no but the promise of grace can be sealed to none but the Legatees of the new Covenant and such are only persons elected or effectually called understand me here as to the spirituall and saving branches of the Covenant and that is done on Gods part every Sacrament Secondly As for the Church and the Minister who cannot judge infallibly who are elected and effectually called they must proceed by the rule of visibility sealing the promises by the Sacrament to them and them only who upon just triall tempered with charity appear to be visible Legatees And as Christ himself respects not good words and outward profession when contradicted by our carriage Matth. 7.21 22 23. no more must the Church when mens carriage doth visibly contradict their profession Thirdly The Lords Supper being a Sacrament of nourishment seals not properly initiall but progressive grace nor can the Church apply it for conversion but edification and how are they capable of edification in grace who are destitute of all grace or of visible edification who are destitute of visible grace Fourthly In the Lords Supper not only sanctification but also the comforts of the Covenant are sealed to the receivers but how can the comforts of holinesse be sealed to unholy persons or by the Minister applied to those who are visibly unholy Ezek. 13.19 21. Pag. 46. He speaks clearly and truly That an unregenerate man cannot receive the Sacrament as a seal of his faith For how can faith be sealed to where it is not But what follows immediately Yet the Church can give it as a seal of the Covenant is either ambiguous or false Gal. 3.1 ambiguous if he take giving for giving out or holding forth for thus Christ may be given to all whether they receive or no but this is nothing to his purpose and proves onely that all may be present but not that all may receive It s false if understood of the delivery of the Elements to all persons who may be present 1. In Mr. Humphrey his sense who cannot Scripturally or rationally exclude either Infants distracted or excommunicated persons from presence yet will not admit them actually to receive 2. It s false in our sense who can admit either ignorant or scandalous persons to be present but neither of them to receive His illustration ibid. drawn from the Word preached makes against him if rightly stated True there may be true preaching though the hearers apply not the Word by faith But can there be true preaching where the Minister applies the Word wrong binding where he should loose and loosing where he should binde with the Key of Doctrine No more doth that Minister do his duty who in the Lords Supper looses where he should binde and seals comfort to him who is not a visible Saint Whereas in the close of pag. 46. he would make us believe there is not one tittle of Scripture to prove the Sacraments to he mans seals Answ 1. He speaks darkly and ambiguously as if he would make us believe they were not mans seales because they are Gods seales by which Logick he might as well prove the Sabbath were not mans because it is Gods and the Gospel were not mans because it is Gods yea that nothing were mans because all things were Gods as if humane propriety contradicted Divine Supremacy 2. If he mean the Sacraments are not mans seals by institution That is true but nothing to his purpose The broad seal is not mine by institution yet I may truly say the broad seal is mine when I have a patent or pardon sealed by it 3. Doth not the finall cause give as true propriety as the efficient nay usually more A seal a suit an house c. is more his for whom it is made then his that makes it God indeed hath a double propriety in the Sacrament as made both by him and for him namely to seal his Covenant c. but it being made for man also man hath a true propriety in it as he for whom either a seal or a meal is made hath in both It s ridiculous therefore he would seem at least to assert The Sacraments are not mans seals and yet grant pag. 47. They are mans seals in use Doth he not know that a Sacrament extra usum hath no being and so is neither Gods seal nor mans seal and that in use it is both Gods seal and mans seal a seal from God to man and from man to God The Covenant indeed stands sealed by God to ail conditionally but will that acquit the Church in delivering the signs to all as Mr. H. would have it pag. 47. Then why may not even Heathen or excommunicated persons receive to whom the Covenant is offered and sealed conditionally Again That the tenour of the Gospel is sealed absolutely by the Sacrament but not our interest in it as he notes in the same page is true in the first branch but false in the second since not onely the tenour of the Covenant is sealed absolutely to the worthy Receiver but also his interest in it 2. To those who are visibly worthy the Minister seals their visible interest which visible interest because some in the Church have not therefore the Minister cannot seal it to them by giving them the Elements but by consecration and application of the Sacrament to others before their eyes doth seal even to the standers by the tenour of the Gospel in the Lords Supper as well as in Baptisme In both Sacraments the offer of grace is sealed to all yea even to Heathen c. but reall interest is sealed only to reall Saints and worthy Receivers as visible interest to visible Saints Grant the Word speaks not particularly of any mans single interest by name yet it doth by signes and whosoever findes those signes in himself hath as true an interest in the Covenant as if he were mentioned in it by name The Scripture faith not particularly of Mr. H. that he shall rise at the day of judgement yet I hope Mr. H. doubts not of his resurrection in particular nor doth the Scripture say Mr. H. shall be saved yet if Mr. H. have saving faith it doth as particularly assure him of salvation as if he were mentioned by name c. Now the seals run parallel with the Covenant and assure conditionall salvation to all visible salvation to visible Saints reall salvation to reall Saints to the first by the outward administration to the second by visible application to the third by reall and spirituall application Whereas therefore page 48. Mr. H. pleaseth himself with this Embryon of his own brain which being formerly conceived by a piercing and godly man converted his opinion as he saies And if I mistake not this piercing godly man is far from Mr. H. his judgment of free admission Ans 1. I hope that godly person if so was converted before Mr. Humphrey his Embryon was hatched 2. I see little of conversion or piety in admitting all
pell mell to the Sacrament 3. I wish his conversion by entertainment of this opinion be not like that of the Galatians It s a common errour in these loose times to mistake perversion for conversion Such conversion calls for repentance which I wish to this godly man For further confirmation pag. 48. he propounds the tenour of the Covenant in a syllogism thus He that believes shall be saved adde I believe Ergo I shall be saved Then he denies that the Sacrament seals either the minor or the conclusion Answ The Sacrament seals what the Covenant of grace promises but the Covenant of grace promises and not only offers salvation to particular persons Rom. 10.9 That if thou shalt confess c. thou shalt be saved This is evident by the promise of salvation to believers in generall Mark 16.16 John 3.16 What is promised to a whole kinde is promised to every particular of that kinde Let Mr. H. tell me how the Sacrament seals the offer of grace to him in particular and I will tell him how it may also seal the promise of grace or salvation to him or any else in particular Where is it said in Scripture I offer to thee John Humphrey Minister of Froome c. grace and salvation by Jesus Christ will Mr. H. yet deny the offer of grace is made as particularly to him as if he had been named in Scripture Or where is it said Thou John Humphrey shalt not commit adultery c. yet doth not that command reach him as particularly as if he were named He that saies Omnis homo est animal rationale doth he not as truly say that Mr. H. is Animal rationale as if he had mentioned him by name In like manner when the Scripture saies All that believe shall be saved doth it not say that Mr. H. believing shall be saved If therefore Mr. H. de facto do believe it promises salvation as particularly to him as if he were mentioned by name or that I believing shall be saved as if my name were in the promise Where the condition is performed there the promise is absolute but when I believe the condition is performed Ergo the promise That I shall be saved is absolute This premised I resume What the Covenant promiseth that the Sacrament seals The Covenant promises that I shall be saved in particular Ergo the Sacrament seals that I shall be saved in particular But this is the conclusion which Mr. H. denied to be sealed by the Sacrament Next for the minor of his syllogisme namely That I believe I shall prove against him that this is also sealed in the Sacrament not to all Receivers but to all worthy Receivers thus as formerly What the Covenant ensures that the Sacrament seals the Covenant assures me that I believe Ergo the Sacrament seals to me that I believe The minor which onely is questionable I prove thus That which gives to me clear evidence that I believe that assures me I believe The Covenant gives me clear evidence that I believe Ergo. The minor is good because the Covenant affords infallible signes and evidences of faith in what heart soever it is and so of faith in my heart particularly or in any other heart whatsoever As therefore by the properties of a man I may know my self to be a man so by the properties of faith held forth in the Covenant I may know my self to have faith That Gospel which saies He who receives Christ for righteousness c. believes the same Gospel saies That I receiving Christ for righteousness do believe and so by consequence it faith absolutely that I believe But what the Covenant affirms that the Sacrament seals or ratifies namely that I believe in particular And this is the minor which Mr. H. denies to be sealed by the Sacrament For clearer explication consider that the minor or assumption of the Syllogism of assurance depends partly upon faith and partly upon sense or experience upon faith that the evidence is right in actu signato and not a false evidence upon sense or experience in actu exercito that this right evidence is in me For as a false evidence in me so a right evidence without me are both equally null and invalid as to assurance For example Would I know my faith is right and thereby come to assurance that I am in the state of grace I must look into the Word by a