quo from the Sacrament 4 ly It lies upon Oeconomicall Parents to make search who are grosly ignorant and scandalous in their families by Catechising and watching over their Children and Servants and in the use of private as well as publick means to bring them to some competent measure of knowledge and at least to profession of repentance before they suffer them to Receive Deut. 6. 7. Prov. 31. 27. And why Spirituall Parents should not do the same there being the same ground of the one as of the other a solid reason cannot be given Both are betrusted with soules both must take care to prepare those under their charge for the Sacrament which is impossible for them to do at least in respect of divers both Children Servants and People if in spight of Parents persons though never so ignorant and scandalous might thrust themselves upon the Sacrament 3 ly Because he laies so much stresse upon keeping persons from the Sacrament uridicall and by compulsion I believe it would puzzle Mr. Humphrey to prove that we have kept any away in that manner Divers of our people will not come to Sacraments though they may others desire to come but will not submit to tryall Such we intreat to excuse us and thereupon they abstain though with discontent But where have we juridically or by compulsion kept any from the Sacrament If there be any such thing amongst us I am confident it is very rare I wish Mr. Humphrey were so good a friend as he pretends to this prudentiall care of Church Governours about the Sacrament then would he perswade people upon prudence to submit to tryall and not blow up the division between Pastour and People by crying out so causlesly Violence and Compulsion Where any benefit or priviledge is offered upon fair and honourable conditions and upon sleighting the condition is denyed will Mr. Humphrey look at such a condition as compulsion Or if any refusing the condition shall catch at the Commodity by violence may not his violence be repelled with violence in such case is not the former chargeable with violence rather then the latter Yet God be thanked we have no such custome but we have reason to fear that Mr. Humphrey his Book may put heady people upon waies of violence in order to the Sacrament though he drive no such designe in the publication thereof Mr. Humphrey being urged with the Book of Common-Prayer answers As for the Rubricks allowing the Minister to suspend some notorious evill livers I take it upon the account of ipso jure excommunicate c. Ans 1. The Minister is not only allowed but commanded to suspend in these words The same course shall the Curate take with those c. not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table c. 2 ly The object of the Suspension is not only adulterers c. but malicious envious and ignorant persons yea such as wrong their neighbours in word or deed and will not be perswaded to make them reparation all which indeed are very great sins though too rife in and slighted by many Professours and Church-members And particularly for persons grosly ignorant I appeal to the form of confirmation which gives charge for their suspension in these words There shall none be admitted unto the holy Communion untill such time as he can say the Catechism In order whereunto both Ministers and Governours of Families are commanded to be diligent in point of instruction and then to return the names of persons so instructed to the Bishop that he might examine and approve them From all which compared with Mr. Humphrey his present Explication and Interpretation I conclude That either ignorant and envious persons are ipso jure excommunicate or that persons may be suspended though not ipso jure excommunicate He addes Pag. 84. We may distinguish haply between sins that cannot stand with sincerity or with profession as Church-members It may be the Rubrick teaches the last Ans Passing his hesitancy in this distinction for which it may be his heart checkt him we are beholding to Mr. Humphrey for this answer 1. He grants some sins and particularly wilfull sins cannot stand with sincerity Thence I gather That in Mr. Humphrey his own judgment an hypocrite may evidently and certainly be discerned If so then I hope we may judge some mens hearts to be naught without entring upon Gods Throne or prying into Gods secrets an heavy charge he laid formerly upon us 2 ly It 's Mr. Humphrey his judgment that though it be certainly known a person is a wicked man in the state of nature and in the gall of bitternesse for such are all who have no sincerity yet he must be admitted to the Sacrament so he be a Church-member Are they jure excommunicate who fall into some scandalous sin though as to their state reall or hopefull Saints and shall not they be jure excommunicate who are known to be in the state of nature Shall the Lambe for a Wolvish act be denyed the Childrens bread and shall a known Wolfe stript of his Sheeps cloathing sit at the Childrens Table upon this account only because he is crept into the Fold Jud. ver 4. Mr. Humphrey But for Mr. Drake now me thinks he should blush to produce me this Authority which himselfe despises Ans 1. Suppose this charge were true may not I urge him with that Authority I conceive he ownes because I own not the same Authority Were I a Jew and despised the new Testament yet I hope it would not be irrationall for me to presse him being a Christian with the New Testament 2 ly His Charge is false I despise not the Book of Common-Prayer though I approve not divers things in it and about it and for which I have both solid reason the consent of the most pious in the Nation and both Houses of Parliament to back me As to the point in hand If the Exhortation in the Communion make it utterly unlawfull to be present unlesse we receive I must crave liberty to dissent from it in that particular and must oppose to this precept the practice of the Primitive Church But may there not be a candid interpretation of that Passage The Exhortation is but against those who sleight and neglect the Sacrament and withall stand by as Gazers Compare Acts 1. 11. who may come and will not This certainly is a great sin But will Mr. Humphrey thence conclude that because some may not taste therefore they may not hear and see the goodnesse of the Lord in the Sacrament Shall I not come as near the Lord as I can because I cannot come so near him as I would Pag. 85. Mr. Humphrey page 56. Mr. Drake acknowledges this practice of his were against the well being of a true visible Church if the Lords Supper were a priviledge due to all members I think herein his cause is yielded to all clearly but what we have excepted Why I pray Because our
