to visible Saints Mr. H. ib. Church members are visible Saints therefore consideratis considerandis must be admitted Answ 1. I speak of visible Saints absolutely so he of visible Saints only relatively so that is divers persons worse than heathen that have nothing to plead but that they are born in the Church baptized in their infancy and have the name of Christians 2. True visible Saints must be admitted consideratis considerandis but Mr. H. will not considerare omnia consideranda therefore by his own rule his visible Saints must not be admitted Page 192 193. Mr. H. falls foul upon me as questioning Mr. Baxters truth of grace whom yet he quotes so blindly That 1. He mentions not Mr. Baxters name Nor 2. His book out of which he quotes Nor 3. Did I know it was Mr. Baxter or who it was particularly Nor 4. Have so much as read Mr. Baxters Aphorismes out of which the Quotation was taken Nor 5. Had Mr. H. reason to censure me for putting an if so upon Mr. Baxter presented to me under a confused disguise when himself puts an if so upon all the godly men in the world in saying The Minister cannot seal salvation to any but conditionally that is if he be Evangelically worthy and what is this but an if so Yet
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
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
D. Not so unless it can be proved the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance Mr. H. p. 244. To undermine me here he flyes to all the duties of the Law as if upon this account a natural man must forbear them all because they are not converting Answ But he overshoots himself 1. By not considering the difference between natural and instituted worship of which above natural duties are required of all by the Law of nature whether they be converting or no not so instituted duties unless they be converting or particularly imposed as was Aarons sacrificing Christs Baptism c. 2. By not putting a difference between absolute and relative duties the former must be done by all not so the latter It s as great homage to omit where God forbids as to perform where God commands This saves me the labour of answering a leaf Mr. H. p. 250. Where did Mr. D. learn a man must hear the word though he hear unworthily upon this ground because its a means of conversion Answ A strange question as if he that commanded me to convert did not in that very command charge me to attend upon all the means of conversion What he addes for confirmation is as frothy as his question is uncouth and hath formerly been answered Every duty of a natural man is turned into sin by reason of his state must he not therefore do his duty As we must not do a thing materially evill that good may come of it so I must do that which is good for the matter though it be evilly done for the manner and ever will be so in natural men that good may come of it Mr. H. p. 251. Mr. D. his distinction of abstainers and refusers cannot be applied here because a man cannot alwayes forbear an Ordinance but his omission makes him a refuser or neglecter And my question is Whether an unregenerate man must never receive Answ What if the ground of abstaining for a time hold alwayes Is there not still the same reason of abstinence No unclean person was to eat the Passeover Now I ask Mr. H. whether leprous Vzziah was not suspended and bound to abstain all his life long from the Passeover and why not pari ratione a spiritual Leper from the Lords Supper if his leprosie hold him to his dying day I hope Uzziahs abstinence was no refusal In the same page Mr. H. charges me with a malicious aspersion for saying It s an apparent falsity that the same thing is sealed to all in the Sacrament My assertion I proved because damnation is sealed to one salvation to another and these are not the same M. H. p. 251. That which is sealed is the Covenant and that is the same I hope Answ But I hope Sir the same branches of the Covenant are not sealed to all It s not enough to say two things are the same because they agree in genere proximo vel remoto for then flesh and Spirit fire and water man and beast yea the very Covenant of works and of grace should be the same which how absurd in common acception M. H. p. 252. The Sacrament can convert him that hath common grace because it can confirm him in common grace Answ Then the Sun Moon and Stars may convert him because they can confirm him in common grace But I pray where is the promise of Conversion by receiving the Sacrament M. H. ib. first charges me as saying The Receiver seals as necessarily to the condition of the Covenant in esse as in fieri And then spends half a side in disputing against me Answ He sets up a Puppet of my Text corrupted by his own gross omission and then fights against it My words p. 188. of my Bar are these The Receiver seals as necessarily in point of duty to the condition in esse as in infieri But those words in point of duty he omits and thereby makes my sense absurd His opposite instance of Children in Baptism is impertinent since he knows we are now speaking of intelligent persons Mr. D. By the very act of receiving he seals to faith in esse or de praesenti in point of profession The very language of his receiving the Elements is I receive Christ signified and offered to me in particular by them and therefore he that receives the Elements and doth not act faith at the same instant he plays the hypocrite wofully c. and so doth every unworthy receiver The sum of M. H. his answer to this in three pages is 1. That he hath true historical faith and therefore plays not the hypocrite 2. That the case is the same at all Ordinances 3. That Christ is given to him and received by him so far as he is in Christ 4. He is ingaged to receive sincerely 5. That he may receive Christ as the Minister tenders Christ that is conditionally 6. Mr. H. tells us in effect page 225. That by receiving he professeth not saving faith or that he is converted for he holds the Sacrament a means of conversion What else he inserts is in effect the same with these heads or hath formerly been answered Answ 1. By receiving he professes not onely historical faith or faith of assent that he may profess by bare presence though bare presence is not always a profession but also faith of adherence or that faith which receives Christ as his hand receives the Elements c. which is an act of the will an act of election But the natural man doth not so receive Christ when he receives the Elements and therefore in that act dissembles To the second The case is not the same in all Ordinances A person coming to hear doth not simply by that act profess faith in Christ instance 1 Cor. 14. 24. Besides the Word and Prayer are parts of natural worship to which all are bound be they dissemblers or not But the Sacrament as such is purely instituted To the third If by giving M. H. mean tendering which he must mean or he writes a tautology his assertion is false since whole Christ is tendered to him but not so received by him and so Christ is further tendered to a carnal receiver than Christ is in a carnal receiver for Christ is tendered to him sincerely and compleatly but Christ is not in him sincerely and compleatly To the fourth Is my ingaging to receive Christ sincerely a salvo for or rather is it not an aggravation of my receiving Christ hypocritically To the fifth I pray what is the condition of the Covenant but the receiving of Christ and so belike a natural man receives Christ upon condition that he receives Christ To the sixth page 255. this 1. Contradicts his second answer That attendance upon every Ordinance is a signified profession that we will obey the minde of God when revealed and he that doth not heartily resolve this when he hears mocks God by playing the hypocrite 2. Contradicts the known and acknowledged sense of receiving As the Minister tenders not
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