direct act of my understanding for a true and undoubted evidence of faith and into mine own heart by a reflex act whether that true evidence of saving faith be indeed in me As in the Syllogisme of assurance about my particular resurrection at the day of judgement the major That all men shall rise is in tearms in Scripture the minor That I John or Roger am a man is not expresly in Scripture but depends partly upon faith as to the essentiall notes of a man recorded in Scripture partly upon sense I finding by a reflex act that those essentiall signes of humanity are in me from both which the conclusion flows necessarily that I in particular shall rise at the day of judgement And indeed had not a conclusion drawn partly from faith and partly from sense been firm Christs apparitions had not been a solid argument to confirm the resurrection which yet he proves partly by Scripture out of Moses the Prophets and Psalmes partly by sense and experience Luk. 24 39 46. and though it be possible in some cases sense may be deceived yet a man in his right wits may easily know that hic nunc sense is not deceived And were not this true no man could possibly be convinced of his estate or that he is a sinner or that his life is frail and short or that faith and repentance is his duty or any other Divine truth that concerns himself in particular since it s no where said in Scripture Thou Roger art a sinner thy life in particular is frail and short faith and repentance is thy duty but all these in Scripture are expressed onely in generall tearms Yet I hope it s as true de fide that faith and repentance is my duty as if the Scripture should say Thou Roger must believe and repent c. The major then in the Syllogisme of assurance is in tearms de fide The minor also as to the truth of the evidence is expresly de fide but as to the inbeing of the evidence it depends upon sense and experience the conclusion is de fide by necessary consequence though not in express tearms Now whatsoever is de fide that is sealed in the Sacrament so are all three Propositions in the Syllogisme though the minor is partly of faith and partly of sense therefore all three Propositions of the Syllogisme of assurance are sealed by the Sacrament contrary to Mr. H. his Assertion And since the minor in the Syllogisme of assurance namely that I believe is the conclusion in the pros-Syllogisme it follows
necessarily that this Proposition I believe is de fide by consequence though not de fide in tearms Object The Sacrament supposeth assurance and therefore doth not work assurance It supposeth I believe and repent which therefore must be made out by previous examination doth not evidence that I believe and repent and therefore doth not seal the minor or assumption in the Syllogisme of assurance Answ 1. As the Sacrament works grace so it works assurance of grace and as it is a means of grace so it is a means of assurance Now the Sacrament as received is not a means of initiall but of progressive grace doth not beget grace at first by regeneration but increase and strengthen grace by nourishment and confirmation partly by acting grace and partly by holding forth applying and sealing the promises of the Covenant to every worthy Receiver What therefore the Word doth audibly in order to confirmation that the Sacrament doth visibly what the Word applies generally that the Sacrament applies particularly what the Word applies by one sense that the Sacrament applies by all our senses and therefore must needs be a more powerfull means of assurance then the Word The Word indeed is the instrumentall cause of initiall grace and ordinarily of initiall assurance but the Sacrament may be sometimes the means of initiall assurance and ordinarily is the means and instrument of progressive assurance My meaning is that whosoever comes to the Sacrament rightly prepared having both truth of grace and the evidence of grace this man or woman shall go away from the Sacrament with more degrees of grace and clearer evidence of grace and he or she that comes to the Lords Supper with the worthiness of person and of preparation though haply he may want evidence yet may go away from the Sacrament triumphing in the assurance of Gods love He that comes to the Sacrament with the Prophets fear I am undone c. may go away from it with this assurance Thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin purged Isa 6.5 7. As I at the Sacrament assure God of my obedience so God at the Sacrament assures me of his love and if I be reall in my assurance as to uprightness God is as reall in his assurance as to my comfort Psal 18.25 God in an especiall manner in the Sacrament delights to shew himself upright with the upright and then if ever leads his Spouse into the wine cellar or banquetting house and spreads his banner of love over her Cant. 2.4 When she is sick of love then he staies her with flagons and comforts her with apples His left hand is under her head and his right hand doth imbrace her Then in an especiall manner he kisseth her with the kisses of his mouth Cant. 1.1 and though Judas did Jesus will never give a treacherous kiss The major himself grants is sealed in the Sacrament the minor and conclusion we have proved to be sealed in the Sacrament Whereby it appears that the whole Syllogisme of assurance is sealed by the Sacrament to the worthy Receiver but onely the major Proposition to persons really unworthy Withall hereby it is evident that the Sacrament is not onely Gods seal but also the seal of faith and of the beleever whatever Mr. H. pretends to the contrary And so I pass to the fifth Objection pag. 49. Object 5. The Covenant belongs not to all therefore the Seals neither Mr. H. answers The Covenant belongs to all conditionally according to the tenour of the Gospel that whosoever believes shall be saved Answ So the Sacrament belongs to all conditionally but onely to worthy Receivers absolutely Pag. 50. he saves me a labour and answers himself in these words If you will resolve to accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour to forsake sin c. lo here is the seal of God on his part c. Here indeed he shews That as the Covenant so the Sacrament belongs to all conditionally But what if most do not will not accept of Christ c. which is de facto the case of grosly ignorant and profane persons will Mr. H. invite these also to receive the Seals together with the former Hear him in his own words pag. 51. To speak sincerely if we should propose two men one that is not in Covenant with Christ and one that is this Sacrament doth more ingenuously belong unto the first c. If this be not a rare and new Light I know not what is Now you have the man painted by himself in his own colours Come ye drunkards whoremasters murderers and all the rabble of hell here is sincere and comfortable Doctrine for you indeed The Sacrament doth more ingenuously belong to you then to any that are in covenant with Christ I but Mr. H. means this in case they now resolve to enter into Covenant with Christ ibid. Absurd and a contradiction in adjecto as if he who in truth resolves to enter into Covenant with Christ were not at that very instant in covenant with Christ He would say if he could hit it The Sacrament belongs more properly to weak then to strong beleevers but by an ill gloss he corrupts the Text and instead of a weak beleever renders one out of Covenant and for a strong beleever one in Covenant We grant the duty of the Covenant belongs to all but not the promise of the Covenant till its duty be performed In like manner preparation belongs to all but not actuall receiving till that duty be performed All are not bid to eat absolutely but so to eat 1 Cor. 11.28 In the same page by distinguishing the Covenant from its benefit he seems to make a distinction without a difference as if the benefit of the Covenant were not an essentiall part of the Covenant Haply by Covenant he means the duty or condition of the Covenant which indeed is of epidemical concernment yet because in the same place he speaks of a free tender and offer that crosses this construction and seems to carry it that by Covenant there must be meant the benefit of the Covenant which is tendred conditionally to all but then what sense can be made of his distinction The benefit of the Covenant belongs not to any out of Christ but the Covenant it self belongs to all that is the benefit of the Covenant as his sense carries it belongs to all Is not here a contradiction in terminis The benefit of the Covenant belongs not to any out of Christ yet the benefit of the Covenant belongs to all If it belongs to all how doth it not belong to any out of Christ contrà if it belongs to none out of Christ how doth it belong to all But no wonder he falls into self-contradiction who will venture to contradict the truth Rep. He would say Sacrament But what right doth this give him to the Covenant Pag. 52. M. H. distinguisheth of a right of Obligation and a right of Priviledge and as to the former he
and the Sacrament in their administration And here he triumphs poor man before the victory in these words immediately following Vpon this ground me thinks I stand as upon a rock against which all objections like waves do but dash themselves in pieces Answ 1. If the Sacrament have the same latitude with the Word then a Turk or Heathen may receive as well as a Christian but this is contrary to Mr. Humphrey his professed principles as well as to the truth it self 2. His consequence will not hold unless he can prove that verbum visibile converts as well as verbum audibile and that it was instituted for that purpose 3. Though it should convert it proves onely that all should be present not that all should receive 4. Granting his foundation I retort it upon himself As the Word preached is applicable to all so also the Sacraments But the Word preached is not immediately applicable to all I mean as to that part of its gracious offer which is particularly tendered and sealed in the Sacrament For instance there are some righteous persons in their own conceit that Christ came not to call Mat. 9.13 many self-justitiaries and conceited Laodiceans to whom in that condition mercy is not immediately applicable But to whom in statu quo the Covenant is not applicable to them the seales of it are not applicable and where such may be discerned by their gross ignorance or scandall they are visibly as well as really unworthy and should not be permitted to receive where there is a just Authority to exclude them 2. To come a little closer to Mr. H. As the Word preached may be heard by all yet cannot be applied to all in divers things so the word visible the Lords Supper may be seen by all but ought not