any make this good I shall thank them for their pains and be the first shall put fire to my ney and stubble I hope the pious and judicious Reader will not count this bitter censoriousnesse no nor Mr. Humphrey neither upon a second review I cannot judge Sacramentall tryall a truth but I must needs judge the opposite Doctrine an errour and by consequence that they who promote it do work for Sanballat as to that act however as to their persons they may be true Jewes Let Mr. Humphrey say as much of me I shall not think him censorious at all much lesse bitterly censorious Indeed page 65. I speak these words to Mr. Humphrey Let him take heed lest in this rash censure he be not like Korah and his Company Yet 1. I hope not every one that doth somthing like Korah is presently of Korah's company Nor 2 ly did I say he was of Korah's number or company only I ventured to Item him that in rash censuring he be not like Korah c. 3 ly In my best apprehension his rash censure is too like the clamour of Korah c. Numb 163. And 1 Korah affirmes that all the Congregation was holy just as all our Congregations are cryed up to be holy yea every member of our Congregations 2 ly That Moses and Aaron took too much upon them and lifted up themselves c. as too many judge the Presbyterians though I must not say Mr. Hamphrey doth so for fear I should be thought censorious Let the Reader consult Mr. Humphrey his Vindication page 20. and his Rejoynder page 91. and I hope he will judge more charitably of my former Item then Mr. Humphrey doth Mr. Humphrey Pag. 94. And should I now return him his own language page 61. See you not here how the vizard of piety falls off and his breath and pen savour rankly of pride Should I say If this do not smell of sublime Pharisaisme I beseech you what doth For my part when he can even wish the earth might open and swallow me I sire the Lord to open his eies to see the rents he helps to make to swallow up the Church c. Ans 1. Doth not a godly man's Unchristian censure make the vizzard of piety fall off and his breath and pen smell rankly of pride in that act Those words Mr. Humphrey left out of his charge against the Letter of my Text by omission of which the Reader might conceite I censured his person as a proud hypocrite which uncharitablenesse I desire to adhor The reason why I concluded those words of his savoured of pride and hypocrisie see in my Bar page 60. and if it be not solid let the Reader censure me for so condemning that passage of Mr. Humphrey's Proportionably may not some acts of a godly man savour of sublime Pharisaisme 2 ly Far be it from me to wish The earth might open and swallow him Let Mr. Humphrey shew but such a wish in all my Book I shall hartily ask God and him pardon I know of no such expression I abhor it and shall abhor my selfe for it if any such bitter passage slipt from me I desire Mr. Humphrey to convince me or to clear me 3 ly I desire as heartily as Mr. Humphrey that God would open mine eies to see where I make any rents in the Church Surely either Mr. Humphrey or my selfe must be guilty of this sin he thinks I am I think he is haply both of us may be too guilty by our inordinate heats We cannot tell how to debate and convince each other but we must be angry And truly when the Shepheards are so hot in divifion the Flocks cannot be very firm in union Yet waving passion on both sides as extrinsicall yea prejudiciall to our cause that party who promotes and stickles for error helps by rents to swallow up the Church Mr. Humphrey charges me I him with Error about Sacramentall tryall let the Reader weigh Arguments and Answers on both sides and then judge who is the Rent-maker and Church-swallower Mr. Humphrey Pag. 96. I pitty Mr. Drake's poor excuse telling us that the Pharisees judgment Luk. 18. was private and without tryall as if a thing for being the more publick were the lesse evill and when he judges himselfe worthy and many unworthy he askes this Question Yet how do we think our selves better then others Ans 1. The Pharisee's judgment was private as to his Call or Authority 2 ly It was rash without tryall had so is not the judgment of Church-Officers who are called by Christ to judge and proceed according to evidence from the party himselfe or from sufficient witnesse Mr. Humphrey leaves out this latter and plaies with the ambiguity of the word Private to make my sense ridiculous 2 ly How do I judge my selfe worthy who was not admitted to the Lords Supper but upon the same account upon which if regularly Mr. Humphrey himselfe was admitted to be a Minister namely upon tryall and examination by Church Officers Doth Mr. Humphry judge himselfe worthy to be a Minister because with the Presbytery of Ministers he tries candidates for the Ministry and upon evidence of insufficiency he with other assisting Ministers judges some of those candidates not yet fit for the Ministry Surely if any they who make themselves the sole judges of their own Sacramentall or Ministeriall worthinesse are the persons that judge themselves worthy Mr. Humphrey Mr. Drake will aâ—…mit none to Christs Table unlesse converted aâ—ready Ans Dr. Drake hath no such word nor any such intention his whole discourse being for the admission of all Church-members who are in the judgment of charity converted whether they be really converted or no. In the same place he finds fault with my Interpretation of Christs calling not the righteous but sinners Luke 5. 31 32. and saies it must be taken in regard of the effect not tender of his grace Ans 1. If so then Christ doth not call proud Pharisees effectually What then doth Mr. Humphrey think of St. Paul was not he a proud Pharisee yet called effectually If he say Paul was not called effectually while he was proud True no more was he called immediately to saving repentance till he was legally humbled As therefore Christ called not Paul to Evangelicall repentance effectually till he was legally humbled so he tendred not saving grace immediately to him as proud but as legally humbled which is a middle thing between a proud Paul and a converted Paul Christ tenders grace mediately to the proud sinner immediately to the humbled sinner Matth. 11. 28. nor doth he call the proud sinner effectually till humbled and by humiliation Christs Call then doth as truly respect the tender as the effect he tendring grace orderly as well as calling to grace orderly Mr. Humphrey page 97. The third was a sweet place John 8. where who doth not see how importinent Mr. Drake is about opening that Text as if he could 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