to be applied to all in divers cases namely when that which is sealed in the Sacrament is not immediately applicable to them by the Word for the Word and Sacrament must go hand in hand together Ergo where the covenant of grace is not visibly applicable there the visible sign of that covenant is not applicable But the covenant of grace is visibly unapplicable to many persons in the bosome of the visible Church ergo And thus Mr. H. his rock proves but a quick-sand and his visible Word makes against himself His amplification from pag. 11. to the 15. is as impertinent as his Argument is weak We easily grant the Lords Supper declares the covenant of grace as a sign and ratifies it as a seal but that it s therefore to be applied to all is a meer non sequitur Indeed where grace is freely offered by an audible word all may yea and should hear it and where it s offered by a visible word all have liberty to see it and so may be present at the administration of the Lords Supper as well as at preaching and Baptisme But that all ought actually to partake be they in what state they will unless uncapable by age dotage or excommunication is a new light started by Mr. Humphrey which like an ignis fatuus will lead thousands into utter darkness Had Mr. H. either read or understood our meaning as easily he might had he pleased by what is extant in print in a first and second discourse by the Antiquaerist he would not have shot so wide at rovers as now he doth The hinge of the controversie turns not upon this point Whether all may be present when the covenant of grace is signed offered and sealed in the Sacrament but whether all present may actually partake thereof and in particular those who visibly reject the covenant of grace that is signed offered and sealed by it To keep to Mr. H. his own similitude pag. 14. A generall pardon sent by a Prince may be offered to all Rebels within his Dominion all of them may hear the pardon read and if need be see it sealed upon which some come in and submit really others professedly stand out against pardon offered a third sort seemingly submit yet secretly carry about them daggers or poyson to murder their Prince The King knows this and his Ambassadours strongly suspect it Now I ask Mr. H. 1. Whether pardon shall be sealed particularly to them that openly stand it out 2. Whether the Ambassadours ought not to try all that submit that it may appear who submit really and who treacherously and the latter being found out is Mr. Humphrey of the minde that pardon should particularly be sealed to them as well as to those who submit really If so I think he is a better friend to Traytors then to good Subjects or good Government Apply this case to the Lords Supper and it will quickly put an end to this controversie now again unhappily raised by Mr. Humphrey to the no small joy of profane and ignorant persons and grief of Gods people Every Sacrament seals 1. The truth of the covenant of grace 2. It s generall offer 3. By some of the Sacramentall actions it doth instrumentally apply the Covenant to every worthy Receiver and to none else Now if Mr. H. and other dissenters will please to understand us aright all may see the truth of the Covenant of Grace and its generall offer sealed and so may be present at the whole administration which is made up of severall Ordinances the sight and hearing whereof may be very profitable for all sorts But that the Covenant of Grace should be instrumentally applied per sigilla to all sorts is in a manner as bad as if it should be applied to them by word of mouth and haply in some sense worse Dares Mr. H. say to any person visibly in the state of nature Sir be assured that Christ and all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are actually and for ever yours And will he dare to seal that which he dares not say The language of every actuall giving is Christ is thine in particular and of every actuall receiving is Christ is mine in particular And shall any Minister dare solemnly to deceive any self-deceiving person and confirm him in presumption to the ruine of his soul when he may regularly prevent that mischief If this be not a strengthening of the hands of the wicked Ezek. 13.22 I beseech you what is To answer therefore briefly to his four Considerations held forth by way of conclusion pag. 15.16 17. To the first I answer Those whom we would not baptize bad they been to have been baptized at yeers of discretion those we cannot admit to the Lords Supper though baptized in their infancy And I ask Mr. H. whether there be not many such in England who yet are neither children nor fools nor excommunicated And here let Mr. H. remember his own rule p. 10. Adultis cadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti To the second The question is not about the freeness of the offer but about the freeness of acceptance and whether they who visibly reject grace freely offered ought
righteousnesse and salvation let this man be never so pious outwardly I should sooner admit a common adulterer c. then him Objection 4. page 41. The Seal is set to a blank if be admitted An. 1. For understanding this Objection the better we must know that what the Philosopher said in generall that Anima est rasa tabula is too true of all men since the fall in order unto saving grace They are Tabulae as capable of the Spirits writing they are rasae tabulae which notes 1. They are naturally destitute of this writing 2. This writing was rased out by Adams fall and thus all men naturally are blanks in order to the writing of the new Covenant in their hearts The similitude you have 2 Cor. 3.3 Heb. 8.10 2. This Blank is either visible or invisible To God all blanks are visible and he may use his liberty to set his seal where he pleases by commanding to baptise all Infants of beleeving parents c. and to admit to the Lords Supper all visible Saints that are Church-members The Question is then Whether man may apply the Seals to visible blanks It 's clear he may not for then Heathen themselves before instruction and profession as also their Infants might be baptised I assume But there are visible blanks in the Church as well as in the world namely persons that are as notoriously ignorant and profane as Heathen and who if they had not been baptised in their infancy should not be now admitted to baptism without evidence first given of their knowledge and piety Therefore say I seeing according to M. H. his own rule Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti they who at present would be uncapable of baptisme had they not been baptised are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper though baptised in their infancy The Objection thus stated we conceive to be good Le ts see now what M. H. hath to object against it I shall at present passe his first distinction as waved yet by himself Page 41 and 42. He conceive it 's a generall mistake that people take the Sacrament to be a Seal to their faith and if there be m true faith that it is set they think to a blanks Answ 1. Sacramentall seals as others relate either to parties or to things 1. To parties namely the Covenanters on both parts God and the creature in Covenant from God to the creature they seal the Covenant of grace from the creature to God they seal dutifulnesse and thankfulnesse Here we say the Church cannot apply the seals of the Covenant to any who are visibly out of the Covenant but in our Congregations there are many grosly ignorant and prophane persons visibly out of the Covenant You will say they are visibly in the Covenant as Church-members and professors though at large True but their visible profession is not equivalent to their visible ignorance and prophanenesse no more then profession of honesty is to open cheating as a cheater uncased loses the repute and priviledges of an honest man so an hypocrite uncased forfeits the priviledges of his profession and the Church both may and ought to take the forfeiture till the breach made upon his profession be repaired by a new profession of his repentance and promise of reformation yea and visible reformation too so far as it can be had and certainty if such a person may be denied all publike Ordinances in M. H. his judgement much more may he be denied one Ordinance He that deserves the greater penalty much more deserves the lesse Secondly To come neerer to his Answer Sacramentall Seals relate to things as well as to persons And thus as Seals 1. They confirm the Covenant 2. They confirm the faith of the worthy receiver 3. They confirm judgement to the unworthy receiver To apply the distinction 1. All sorts may be present to see the Covenant sealed 2. None but persons Evangelically worthy may partake these only having faith to be confirmed 3. None visibly unworthy may by the Church be admitted to partake as being visibly without faith either in the habit or actings thereof which last I note in reference to godly persons who sometimes may be justly either suspended or excommunicated 4. Supposing they may be admitted on the Ministers part where the power of the Keyes is imperfect yet to clear his own soul the Minister is to deal plainly with every unworthy receiver and let him know that he will but betray and murther Christ as our Saviour did to Iudas supposing he did receive and that the Sacrament which confirms other mens faith will confirm his unbelief and seal judgement unto him To summe up all That which confirms or ratifies is tropically a Seal but the Sacrament doth confirm faith and ratifie the Covenant to faith Ergo It s both a seal of faith and a seal to faith contra where there is no faith to confirm as to that particular it must needs seal to a blank as sealing to a blank is a known expression to note the application of a seal to a paper that hath no writings and where nothing is writ there nothing can be confirmed 2. That the Sacrament seals Christs bloud in particular for pardon to the receivers by vertue of its primitive institution is evident by comparing Matth. 26.28 with Luk. 22.20 The latter place saith This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you the former place sheweth for what end namely for remission of sins The language then of the Sacrament given to every receiver is the body and bloud of Christ is thine for the remission of thy sins and how dares any Minister say or seal this to a person known to be grosly ignorant or profane Pag. 42. God doth not attest our faith but the truth of his own promises but the Sacraments are Seals properly of the Covenant Answ 1. I know none so simple as to assert that God doth in terminis * My meaning is the Sacrament doth not say in expres terms thou Roger beleevest no more then the word doth but only by consequence attest our faith in the Sacrament as M. H. seems to insinuate the Sacrament doth not so attest but suppose and require faith and then seals the Covenant to faith 2. In vain doth it seal the Covenant if to no persons A Covenant cannot be but with some body and if it be sealed it must be sealed to those with whom it is made therefore the Covenant being sealed in the Sacrament it must be sealed to some body and sealed regularly it cannot be to those who visibly reject it but grosly ignorant and prophane persons uncased do visibly reject the Covenant of grace Ergo the Covenant of grace cannot regularly be applied to them by the Seals 3. If the Sacraments are seals properly of the Covenant why may not Infants and distracted persons partake of them who have a more visible right to it then grosly ignorant and