weaknesse of this answer of Mr. Humphrey will easily appeare to a mean capacity The twelve sate down with Christ ergo the twelve that is every of the twelve received the Lords supper To make out his assertion he must prove not only that all the twelve sate down together but that they also stayed all the whiletogether til the Comon-supper the Passover and the Lords Supper were ended Doth it follow because twelve sit down together at a Feast therefore they must needs all sit at Table together or be present in the same room til all the Courses be served we grant Judas was present at the Common-supper haply also he received the Passover which yet some doubt but doth it hence follow that he was present at the Lords supper also Is it not said that upon the receiving of the Sop immediatly Judas went out John 13. 30. and that Sop he received at or before the Passover after which the Lords Supper was instituted and administred To my second That twelve is here put for eleven He answers None that can tell twenty will believe me Ans 1. Let Mr. H. remember his own rule a good rule and stand to the judgement of the Scripture 1 Cor. 15. 5. Christ after his resurrection appeared to the twelve but Judas was at this time dead and Matthias was not yet chosen in his room Ergo here twelve is put for eleven Secondly this is ordinary for roundnesse of number yea in this very case Mar. 14. 17. twelve are put for ten since two of the Apostles he sent before to prepare the Passover ver 16. and at the evening himselfcomes with ten of them who yet verse 17. are said to be twelve Mr. Humphrey proceeds Pag. 11. His argument is this Because twelve is put for eleven when there were but eleven therfore twelve must be put for eleven where there was twelve Ans What is this but a meer begging of the Question Mr. Humphrey asserts that all the twelve received the Lords Supper I answer it s not affirm'd in Scripture that the twelve received 2. Had it been affirmed yet twelve might be put for eleven by roundnesse of number as in the former instance to which his finall answer is I but there were twelve there which is the very question in dispute between us By the Law of dispute he being opponent and I respondent he ought to solve my distinction and not barely to say but to clear it that twelve in the businesse of the Lords Supper cannot be understood or taken for eleven by roundnesse of number I shall ever acknowledge the force of St. Luke as of every other Scripture but I deny that Luke saies either in terms or by consequence that Iudas was present at or received the Lords Supper and therefore as yet neither my five Arguments nor 26. Authors are confuted by St. Luke See Mr. Collins more to this purpose in his vindic suspensionis c. pag. 62. 63. True Luke mentions per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those words of our Saviour But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table after the Celebration of the Supper doth it therefore follow they were uttered in that order I have proved the contrary by comparing the two other Evangelists I shall instance in another Hysterology wherein the order is inverted by Saint Luke yet without any prejudice to the truth Matth. 4. 8. The temptation to worship the Devill is the third and last which yet Luke makes to be the second and middlemost Luke 4. 5. In like manner Matthew mentions the prediction of Peters denying Christ after their going to the mount of Olives Matth. 26. verse 30 34. so doth Mark Chap. 14. verse 26-30 which yet Luke mentions before it Chap. 22. verse 34-39 as also doth Saint John Chap. 13. verse 38. compared with Chap. 18. verse 1. Here then in two of the Evangelists there must needs be an Hysterology without any prejudice to the truth of the narrative and why not in our businesse also We deny not but those words Behold the hand c. were spoken at the Table but it lies upon Mr. Humphrey to prove that it was the Lords Table at that time when our Saviour uttered those words We believe it was first a Common Table secondly the Paschall Table thirdly the Lords Table and that those words were spoken by our Saviour when it was a Common Table or a Paschall Table but not when it was the Lords Table and withall that Luke attended not so much upon the order as the truth of the narrative But suppose Judas was present and received what doth this advantage Mr. Humphrey He thinks much because neither Christ nor his Apostles did examine Judas c. Ans The Apostles upon supposition of Judas his receiving were but his fellow communicants nor do we think it necessary that fellow communicants should examine one another before receiving And for our blessed Saviour it followes not because he thought it not necessary then to examine the Apostles therefore it is not necessary for Church-Officers to examine the people before receiving Yea as Mr. Collins well notes in his Vindiciae suspensionis c. page 41. 53. It is worth the observing that Christ did not so much as call upon the Jewes in the same house to receive the Lords Supper which he would have done probably if he had intended it for All or for a converting Ordinance Christ thought it not necessary then to admit either ordinary Christians or Women to the Lords Supper or to put the Apostles upon selfe-examination before the Lords Supper at this time is it therefore now not necessary that the people and particularly women should be admitted to the Lords Supper or is it not necessary a man should examine himselfe before he eat c Must Church Officers give an account of their people to God and must they not take an account of their people I added further That as Judas was not suspected by the rest of the Apostles so he had not yet actually betrayed Christ and it is absurd to punish any for a future sin To this Mr. Humphrey opposeth an other passage of mine page 102. and then infers Christ may not keep away Judas because he had not actually betrayed him but Mr. Drake must needs keep men away for fear they should betray him Ans 1. Let the Reader take notice that Mr. Humphrey wrongs my Text page 102. by leaving out a very materiall part of it the words are these We keep men away to prevent certain scandall by the admission of Persons visibly unworthy Which last words of my Text he utterly omits that thereby my sense may appear more ugly But those words being added there is no contradiction betwixt Christs practice and ours upon the supposition that Judas did receive since Judas was not visibly unworthy to Christ as a Man or Minister but as God who knew both Judas and other hypocrites from
excommunicate is but a case of prudence and if so then we should plead for the suspension of others who are visibly unworthy only as a case of prudence too Nay 2ly will it not follow hence that the excommunication of persons jure excommunicate is but a case of prudence too the admitting of women to the Sacrament c. is but a case of prudence too I believe Mr. Humphrey will finde at last that such cases of prudence are good cases of conscience it being the most prudentiall as well as conscientious way to submit to all the commands of Christ whether they be in expresse termes or by good consequence laid upon us in the Scripture In the same page he comes to my Exceptions the first that Infants and the distracted as deaf persons are to come to the Word therefore they are not uncapable of the Ordinances Mr. Humphrey For the deaf he speaks miraculously well for Infants they were better keep at home but only for the sake of them that tend them His Text Deut. 29. c. is good to prove their Covenanting by their Parents in Baptisme where there is only a passive reception and the benefits relative but as to the Ordinance of Hearing it must be actuall and they are uncapable of any reall work by it Ans 1. Saving the jest which Mr. Humphrey can break miraculously well my discourse page 13. and 14. speaks nothing of any miraculous working farther then every work of conversion is miraculous indeed a far greater miracle then all miraculous cures upon the body John 14. 12. The working upon Infants and deaf persons at the Word I do not say by the Word upon blind and paralytick persons at the Lords Supper may be extraordinary but no more miraculous then is the working upon persons at age and who have their senses perfect No Ordinance is a naturall but only a morall instrument of conversion which God useth arbitrarily and can when he pleaseth work without them I do not say this is all God requires but this is the least he requires That God requires of his creature is either active or passive presence that I should either present my selfe or be presented before the Lord according to my capacity The Ordinances have an aptitude to represent offer or seal and when specially elevated by divine benediction to apply Christ grace either initiall or progressive all of them the latter some of them the former also to any Church-member whether he have an active or only a passive capacity Thus Infants sanctified from their mothers womb may at the Ordinance of Baptisme at least have further degrees of grace infused and that God who infuses grace into some of them before any Ordinance used can infuse more grace upon the use of any Ordinance though the Infant be no more sensible of progressive then of initiall grace or of the Ordinance by or at which it is wrought Gods operation upon Infants others naturally uncapable are secret the creatures worke is to get in the way and road of grace that the very shadow of mercy passing by may overshadow some of them Acts 5. 15. If I be in the way of mercy who knowes but it may spread a skirt over me and make it a time of love Ezek. 16. 8. A beggar bringing his babe to a rich mans gate may obtain not only strong meat for himselfe but milk for his babe though it be not sensible of the benefit or how it comes by it The places I quoted are not so slight to prove Infants must be present at the Word Read or Preached c. as he would make them True Deut. 29. 11 12. they were before God to enter into Covenant But Deut. 31. verse 11 12. they were to be presented before God in ordinary at the great anniversary feasts that they might hear c. and while Infants are but present God can teach them though man cannot Jesh 8. 35. every word was read before the little ones as well as others 2 Chron. 20. 13. In a day of humiliation their little ones were presented before the Lord as well as others And Ioel 2. 16. the very same thing is commanded and to take away all cavill about their age they are expresly noted to be such little ones as suck the breasts What though they understand nothing cannot that God who bids us present them before him lay his hands upon their hearts and blesse them at his Ordinance As God teacheth many elder persons convincingly whom he doth not teach savingly so he can teach infants savingly whom he doth not teach convincingly namely by infusing saving knowledge and grace Esay 54. 13. May not they be comprehended by Christ at the Ordinances who cannot at all comprehend him Ioh. 1. 5. Phil. 3. 12. Before I passe I shall only note that about Infant-Baptisme Mr. Humphrey speaks ambiguously yet seemes to hint as if the benefits of Baptisme to infants were only relative and not absolute which if I were certain of I had more to say to him but till then I forbear I shall only add this that however Infants may be uncapable of any reall work by hearing yet they are not uncapable of a reall work at hearing Had Christ bid an Infant stretch out his withered hand his Almighty power at the same time might both have cured him and also acted him to stretch forth the same hand being cured although the Babe understood not one word Christ spake And cannot Christ cure an Infants withered soul as well as his withered body though the Babe understand nothing of the word of command in either He tells the Reader Page 24. my second Exception is That Infants and the Distracted are as capable of the Sacrament as the Ignorant are though of age Ans Herein Mr. Humphrey wrests both my words and meaning Are these two Propositions equipollent Infants are capable as well as Elder persons that are grosly ignorant and Infants are as capable as Elder Persons that are grosly ignorant Or more clearly The Creature is good as well as God and The Creature is as good as God The former Proposition is a truth the latter an horrid lie and blasphemy The former notes the truth of Predication in both the latter afferts a parity of the Predicate in both I grant afterwards he laies downe my own tearmes but by Mr. Humphrey his leave the Reader might easily have been abused to believe the second exception above mentioned to be either my own termes or at least my sense My words are these I ask Mr. Humphrey why are Infants capable of Baptisme and not of the Lords Supper If he say because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lords Body c. then I answer no more can grosly ignorant persons c. To this Mr. Humphrey Sir you must excuse me I shall not answer you altogether so but because Infants are really uncapable in Baptisme there is required only a passive but in the Lords