prophane persons have 4. As the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant so they may be applied to the Covenant before all but the Covenant may not by them be applied or sealed to any but to persons visibly worthy It s well therefore in the same page he corrects himself and grants the Sacraments may be seals of our faith consecutivè because they confirm and strengthen faith But he shuffles in saying They are not formaliter and in a true and proper sense seales unto any thing but the Covenant In a proper sense a seal is an artificiall thing fit to make a visible representation or impression and confirmation This the Sacrament is not properly but figuratively to the Covenant it self namely as it hath the office of a seal which is to represent and confirm and this it doth to faith as well as to the Covenant For 1. As it represents the Covenant it must needs represent faith as an especiall branch promised in the Covenant 2. As it confirms the Covenant so it confirms faith gradually offered and promised in it and thereby also confirms faith inherent in the worthy receiver as a Bond sealed unto me confirms my belief that the particulars sealed unto shall be performed and if this be not to seal in a formal and proper sense theologically I know not what is And thus increase of faith and all other graces are sealed by the Sacrament to the worthy receiver but neither the beginnings nor increase of faith are sealed to the unworthy receiver Nor will his instance of Circumcision pag. 43. help him as to the point in hand since Circumcision was applied to none but visible Saints either by Covenant election or by actuall profession not contradicted by living in scandalous sins or notorious ignorance of the Covenant of grace which is the rule we walk by in admission or non-admission And as little advantage will his cause gain by his illustration here again repeated drawn from a Proclamation sealed and offered to rebels that refuse it True the similitude holds in some particulars 1. The Covenant of grace is proclaimed by the Minister 2. The truth of it is sealed by the Sacrament 3. The benefits of it offered to all and therefore we deny not but all sorts may be present at the Ordinance as all rebels whether obstinate or submissive may be present at the Proclamation and sealing of a Pardon But what is offering a sealed Pardon in generall and conditionally to the particular application and sealing of the same Pardon to singular persons Or how can a Commissioner without breach of his trust assure either by word of mouth or seal pardon to a Traytor that visibly stands out against his Prince In like manner at the Sacrament not only the Elements do represent and seal the Covenant of grace as to its truth in generall but some of the Sacramentall actions as giving and receiving do particularly apply it to every receiver And how dares any Minister having regular power to deny it by word and seal apply the Covenant of grace to any person that visibly rejects it To illustrate this by the initiall Sacrament Baptism when ever administred seals the Covenant of grace as well as the Lords Supper but only to the person baptized doth it make particular application of the Covenant and therefore cannot be applied to any unbaptized person that is visibly out of the Covenant be he born of Heathen or of Christian Parents But all who are visibly in the state of nature are visibly out of the Covenant and such are grosly ignorant and scandalous persons willfully persisting in both Since therefore both Sacraments seal one and the same Covenant he who should not be admitted to the first were he unbaptized must not pari ratione be admitted to the second though baptized Page 44. Rep. by M. H. But is it not alsurd for a man to set his seal where there hath been no agreement and transactions before c. M. H. grants it's absurd on the receivers part but as for the Minister or Church who offer it as a seal on Gods part there is a true seal to a true copy and nothing out of order Answ There 's nothing out of order if the Minister proceed not to delivery of the writing and seal to those who visibly refuse the Covenant offered But should M. H. or any else deliver a purchase sealed to a person who refused the bargain let himself be Judge whether it were not an act both disorderly and imprudent And as disorderly is it to deliver unto any person bond and seal for the promised Land who visibly prefers Aegypt and Babylon before it God will not Ministers should deliver precious pearls to such swine What he addes Pag. 45. is also weak in which respect he doth well to cover the nakednesse of it with a blinde and misty parenthesis His words are these As they are Gods seals for the same reason they cannot be seals of faith because God seals not imaginably to our part of the Covenant which is faith Answ 1. Both the assertion it self and its reason are false For First Are they not Gods seals 1. As relating to Gods Covenant 2. As instituted by God himself to ratifie his Covenant Secondly Is not faith it self and every saving grace promised in the New Covenant unlesse M. H. will professedly turn Pelagian and make faith only the birth of mans free-will Thirdly 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 Not a seal from faith authoritatively as from God but a seal of faith as a branch of the Covenant promised and as a seal to faith actually laying hold on the Covenant If the Covenant of grace undertake not for our part of the Covenant we are in a worse condition now under the Covenant of grace then we were under the Covenant of works since then Adam had perfection of grace to back free-will but in fallen man free-will either hath no grace inherent or but weak grace to act it and impossible were it for any either to convert or persevere unlesse God under-took both for the infusion and supporting of grace Object If faith and grace be a part of the Covenant that is sealed by the Sacrament then the best way were free admission that the Covenant and so faith it self may be sealed to all Answ Not so For 1. Though the Covenant offer grace to all conditionally yet it promiseth not grace absolutely to any but the elect and persons effectually called to the first it promiseth initiall grace to the latter it promiseth progresse and perseverance in grace Now the seal can secure no more then what is in the writing but saving grace is not absolutely promised to all in the Covenant ergò it cannot be sealed to all in the Sacrament The offer of grace indeed is sealed to all present whether they receive it or
admitted Lu. 14 29 how came the unthankfull Guests to be excluded by the Lords own command who yet had farre better excuses to keep from the Sacrament then many of our Professors have Luke 14. 18 20. 4. If this be meant particularly of the Lords Supper then let me ask Mr. H. whether some worldly occasions may not justly excuse our absence and whether all are judged there unworthy who are sometimes kept from the Lords Supper by their worldly occasions The weightiest occasions cannot excuse any from the Marriage Feast But I think Mr. H. will not deny but some worldly occasions may excuse a man from the Sacrament as is evident by analogy Numb 9.10 More might be added to shew the weakness of his plea from these parables But whereas he addes pag. 10. Now who is that faithfull steward that gives the houshold their portion of meat in due season but these that are thus doing that is who admit all comers as himself there interprets What a gross sensless and profane interpretation is this For 1. What an easie matter is it to be a faithfull steward if this faithfulness lie in admitting all pell mell to the Sacrament 2. Will it not follow by this rule that the profanest Ministers who are most for free admission are the most faithfull stewards 3. That the most pious and conscientious Ministers who dare not give this bread of children to dogs are therefore unfaithfull stewards Lord whither will not a selfish opinion lead a man Whereas he there addes That Iohn Baptist admitted all comers to Baptisme yea even those whom he calls vipers Answ 1. He saies but proves not that Iohn did baptize all comers 2. Matth. 3.6 It s noted that they who were baptized confessed their sins and so made publick profession of their repentance Let our people do that privately before the Eldership which these did publickly before all the world or if they please let them do it publickly before all the world as the former did and see if we refute them to the Sacrament Should we require confession of sins in every Receiver before admission to the Lords Supper we should be branded with a witness as pleaders for Auricular confession We onely desire a profession of their faith before receiving which though weak yet if true in the judgement of charity we dare not refuse such And because we are sure there can be no faith without knowledge therefore as we our selves have been tried by others and that willingly we think it our duty to try the faith and knowledge of all under our charge and if we finde any grosly ignorant as we dare not at present admit them so we are willing to take pains with them by instruction to fit them for the Sacrament in future Whether this be more pleasing to God or the admission of all hand over head I appeal to the Readers judgement and to Mr. Humphrey his conserence Whereas for further confirmation he adds Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti Answ I mean Catechumeni I deny it if taken in the latitude For 1. Heathen may be admitted to baptisme but not to the Lords Supper by his own grant 2. Taking this Maxime for granted what follows but that as persons to be baptized must profess faith and repentance Mat. 3.6 Act. 8.37 so must they also before receiving which makes much for our purpose and against Mr. Humphrey His last proof is drawn from Act. 10.28 upon which instance he concludes with a rhetoricall Doxology pag. 11. I thank God I have learned this same lesson with a satisfied conscience to esteem no man unclean but all unless excommunicated free in the use of Gods Ordinances Answ 1. That God who had taught Peter to count no man unclean taught Paul to count some men unclean yea persons within the Church and not excommunicated Tit. 1.15 16. 