Supper an actuall reception 2ly Because it is not their duty to examine themselves and discern the Lords Body Ans To omit the absurd opposition of actuall to passive which haply was an errour only of the Presse are not Infants naturally uncapable of Baptisme as well as of the Lords Supper Do they or can they apprehend any more either of the Signe or thing fignified in Baptisme then the Lords Supper Or in Baptisme is there only a passive reception required True in Infants God requires only a passive reception because they have no active capacity at present But in Elder persons Baptized God expects an active and not only a passive reception namely the acting of faith to receive the blood of sprinkling and an active indeavour especially at the time of Baptisme to mortifie sin and rise up to newnesse of life besides the profession of their faith in their own persons none of which either God or man expects of Infants whom yet the efficacy of Baptisme may reach as well as Elder persons though it be not limited to this or that time nor doth the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost alwaies accompany the Baptisme of Water either in Infants or in Elder persons In Elder persons then Baptized there is not only a passive but an active reception as at the Lords Supper there is not only an active but a passive reception For his second Reason Because it is not the duty of Infants to examine themselves and discern the Lords Body Ans No more is it the duty of Infants to examine themselves at or before Baptisme or to discern the blood of Christ and the water of the Spirit represented thereby c. which Elder persons baptized are bound to and sin if they do not yet I hope this naturall uncapableness of Infants in order to examination discretion is no bar to their baptizing therefore upon the same account I argue now ad hominem they are no just bar to Infants receiving the Lords Supper If therefore I should say God requires selfe-examination and discerning the Lords Bodie of Elder persons but not of Infants would it not follow that Infants might better be admitted to the Lords Supper then Elder persons that are grosly ignorant since there is not that danger of unworthy receiving in Infants as in Elder persons and that because the absence of examination and discretion in them makes them co nomine unworthy not so in Infants because God requires not those acts of them as conditions to make them evangelically worthy Might I not here retort Mr. Humphrey his own argument upon himselfe The Apostle saies Let a man examine himselfe and so eat He doth not say Let him not eat unlesse he can and do examine himselfe should I add that the Jewish Children ate the Passover yet were naturally uncapable of it as ours are of the Lords Supper And further that Children are Disciples as well as Elder persons and that the Disciples assembled together to break bread Acts 20 7. by which argument principally we prove women may and ought to receive I might thereby not only discover the weakness of his two forementioned Reasons but haply also might make him a Proselyte to Infant-receiving And it s a Question whether a Minister might not with more comfort administer either Sacrament to an Infant than to a grosly ignorant or scandalous person who either professedly or really rejects the Covenant sealed and exhibited by those signes Mr. Humphrey might very well therefore have spared those words page 25. If the man had not been too slighting of me he would never have run himselfe into the contempt of so many repetitions of this Infant passage I will reckon them as I go here is one Ans I hope the Lord hath learned me to slight no man much lesse a Minister But it s an hard matter that I cannot presse an argument which to me seemes solid I have now demonstrated there is more weight in it then Mr. Humphrey was aware of but I must presently be judged as slighting the person of my Opponent I wish Mr. Humphrey would lay his hand upon his heart and sadly consider whether his bitter scoffs do not smell rather of slighting then my frequent pressing of this or any other argument If the argument be valid it cannot be too often pressed and I am confident I presse it no where but where Mr. Humphrey puts me upon it Let me be good at Weight and I shall not envy his being good at Number I hope his reckonings will bring me in a good shot in the issue His reckonings with me shall learn me I trust to make the more frequent and strict reckonings with my self Mr. Humphrey having granted that persons jure excommunicate may be suspended addes these words If you shall demand of me a subflantiall proof for yielding thus much I must answer you the Church is of age ask it What she in prudence hath allowed I am ready to think there may be good reason for though I know it not Ans If Mr. Humphrey be reall in this his profession hee cannot be an Enemy to Suspension which besides the warrant of Scripture hath the Church for its Patron whether by Church he understand the Greek and Latine Church before their Apostacy Or generall and particular Councills especially the Council of Ancyra An. 308. or thereabouts and the generall Councel of Nice gathered by Constantine the great by whose Canons Suspension from the Sacrament is ratified Or if by Church he understand our own Church of England Let him consult the Book of Common-Prayer and particularly the Confirmation where Ministers are ordered to Catechise in publick and Governours of Families are to send their Children and Servants to be Catechised And the generall rule in the Close is that none shall be admitted to the Holy Communion untill such time as he can say the Catechism Here you have an evidence of Suspension for grosse ignorance And for scandalous persons turn to the Communion in the Book of Common-Prayer 1. They are dehorted from receiving in these words Therefore if any of you be a Blasphemer c. or be in malice envy or in any other grievous crime Bewaile your sins and come not to this Holy Table lest after the receiving of that Sacrament the Devill enter into you as he entred into Judas and fill you ful of all iniquity and bring you to destruction of Body and Soul And in the Rubrick before the Communion persons before receiving were to give the Minister notice of their purpose therein and if any of them were a notorious evill liver or wronged his Neighbour by word or deed or were in malice and hatred hee was first to disswade them from the Sacrament and if that would not prevail he was to deny them the Sacrament not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table untill he know them to be reconciled c. I might here adde the twenty sixth Canon which expressly saith No Minister shall