2. Let Mr. Humphrey shew me the force of this consequence Peter was commanded to converse with a godly man though levitically unclean as not being circumcised and a proselyte which uncleanness after the death of Christ was taken away Ergo Paul ought to converse with a profane Christian that is morally unclean How sutable this is to Scripture see 1 Cor. 5.11 Further Peter is commanded to preach the Word to Heathen that were comers on and ready to receive it ergo Paul may administer the Sacrament to all ignorant and wicked Christians that reject Christ and his Word I wish he would play the Logician more and the Rhetorician less in matters of this nature lest he be found in the number of those Rom. 16.18 who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple 3. Consider how he contradicts himself as well as the truth pag. 3. he excluded Infants and distracted persons here his charity is so large as to exclude none but excommunicated persons 4. That by excluding excommunicated persons from the Word preached he runs into an uncharitable and dangerous errour hath been formerly proved which I will not here repeat Much more might be added had I leasure to follow him in his wild-goose-chace I think he may well be accounted a Master of Arts at wresting the Scripture and whether he hath writ more words or errours seems to me a disputable point For a further flourish in the same Page he heaps up Texts of Scripture that hold forth the offers of free grace to all which make as much for free admission to the seal of this Sacrament as an offer of pardon to all rebels proves that even those rebels must have their pardons sealed who stand out against their Prince as well as those that come in and submit upon pardon offered Let Mr. Humphrey and all the world know that we desire to keep none from the seal who will please to make it out to us that but in the judgement of charity they have a right to the thing signified Which may serve to take away that wonder of his How we can have the conscience to turn them away from the signes and means of grace in this Ordinance to whom the Gospel offers Christ freely Answ 1. With what conscience can he exclude Infants distracted and excommunicated persons to whom the Gospel offers Christ as freely as to any yea each of which may have the things signified and yet be denied the signe 2. Not generall offers of Christ but our actuall receiving of him visibly is the rule of admission to the Sacrament But how many persons do visibly reject Christ at least by consequence Tit. 1.16 and they who visibly reject the thing signified may justly be debarred the sign till they manifest their repentance Thus much for his proofs from Scripture Let us now proceed to his reasons and see whether he be better at argument then at quotation His first Argument is The Sacraments are verbum visibile a visible Gospel c. therefore the same latitude must be granted to them both meaning the Word preached
to be admitted to the sign and seal of that grace And here let me ask Mr. H. again whether his conscience did not check him for aspersing us with that soul slander pag. 16. That we admit none but such as are qualified to our own minde Doth not Mr. H. know that we plead not onely the Word of God which is abundantly enough but also the Authority of Parliament for what we do in this point by whose Ordinance not repealed we are civilly inabled to do what we do and have also from them after mature deliberation with the Assembly of Divines a rule to walk by against which if we transgress we are accountable to the civill Magistrate and dares he notwithstanding charge us with admittance of none but such as are qualified to our minde Or 2. That in thus doing we will not let people come without their price and money to this Ordinance Do godly Parents and Masters by keeping their children and servants from the Sacrament till they be sufficiently instructed in the main grounds of Religion do they I say in this pious act put them upon it not to come to the Lords Supper till they can bring their price and money to this Ordinance and yet shall godly Ministers and Elders who are spirituall parents and also specially inabled by the Magistrate a civil Parent to do the like be judged by one scarce out of the shell either in Learning or Divinity as if they were all the children of Simon Magus and drove a bargain of Christ and the Sacrament for money because they are carefull that persons visibly unqualified and who think to purchase Christ and grace for money may not have either him or it upon such base tearms 3. Is he not yet more ashamed in the same page to affirm Why this is even as they conceive of Judas who being about to sell our Saviour went out to make his bargain at the Supper It seems if Mr. H. may be judge 1. We are a company of Judasses 2. We betray Christ because we will not suffer others to murder him 3. We drive a bargain for the buying and selling of Christ because we use a rod made by Christ and publick Authority to whip the buyers and sellers out of Gods Temple Thus in the judgement of greater and wiser men then Mr. H. Christ was an enemy to Caesar Paul a seditious fellow c. The very mention of this slander is enough to refute it I say no more but the Lord rebuke and forgive the Authour of it To his third Consideration I answer 1. It s very dubitable whether full conviction be enough to conversion yea the stronger conviction is in the understanding the higher doth the will and affections rise against it if not conquered and sanctified by grace Rom. 7.8 9. yea to the commission of the sin against the holy Ghost Heb. 6.4 5 6. 2. That by application of the seal the message of reconciliation comes in its full vertue for the working this conviction and faith unto salvation is both a gross and implicated errour as hath in part been formerly proved For 1. Conviction of the truth and generall offer of the Covenant comes not by the Sacrament as sealing and applying to persons which rather conduceth to the faith of particular evidence but as signifying and offering Christ to all who therefore may with great profit be present at the Ordinance 2. Conviction that Christ is mine in particular cannot be wrought by actuall receiving in any but the worthy receiver and such is no ignorant person or any that lives and lies in a known sin who therefore cannot receive but to his own prejudice nor by Church-officers be admitted to receive if visibly so without their prejudice also who suffer him to contract the guilt of Christs body and blood to eat and drink judgement to himself and to do an act that cannot either convert or edifie him in statu quo but aggravate his sin and judgement as hereafter by Gods assistance shall more fully appear Before I pass to his fourth consideration there lies in the way one objection which is worth the answering which seems to cross our former assertion Object Christ suffered Judas to partake of the Lords Supper as well as the rest yet by that act sealed not to him that Christ was his and himself was in the state of grace c. for then he must have sealed to a falsity c. Ergo the act of giving and receiving in the Sacrament is no seal of evidence to any much less to all Answ Supposing the objection were true actuall giving and receiving seals either Christ or judgement to every Receiver and he that eats and drinks not Christ eats and drinks judgement to himself 1 Cor. 11.29 2. In its own nature and primary intention it seals Christ and mercy 3. The Minister in his acting ex officio applies mercy charitativè to all the Receivers who are visibly worthy 4. When therefore the Minister sees any present who are visibly unworthy if he he inabled by judiciall power he must not permit him to receive if not as it falls out where no Presbytery is settled he must either perswade such a person to forbear or else in plain tearms tell him the danger of his unworthy receiving and that he will prove a murderer of Christ as our Saviour did unto Judas by which forewarning I humbly conceive where Church-Government is not settled the Minister may clear his own soul as having not power of himself to admit or keep back without judiciall process wherein himself cannot be both judge and witness And thus both word and seal go together and assure particular mercy or judgement to Receivers as they are worthy or unworthy as the Priests word went along with the bitter water to do the honest woman good but the adultress hurt Numb 5.19 22 27 29. Contra though the Word make most worse yet it makes very many bad ones good but the Sacrament makes onely good ones better Object But doth not the Minister seal to a lie by giving the Sacrament to those who are visibly worthy yet really unworthy Answ He may possibly seal to an untruth but doth not seal to a lie as admitting that person whom in charity being approved upon due triall he may and ought to judge worthy As I may speak comfort to one whom I judge to be in the state of grace yet may very easily be mistaken about his condition 2. If the Minister notwithstanding suspect a person though legally approved he may and ought the more carefully to warn him to look to it he be what he professes himself to be lest otherwise for all mans approbation he eat and drink judgement to himself And by this means I conceive he may clear himself but cannot keep back him that is approved by the major vote of the Eldership onely afterwards hath power to appeal to the Classis in case he perceive the Eldership prevaricate and