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
pleased of late years to give me the cup of contempt and slighting by the hands of pretious friends and acquaintance whom I honour in the Lord I may well therefore take this cup out of the hands of a stranger Let him alone the Lord hath commanded him who shall say unto him wherefore hast thou done so 2 Sam. 16. 10. But to come to the matter my scope in the forementioned words which hee wrests so pleasantly was to give Mr. Humphrey all the fair play he could desire in order to his more effectual conviction Therefore I grant him 1. That the Corinthians went too far towards Idolatry 2ly That besides this they were guilty of other grievous sins I deny 1 That his Quotation proves those grosse sinners were admitted to the Sacrament 2ly Supposing they were admitted de facto I deny that his Quotation proves the Apostle allowed much lesse commanded such a Free-Admission I hope Mr. Humphrey will give me leave to tell him these are serious matters and will not be put off with a Jest Mr. Humphrey For the first it is manifest that these Corinths were Fornicators c. For the Second the Text is full to the point St. Paul saies they were all partakers of this Bread Mr. Dr. saies but how will he prove notwithstanding they were admitted and that they had only a right to it in actu primo Whom shall we believe Mr. Paul or St. Drake Ans 1. That many of the Corinths were very scandalons is agreed on both sides But 2ly I say That these scandalous persons were admited to the Lords Supper is not proved convincingly by that Quotation And my reason is because both in Scripture and particularly in the Epistles to the Corinths universall propositions are not understood de singulis unius generis or the word All doth not alwaies include every particular person or thing which in form of speech seems to be comprehended under it For instance 2 Sam. 11. 1. David sent Joab and All Israel c. will any thence conclude that not one man was left in the Land of Canaan but that every male passed over Jordan to destroy the Ammonites Matth. 23. 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and doe must All there be understood without any restriction then Christs Disciples must observe the Traditions and corruptions taught by the Pharisees contrary to our Saviours expresse commands otherwhere But to come nearer 1 Cor. 8. 1. We know that wee all have Knowledge Yet 1 Cor. 15. 34. Some of you have not the Knowledge of God I speak this to your shame and ver 36. hee calls them Fools for their grosse ignorance about that Fundamentall point of the Resurrection Yea in that very particular about the Latitude of their Christian Liberty 1 Cor. 8 He that saies vers 1. We all have Knowledge yet saies v. 7. How be it there is not in every man this Knowledge a clear evidence that All in the first verse must not bee understod universally I shall trouble my Reader but with one place more 2 Cor. 3. 18. But wee All with open face beholding as in a Glasse the glory of the Lord c. Will Mr Humphrey hence conclude that every Member of the Church of Corinth had saving Knowledge and grace Certainly every one who with open face beholding the glory of the Lord is changed from glory to glory by the Spirit is a godly man and this the Apostle affirmes of all the Corinths as well as of himself yet no man will urge that place to prove that every Member of the Church of Corinth was truely godly And why then should Mr. Humphrey conclude that all the Corinths did actually receive the Sacrament because the Apostle here useth a like phrase saying 1 Cor. 10. 17. Wee All are partakers of that one Bread It is not my worke now to digresse by giving my Reader an account why the Scripture using generall expressions doth not include all particulars under that general Its sufficient that it is usuall in Scripture under a generall to comprehend but some particulars for which hundreds of instances might be produced Yea seldom in Scripture doth any generall include all particulars under it and this kind of expression is usuall in common discourse All the World knowes such a thing and who knowsaot this nor that However therefore Mr. Humphrey is so merrily disposed that hee will break a jest upon Saint Paul rather then he will not be merry with Dr. Drake Yet I hope it is now evident to the Reader that Mr. Humphrey might well have been more serious in so serious a matter and that though St. Pauls Doctrine be true yet it is misinterpreted and misapplyed by M. Humphrey Mr. Humphrey For the third that he allowed of this practice that is manifest too In that hee did not forbid it which if it had been sin he must haue done c. Ans 1. Must a Minister when treating of the Sacrament or of any other Ordinance needs particularly forbid every sin committed or committable against that Ordinance then he may make Pouls work of it indeed 2ly Doth Mr. Humphrey thinke there were no other sinns commited against the Sacrament but those mentioned in 1 Cor. 10. and 11. by the Apostle 3ly May hee not have forbid the admitting of scandalous persons other-where as 1 Cor. 5. 11. c Nay 4ly Doth he not forbid it in this very Chapter 1 Cor. 10. 21 You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord and of the Cup of Devills c. What can the meaning of these words bee but that they who did partake of the Devills Table might not partake of the Lords Table It was naturally possible enough and probably divers of them who ate the Devills Sacrifices in the Idols Temple â—id also receive the Lords Supper but it was morally impossible because sinfull and prohibited and by comming to the Lords Table from the Devills Table they provoked the Lord ver 22. Page 49. But more of this haply hereafter Mr. Humphrey indeed endeavours to avoid the evidence of this place saying The Apostle speaks not of divers persons in the whole Church going to one Table but of the same persons going to divers Tables and he plainly reasons from their pâ—rtaking of the one against the other Ans 1. It s evident the Apostle speaks of divers persons supposing as Mr. Humphrey would have it they who are the Idoll-Sacrifices did also partake of the Lords Table which is probable enough though Mr. Humphrey his ground to evidence it bee not convincing in the whole Church going to one Table some strong Christians who took liberty to eat things offered to Idolls some weak Christians who were offended with this their liberty both Church-members and both probably partaking of the Lords Table 1 Cor. 10. ver 28 29 32. compare 1 Cor. 8. ver 7. 10. unlesse Mr. Humphrey be of the mind that only the strong did receive the Lords Supper and not the
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
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
Church cannot be visible without combination in order to the Preaching of the Word and Prayerâ— but was visible from Adams fall to the daies of Abraham without Sacraments in ordinary 2 ly If the Lords Supper be an essentiall note of the visible Church then many Congregations of England who have been without it for divers years of late are thereby unchurched which I believe Mr. Humphrey is more charitable than to assert How many Congregations have for ten or twelve years together assembled constantly at the Word and Prayer without the Lords Supper yea some of them haply without Baptisme A great fault I grant but I hope not so great as to unchurch them I perceive Mr. Humphrey is too willing to lie at catch who cannot forbear snapping at me even when I plead for him and excuse him His definition of a Church-visible I shewed was liable enough to exception yet took it in the best sense supposing he meant more then he said He defines a Church visible to be a number of such as make profession of Jesus Christ This definition I said was deficient as wanting the copula that united them in one body namely Combination for Church-ends Pag. 81. Yet supposing this might be his meaning though not mentioned in his definition I passe it For which he flouts me as curious and with a pretty story thinks to catch his Reader But Mr. Humphrey should remember that in a Dispute the Reader must be convinced with Arguments not caught with expressions Would he play the Logician more and the Rhetorician lesse naked Truth would sooner take place Let me ask Mr. Humphrey whether the Members of the invisible Church be not a number of Professours If so VVhat distinguisheth the visible from the invisible Church but this Combination for Church-Ends When all the parts of a body can make a totum without union then all the members of the Church visible can make a Church visible without the former combination Professours make the Church invisible by invisible combination in Christ and the Church visible by visible combination at the Ordinances of Christ the most necessary of which the visible Church cannot want In the same Page He asserts directly That all Professours and Saints by Calling must eo nomine be admitted to the Lords Table Ans If so then many who are not Members of the Church visible must be admitted to the Lords Table Suppose an Heathen converted and making profession yet seeks not Baptisme nay suppose he be Baptized yet joynes not to any particular Congregation but Hears here and there where he pleaseth as an unconverted Heathen may 1 Cor. 14. 24. Jam. 2. vers 2 6. Will Mr. Humphrey admit this Professour to the Lords Supper If not then a Professor and Saint by Calling may not eo nomine be admitted If he will admit him then one who is no member of the visible Church may be admitted to the Lords Supper Now mark I pray If one who is no Church-member may be admitted and divers who are Church-members may not be admitted to the Saceament is it not evident that the ground of Admission to the Lords Supper lies not properly in Church-membership but in visibility since a visible Saint may be admitted though no Church-member but divers Church-members may not be admitted though invisible Saints Pag. 82. By this also may appear the weaknesse of that assertion of Mr. Humphrey page 82. That he thinks a visible Professor and Church-member are termes convertible True every Church-member eo nomine is a Professor but every Professor is not presently a Church-member Yet as a Church-member he may be only a Professor at large not in the stricter acception of the terme and as it is commonly taken when we say Such a man is a Professor in opposition not to Heathen but to loose and prophane Church-members Fit matter he may be for a Church if his knowledge and conversation do suit in some good measure with his profession but he is no more a Church-member till in union than a beam or stone is part of the House till compacted with the building This is further evident in the case of excommunication whereby even a pious Church-member may be cut off for a scandalous sin yet remains still both a professor and a reall Saint As Suppose David had been excommunicated for his Murther and Adultery It 's evident there that a Professor and Church-member are not termes convertible since they are not predicated each of the other universally The Argument drawn from Infants and Ideots which here again he flies upon with such contempt and scorn hath been formerly vindicated to which I refer the Reader For what he addes That Saint Paul enjoynes us to examine our selves and to discern the Lords Body Nor doth it excuse any of age but they are both to do so and come both to prepare and eat We must do what we can still when we cannot do as we ought But as for Infants c. it 's no sin of theirs if they are not fit to come For ignorance then and scandall if it be not such as makes us forfeit our Church-membership that is become excommunicate it cannot contradict our outward Profession Ans 1. By concession in sensu composito all of age must do both But the Question is de sensu diviso whether all of age must receive though they cannot will not receive worthily It was a duty to kisse Christ sincerely Luke 7. 45. but the very kisse was a sin and worse then not kissing when given treacherously Luke 22. 48. So likewise to worship Christ is a duty John 9. 38. but better not worship him at all then worship him ironically Matth 27. 