sin for which they deserve excommunication it self and much more suspension which is but an inferiour degree of excommunication As truth of grace cannot excuse a man from death if he be a murderer c. so neither can it excuse him from Church Censures if he be foully scandalous especially if wilfull which yet for a time may stand with truth of grace witness Asa 2 Chr. 16.10 12. Doth not Mr. Humphrey know that a person habitually worthy may be actually unworthy or that a person invisibly unworthy may be visibly worthy and contra Did he never hear of the worthiness of person and the worthiness of preparation visible worthiness and reall worthiness Reall and compleat worthiness I mean as to its parts when a person hath grace and in some measure of truth labours to fit himself is onely known to God outward or visible worthiness may be known to man by due search and triall accompanied with charity and prudence in which better to fail on the right hand then on the left and where we see competent knowledge and have nothing to object against a mans conversation the person professing his universall subjection to Christ and desire to receive for his further edification the Eldership ought to give such a one the right hand of fellowship And should he afterwards be uncased the same power of the Keyes which admitted him can either suspend or excommunicate him according to the demerit of his carriage And whereas he objects That do what we can hypocrites will creep in That we easily grant but it s nothing to his purpose since not hypocrites simply but hypocrites as uncased or godly men as grosly extravagant are the object of Church Censures The best use therefore can be made of his peel'd onyon is to draw tears from his own and others eyes for these extravagant discourses of his whereby he hath as much as in him lies troubled the Church hindred Reformation strengthened the hands of the wicked and sadned the hearts of the righteous whom God hath not made sad Ezek. 13.22 Had we the peeling of his onyon we would take off onely the skin and make good use of the pulp either for food sauce or medicine And so much good do him with his Onyon whether he feed upon it or weep over it Pag. 23. His fifth reason he gathers from the uniformity of the service of God If all other Worship lies in common it is an intrenchment upon the common liberty to put an enclosure upon the Sacrament Answ 1. Let him answer himself if all other worship lie in common for this I suppose he means by uniformity for children and distracted persons unless they trouble the Congregation why doth Mr. H. enclose the Lords Supper from them Let him extricate himself and then see if we come not out at the same gap Where hath Christ in terminis forbid children and distracted persons to receive If Mr. H. can exclude them by consequence the same or like consequence will serve us to exclude divers far more unfit to receive then either of them 2. Must all Divine Service be laid in common because most parts of it are Why then not all time because six parts of time are so why not all places and persons because many are Let us bless God so much of his Service lies in common and not quarrell that all lies not in common since the best are unworthy that any part of Gods Worship should lie in common 3. There is no part of Gods Worship so enclosed but all persons of age and discretion may injoy it if the fault be not their own and that upon very honourable and equall yea easie conditions 4. As in every Ordinance some part is in common some part inclosed so is it in the Sacrament In every Ordinance a great part of the Letter is common to all the spirit of it is inclosed In prayer I can bless God for truth of grace wrought in some but can I without lying praise him for true grace wrought in all In preaching the Minister ought to apply some commands universally others to such and such states conditions and sexes threatnings to obstinate sinners promises to the penitent c. Is not here a plain inclosure If all parts of prayer or preaching be not applicable to all shall all parts of the Sacrament be applicable to all We deny not but all may be present at the exhortation consecration administration but the question is Whether all may actually receive and whether the seal may be applied to them whom the Covenant of grace in statu quo is visibly inapplicable Hereby also will appear the weakness of what he adds by way of amplification Are all the commands of God universall why not Do this also Answ 1. Many commands of God are not universall as was shewed before and why then may not this be of that number 2. If this command of actuall receiving be universall why doth himself limit it by excluding some persons 3. Then it were a sin for the Minister or any other to perswade any to forbear the Sacrament though he came with his hands imbrewed in blood or actually drunk or played the part of Zimri or Cosby in the face of the Congregation immediately before the Sacrament For neither can my wickedness nor the perswasion of any creature loose the bands of an universall command Were I certain this were Mr. H. his judgement as I have ground to suspect from what he delivers pag. 7. haply I might say more to him but till then shall forbear What further he objects is truth That an unregenerate man sins in every service and duty yet must not thereupon plead a quietus est from service but there is not par ratio in order to receiving 1. Because it s not every mans duty to receive 2 Because other duties though sinfully by him performed instance particularly in hearing the Word preached may be means of his conversion not so the Sacrament unworthily received of which more hereafter In the same Page he throws his glove first to the Independents then to the Presbyterians To the former in these words Let our Independents answer Why do you allow a Syntax in the whole Service of God besides and bring in a Quae genus of Anomalás and Heteroclites onely at this Ordinance Ans 1. The Independents are much beholding to him for his favourable opinion of them as good Proficients in Christs School They are good Grammarians indeed if they have perfected the Christian Grammar so as to leave in it but one Anomalum or Heteroclite 2. I think it s rather optandum then credendum that they allow a Syntaxis in the whole Service of God besides 3. Yet as to free admission in order unto presence at all Ordinances I beleeve they as well as we allow a syntax in the whole worship of God 4. Heteroclites and Anomala's are no more absurd in Worship then they are in Grammar As no rule in Grammar but bath
its exception so no part of Worship but hath its inclosure Of which afterward And therefore though I cannot justifie any of the Independents in separating from our Congregations yet if in excluding from the Lords Supper persons visibly unworthy they act upon the same principles with us in so doing though they bring in a Quae genus of Anomalacs and Heteroclites at the Lords Supper yet they violate not the Syntax of Divine Worship If they walk by other rules or principles not warranted let them plead for themselves I am not of their Counsell But for his challenge to the Presbyterians or at least some of them How we can admit of children as Members of the visible Church being born of Christian Parents unto Baptisme and yet turn away the Parents of those children from the Sacrament Those that have gone about to answer this had better haply have said nothing for our free course of Baptisme and a deniall of this is such a seam-rent as will never be handsomely drawn up though stitcht together Nevertheless in yeelding the one they have granted the other Answ 1. How can Mr. H. admit the children themselves to Baptisme and yet deny them the Lords Supper If herein he act by faith let him shew a Divine Precept by which he excludes them If he bring a proof by consequence let him consider if that or a like consequence will not exclude others as well as children for whom he keeps the door open 2. How can himself admit children to Baptisme and yet excludes their parents from the Lords Supper If the parents of a child baptized be either distracted or excommunicated Mr. H. being Judge they ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper whereby its apparent that even in Mr. H. his judgement the childes baptisme is no necessary medium to prove the Parents must be admitted to the Lords Supper which yet he urgeth against us but forgets how he wounds himself with the same weapon 3. To come closer to the Objection two things by way of answer are very considerable 1. That we clear and justifie the promiscuous baptizing of children of Christian Parents be the Parents themselves never so unworthy 2. That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper For the first of these We admit children to Baptisme 1. By vertue of their remote parents who may be good though their immediate parents be bad Acts 2.39 The promise is made to you and to your children and to all that are afar off c. To your children indefinitely not to your next children onely Which is yet more evident by comparing Levit. 26.45 Micah 7.20 where the Covenant of Ancestors and Parents extends to the children for many generations till the children themselves in person renounce the Covenant This also is hinted in the Text under the notion of them that are afar off which is extendable not only to remoteness of place or of state but also to remoteness of time that is as Beza notes to your children in remote ages to come Omnibus longè post futuris Nor is it in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gentiles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2.17 and so opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but future generations are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this particular mercy triumphs over justice in that God who punishes the parents sin to the fourth generation extends Covenant-mercy to a thousand generations Exod. 20. ver 5 6. Nor was Peters design here to foretell the calling of the Gentiles but to incourage his Auditors to faith and repentance since as Beza well notes upon the place the mystery of the Gentiles votation was not yet known to Peter himself nor was expedient to be revealed to these new Converts had he known it never so well As the Covenant of Adam so the Covenant of Abraham as the Covenant of Works so the Covenant of Grace is extendible to many generations and where the root is holy there not only the immediate but also the most remote branches are federally holy Rom. 11.16 and that whether the branches be naturall or ingrafted ver 17. 2. Children may be admitted by stipulation of others to see them educated in the faith into which they are baptized be the parents themselves never so wicked yea excommunicated yea Papists and thus bastards and foundlings may be baptized See Amesius his Cases lib. 4. cap. 27. Nay upon this account divers learned men very probably conceive that even Heathen children may be baptized if once taken into a Christian Family where the Governour or Governours undertake for their Christian education and they are out of the power of their Heathen parents for by being members of a Christian Family they are made members of the visible Church as civill though not naturall children of Christians I am sure this Doctrine is consonant to the Analogy of Circumcision Genes 17.12 where not onely the childe born in the house but also bought with money was to be circumcised yea bought of strangers and not of the seed of Abraham as is express and evident in the Text. Thus an Heathen born in the house or bought with money might eat of the holy things Levit. 21.11 3. These is something considerable in the immediate parents which makes their children capable of Baptisme and 1. Though they transgress yet they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do 2. They are Members of the visible Church till excommunicated and why may not the children be admitted to the same priviledge the parents yet injoy provided their tender age be capable of that priviledge and children are as capable of Baptisme as they were of Circumcision both being passive Ordinances The second thing to be cleared is That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper This is evident 1. Because more is required to make a person capable of the Lords Supper then an Infant capable of Baptisme 2. Personall unworthiness may easily appear in the parent which cannot appear in the Infant 3. It is not simple membership gives an immediate right to the Lords Supper and therefore though the parents membership do regularly make the childe capable of Church membership and so give it a right to Baptisme yet neither his own nor his childes Church membership can make the parent capable of the Lords Supper a priviledge not for every Church member but for a visibly worthy Church member Suppose the same person Timothy for instance baptized regularly in his riper years yea and admitted to the Lords Supper also as visibly worthy afterwards he walks scandalously he is 1. Admonished 2. Suspended 3. If persisting obstinate dismembred I beseech you what irregular proceeding is here 4. Therefore if the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for their own promiscuous admission
there avouches an Vniversall right to every Ordinance they being duties of worship which is of universall command for proof he quotes Isa 66.23 Answ If all be bound to come without exception then why doth himself exclude children and distracted persons Secondly All Christians have a mediate but only prepared Christians an immediate right to the Sacrament as all Israel had a mediate but only purified persons an immediate right to the Passeover Numb 9.10 Thirdly All are obliged to every part of worship but 1. Not at all times since affirmative precepts binde not ad semper 2. Not in all cases as an unconverted person is not bound to praise God for his conversion c. which he hath not To apply the distinction The time of every Sacrament is not a fit season for every person whether it be by his own default or by divine providence 2. In case of present incapacity receiving though an act of worship is not sinfully omitted unlesse that omission be joyned with contempt of the Ordinance His quotation is rather a prediction then a command and supposing it be both yet it must be understood with the forementioned limitations Fourthly In a strict sense Actual receiving is not an act of worship no more then preaching consecrating and distributing the Elements is And if it be not properly an act of worship then his argument falls of it self or if it be in a large sense as the other acts forementioned yet by them its apparent that all persons are not obliged to all acts of worship since only Ministers may preach baptize consecrate and give the Elements which yet in some respect are acts of worship What he adds in the same Paragraph about a poor souls doubting of his right to the Sacrament yet resolved to give up himself to Christ makes little for his purpose the Question is Whether any not resolving to give up himself to Christ ought to receive and whether upon his visible refusall to give up himself to Christ the Minister is bound to give unto him the symbole of Christ Object 6 The Sacrament is not a converting but a confirming Ordinance Ergo. Answ This indeed is one of our grand arguments against free admission and if it be not Cannon-proof our cause must needs be in a great deal of hazard it concerns us therefore to make it good against all M. H. his battery Now for overthrow of this Argument he pretends that our Divines look at Baptisme as converting the Lords Supper as edifying pag. 53. The former he willingly assents to c. The Question is not what some Divines hold but what they should hold For our parts we beleeve no Sacrament understand it as received is a means of Regeneration but only of confirmation and edification and supposing Baptisme be called the Laver of Regeneration Titus 3.5 which yet the place proves not it s only so by way of signification and obsignation not by way of causality In regeneration and conversion the Word is writ in our hearts but can any man either Scripturally or rationally make the seal the cause of the writing Is it not evident that Baptisme doth not cause but presuppose conversion Acts 2.42 yea and profession too in adult is Acts 8.37 and is called by Divines the Seal of Initiation not as it initiates us into a state of saving grace but into the body of the visible Church and as it may seal the truth and benefit of Regeneration to persons converted but not work Regeneration where it is wanting Passing therefore his flourish of denomination à parte eminentiori let us see how he proves the Sacrament to be converting His main Argument is Pag. 55. Because the Sacrament is a visible word holding forth Christ and the Covenant to the sight as the Gospel doth to the hearing And pag. 56. The Sacrament shews forth Christs death 1 Cor. 11.20 Therefore as it doth so it is undoubtedly converting Answ Doth not M. H. know that at the Sacrament there is a mixture of severall Ordinances as prayer preaching or opening the words of institution amp c. And that those may be effectuall means of conversion we deny not upon which account we judge it fitting that whoever will may be present at the Lords Supper as well as at Baptisme But the great Question is Whether actuall receiving be a converting Ordinance And here we challenge the challenger to give any one instance of a person converted by receiving the Lords Supper or to make proof that the act of receiving doth convert The Sacrament indeed is food to nourish but where is it called an immortall seed to beget any to Christ For his glosse page 56. There is in the Sacrament a Take for conversion and an Eat for nourishment It is gratis dictum and would make against the conversion of the Apostles who were commanded to take as well as to eat yet I hope they were not in an unconverted condition 2. Taking and eating do both imply and call for acts of faith but the act of faith must needs presuppose the habit of faith and so conversion He that sayes Take eat supposes a man hath an hand to receive and a mouth to feed on which no uncoverted person hath Object Why may not the command of taking Christ in the Sacrament be an instrument of Conversion as well as the same command is in the word preached Acts 16.31 Answ Because we have neither promise nor president of blessing the command of taking in the Sacrament as we have of blessing the word preached in order to conversion The Word is both seed and food not so the Sacrament which indeed may be food or physick but not a seed of regeneration nor is any where so called in Scripture And to attribute that to an Ordinance which God hath not put in it or to expect that from an Ordinance which God hath not promised to it is will worship an humane invention and a breach of the second Commandment I dare appeal to M. Humphry his conscience upon this account Suppose an unconverted person comes to the Sacrament in his pride and presumption stouts it still against Christ laid before him as crucified in and before the consecration of the Elements by the Ministers explication and exhortation what evidence doth the Scripture give that this man shall be converted by that one word Take uttered by the Minister at the delivery of the Elements I doubt not of Gods power but we must look to his revealed will The Papists say Hoc est corpus meum converts the Elements M. H. sayes Accipite converts the receiver we desire a clear proof of both before we can give credit to either But suppose the word Take as a short and virtual Sermon might convert yet what thinks he of that person who stands out against that word also can he be converted by actuall receiving Then that rule of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.29 cannot be universally true He that cats unworthily eats judgement to
one that doubts groundedly and hath no grace at all 1. It cannot convert him understand me still of actuall receiving as hath been formerly shewed 2. It cannot confirm him unless it be in sin by sealing judgement to him For can he be confirmed in grace who hath no grace at all 2. Where he saies The Receiver seals not necessarily to the condition in esse but in fieri I answer He seals as necessarily in point of duty to the condition in esse or de praesenti as in fieri or de futuro and that man who ingages not to believe at present plaies the hypocrite in ingaging to believe hereafter It is not with elicit as with imperate acts in the former he that truly wills them doth in part perform them whence Divines make a true desire of faith one degree of faith and he that in truth desires and resolves to beleeve hereafter may as well act that resolution now since faith it self as well as the resolution of faith is an act of the will And this M. H. would speak in those words Page 86. If he resolve now for the time to come without procrastination to walk according to the Covenant Is not faith the first step of this walk He that resolves in truth to beleeve cannot but desire to beleeve and the true desire of faith is both Scripturally and by the consent of Divines one degree of faith Thirdly 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 playes the hypocrite wofully mocks God and Christ and as the mockers of Christ were guilty of his death so is every unworthy receiver Pag. 86. He proceeds The faith therefore that is absolutely requisite to a beleever is not assurance but consists I take it of these two things only 1. An historicall assent to the Gospel c. 2. A resolution to submit to the Government of Christ c. Let a man then but believe his Creed and resolve to go on in no known sin that is the main c. pag. 87. Answ 1. I easily grant assurance is not absolutely requisite as a means but only in point of duty namely that every one is bound to labour after it and in order unto our benè esse or comfort 2. Against every Sacrament a Christian is bound in an especiall manner by soul-searching examination to make out his evidence and if he have truth of grace and take pains to search he will by Gods grace finde so much truth in himself as may bring him to some assent about his good estate though usually this assent be much assaulted and weakned with doubting for removing whereof the Sacrament is an especiall help But 3. Whereas M. H. professeth to know no other kindes or ingredients of saving or justifying faith but only an historicall assent and a good purpose or resolution 1. I must tell him he is very defective on the one hand as omitting the speciall act of justifying faith namely adherence or leaning upon Christ for justifycation and salvation which is an act of the will not of the understanding nor will his historicall faith for kinde go beyond the faith of hypocrites yea of devils Iam. 2.19 and will aggravate a mans damnation if the faith of adherence follow not upon it 2. I must also tell him he is as excessive on the other in mistaking a good resolution for a constitutive part of faith which is either an antecedent or a consequent and effect of faith antecedent if it be a Legall consequent if an evangelicall resolution I wish M. H. would study fundamentalls better before he come to be so criticall about superstructures By his following discourse pag. 89. its apparent he speaks very confusedly about the spirituall estate of a Christian For 1. He supposeth a man hath not saving grace and yet that at the same time he is willing to accept of Christ to leave sin and yeeld to Christs termes all which are most precious saving graces Afterwards he compares these graces to a little gold mixed with much drosse in a lump of Ore yet at last concludes God can make grace of these least beginnings as if at present they were not grace till God does as it were transubstantiate them and turn our water into wine By all which its apparent the man doth not sibi constare and no wonder then if he bring his Reader into a labyrinth Object 9 The Ordinance is polluted if all be admitted Pag. 76. The summe of his Answer is That the Ordinance is defiled only to the unworthy receiver not to the admitters or joyners Answ Though we place no great confidence in this Argument nor believe the presence or actuall receiving of a wicked person doth simply defile either the Sacrament or the communicants as had an unclean man eaten of the Passeover supposing he neither touched any clean person nor any part of the Passeover but that he ate that Ordinance had been Levitically polluted only to himself yet connivance both in the admitters and joyners contracts morall pollution as he that suffers another to sin where he may and ought to hinder him or at least do his endeavour in order thereunto is partaker of his sin Lev. 19.17 1 Tim. 5.22 His application of Mark. 7.15 and of Peters vision to the Sacrament is ridiculous pag. 77. For do we hold that any either person or meat is Levitically unclean Contra dares he deny that any person yea any meat may be morally unclean namely as defiled with sin or occasions of sin Tit. 1.15 That which enters into the mouth defiles not a man Levitically but morally it may defile him and that either by his intemperance or irreligious receiving of it as eating the forbidden fruit defiled our first parents and he who when he may hinders not these sins is himself defiled by sinfull tolleration We believe as well as himself pag. 79. That the unworthinesse of another should not make the true beleever separate from the Sacrament Yet if I know another grosly ignorant or prophane and do not either endeavour to reform or discover him his unworthy receiving shall be set upon my score alone without any prejudice to the other communicants If it be a priviledge of the Gospel to have free Ordinances and to account no man unclean in the use of them ib. How dares M. H. set a spirituall rayl as he calls it about the communion Table and thereby refine and spiritualize old superstition to use his own termes by keeping from the Sacrament Children and distracted persons who have a better right to it then many prophane ones that his charity can admit and yet in one breath accuse and condemn us for doing the like to that he allowes in himself
2. His doubtfull expression about coming though unprepared evidences his hesitancy about that particular and not without just cause True he that is bound to come is bound to come worthily but not contra he that is bound to come worthily is bound to come absolutely no more then he that was bound to come circumcised and pure to the Passeover was bound to come absolutesy Every Jew was bound to be circumcised pure and so to come to the Passeover but had he neglected Circumcision and Purification he was not to eat the Passeover at that time In like manner every Christian is bound to be 1. Habitually worthy 2. Actually worthy 3. And so to receive 1 Cor. 11.28 yet is not bound to receive but rather to abstain if he want either of the former The Apostle doth not say Let a man eat absolutely but so let him eat 3. Sinfull unpreparedness will not excuse a man from guilt but unpreparedness either sinfull or lawfull will excuse him from receiving A negative unpreparedness will excuse children and those who have urgent and just occasions that hinder them from receiving not so privative unpreparedness He that travelled of purpose to avoid the Passeover sinned not so he who had just and necessary occasions to travell Numb 9.10 13. But be unpreparedness negative or privative that man at present ought not to receive though he sin in bringing a sinfull necessity of abstinence upon himself None are threatned simply for not receiving but all are threatned in case they receive unworthily For further explication and confirmation Mr. H. propounds three Quaeries Qu. Whether the very eating and drinking of an unworthy Receiver be damnation He means Whether it deserve damnation He answers by distinguishing between the act of receiving which is good and the unworthiness which makes the sin onely and concludes That his abstinence from is a greater sin then his unworthy receiving of the Sacrament c. pag. 71. Answ 1. Receiving is alwaies a sin in him that is unworthy 1. Because he cannot but receive unworthily but that act which cannot be abstracted from sinfull pravity in dominion is necessarily sin 2. Because he is threatned but God threatens for nothing but sin Eating is not in it self a sin yet for a common person to eat the sin-offering was a sin So receiving simply is no sin but an unworthy person cannot receive without sin There is no sinfull act in the world but notionally you may abstract sinfulness from it but really you cannot when it comes to be acted no more can you from an unworthy persons receiving which is sinfull 1. In the manner 2. As prohibited to such a person in statu quo He is bound indeed to get worthiness and then to receive but he is not bound to receive till he be Evangelically worthy As a naturall man ought first to get grace and then assurance but not to study assurance without grace 2. Abstinence from the Sacrament arises out of contempt or from a grounded evidence and consciousness of Evangelicall unworthiness The former is more sinfull then bare receiving the latter is warrantable yea commendable 1. If it humble the man though but legally 2. If it put him upon care and diligence to prepare for the next Sacrament 2. Qu. pag. 72. His second Quaere is Whether receiving the Sacrament unworthily is otherwise damnable then praying and hearing unworthily Answ It is and that 1. Because praying and hearing are universall duties I mean for all sorts be they children distracted or excommunicated or otherwise unworthy so is not receiving in Mr. H. his own judgement 2. Because praying and hearing are means of conversion so is not actuall receiving His superstructure upon the coutrary supposition I omit since that will tumble down of it self the foundation failing 3 Qu. His third Quaere pag. 74 is Whether an unregenerate man conceiving himself not worthy must never come to the Sacrament for fear of eating his damnation The summe of his Answer is That upon the same ground he must also abstain from hearing since he cannot but hear sinfully and so provoke God c. Answ 1. Not so unless it can be proved the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance 2. Grant some parts or acts at the Sacrament may convert this proves onely that all may and ought to be present to see and hear Christ crucified but it makes nothing for actuall receiving which ever makes an unworthy person eat damnation and therefore doth not convert him He that hears unworthily may be converted not so he that receives unworthily at that time 3. In the close of this Quaere He can put no medium between receiving unworthily and an open refusing to receive I shall therefore help him at a dead lift and intreat so much charity of him as to believe that all abstainers are not open refusers and tramplers upon the blood of Christ no more then he who forbore the Passeover being in a journey or unclean was Yea some godly persons but out of fear of unworthiness dare not sometimes come will he say these trample upon Christs blood Why may not legall conviction fright a naturall man as well as a godly man from receiving Sense of unworthiness may prevail upon a Demas as well as upon a Nathanael and make him affraid of the signes as well as of the thing signified yet neither of them at that time like swine trample upon the blood of the Covenant but think it insinitely too good for them In his new Edition pag. 85. he inserts three pages more for amplification of the eighth Objection He takes upon him to answer a question of his own propounding His Question is misty and his Answer is in part false The summe of his Answer is The alteration is made onely in us the seal is the same and what is sealed is the same Answ Is not here an apparent falsity as to the latter branch of the Answer unless he will make salvation and damnation to be one and the same thing If salvation be sealed to the worthy damnation to the unworthy Receivers then surely though the seal be the same yet what is sealed is not the same thing As to use his own similitude though the Sun be the same yet the sunshine and the shadow or light and darkness are not the same but privative contraries But no wonder if loose principles produce such loose conclusions Rep. But suppose a poor soul doubts of his faith does this bring any relief to him uncertain of the Condition Answ Methinks it doth the condition of the Covenant may be considered as in esse already wrought in us or in fieri as to be done or performed of us The Receiver seals not necessarily to the condition in esse but in fieri obliging himself for the future to believe and obey c. Answ 1. True the Sacrament may bring relief to a doubting soul who hath indeed truth of grace but doubts of it But what relief can it bring to