29. Are not all unworthy Receivers of this Fraternity 2 ly Again by Concession We must do what we can morally but not alwaies what we can naturally when we can not do what we would Else suppose a person were stript of all apparell must he of necessity come to the Sacrament though naked because he can get no apparell The nakednesse of unworthy Receivers especially if visibly so is a great deal worse 3 ly Suppose a man be drunk before the Sacrament must he therefore Receive the Lords Supper even when he is actually drunk because by this sin of his he wilfully made himselfe unfit for the Sacrament Upon Mr. Humphrey his Principles he must for he tells us that children and Ideots are excused because they are not wilfully unfit for the Sacrament but persons of age being intelligent must receive though they be unfit because these are wilfully and by their own default unfit Will it not hence necessarily follow that the vilest miscreants who are jure excommunicate are bound to come and receive because by their foul scandalls they willfully unfit themselves for the Sacrament And by proportion the more vile and wilfull sinners are the more they are bound to receive the Lords Supper And therefore a person actually drunk by his own
outward or visible right is Church-membership As for the subdistinction of this to be more remote or immediate found out by some we cannot receive without warrant from Scripture Ans 1. To proceed by his own Rule What warrant of Scripture hath he for his own exceptions the vanity whereof I have formerly uncased 2 ly If warrant from Scripture will satisfie him I shall give him one from the Old another from the New-Testament For the first All Church-members had a remote right to the Passover as is evident by that universall command Exod. 12. 47. All the Congregation of Israel shall keep it 2 ly That all Church-members had not an immediate right is as evident because no Israelite was to eat thereof when unclean but to stay till the next Passover Numb 9. For the New-Testament That all Church-members have a mediate right to the Lords Supper we grant and Mr. Humphrey disputes eagerly for it making Church-membership the formall ground thereof That all Church-members have not an immediate right is evident 1. In Infants and Ideots 2 ly From that famous place 1 Cor. 10. 21. You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devills c. He speaks to Church-members and that Cannot holds forth not a naturall but morall impossibility for whatsoever is unlawfull is morally impossible Those Church-members then who drank of the Devills Cup at the Idols Temple might not drink of the Lords Cup at the Sacrament They had then a mediate right as Church-members but not an immediate right because defiled by the Idol-Feast His cavills against this place have been formerly answered I might here add for confirmation the practice of the Primitive Church and our own Church in not admitting Church-members till they had competent knowledge and were free from scandall But I forbear repetitions Those three thousand he speaks of Acts 2 had competent knowledge and by professed repentance cleared themselves of scandall Compare 2 Cor. 7. 11. To such Church-members we shall not deny the Sacrament The Lord increase the number of them in our Churches Mr. Humphrey So long as he is in Communion how can he be debarred the Communion Ans He is actually in Communion though jure excommunicate yet here Mr. Humphrey will allow Suspension Is it not clear then by his own grant that a person in Communion may be debarred the Communion D. Dr. Pag. 86. Good Government lies in the Geometricall not Arithmeticall Administration of Censures Mr. Humphrey Mr. Drake 's Suspension hangs by Geometry between admonition and excommunication Ans Be it so that which hangs by Geometry hangs fast enough however persons unskild in Geometry may fear it will fall He doth well to make up in Wit what is defective in Reason Suspension wants not a Bottom in Scripture though it hang in the Air of Mr. Humphrer's Brain But of this formerly and more haply hereafter Pag. 87. He triumphs because we grant suspension is not in termes in Scripture Ans No more is Excommunication which yet I hope is an unquestionable Ordinance 2 ly He deceives the Reader in telling him I place the whole businesse of excommunication in suspension from actuall Receiving when its evident by my whole discourse I place but part of the businesse of excommunication in it it being a lower degree and but a negative excommunication as we manage it like his excommunication of Infants and Ideots After sundry pittifull shufflings with some scoffs intermixed to make the Parable of the Tares serve his turne Pag. 88 89. Mr. Humphrey at last Matth. 13. 25. comming to issue and being pinched with the Doctrine of Excommunication which cuts the throat of his Interpretation of that Parable is pleased to take notice of my Objection in these words If the Lord will have the Tares let alone untill the day of judgment what will become of Excommunication To this all he answers is There is no doubt of Christs reconciling his own Ordinances page 89. f. Ans Hath Mr. Humphrey no more pitty upon tender Consciences then to leave them thus in the suds In opening the Parable he tells us the Tares cannot be taken up without prejudice to the Wheat that is the Wicked cannot be separated from the Church without prejudice to the Godly Yea so confident is he herein as to assert That visible unworthynesse is not so much as the rule of Excommunication in these words I think Mr. Drake must shut his eyes upon this Text if he will yet persists in making visible unworthinesse the rule of Excommunication page 88. If visible unworthinesse be not the rule of excommunication what is Is visible or invisible worthinesse the rule Or is invisible unworthinesse the rule of excommunicating Church-members What was the Incestuous Corinth excommunicated for but for visible unworthinesse unlesse Mr. Humphrey will say that the charge of Incest made good against him was not his visible unworthinesse Church-members are not excommunicated as Saints but as Sinners nor as sinners absolutely but as visible sinners else where is Mr. Humphrey his jure excommunicate What is visible sin but visible unworthinesse And though all visible unworthinesse do not make me Evangelically unworthy yet visible unworthinesse in dominion doth This Dominion is either Tyrannicall by some enormous act wasting the Conscience or Regall when a person is in the state of sin both which make him Tareish and if visible a visible Tare to be pluckt up though in order to cure if possible by the hands of Excommunication By Tares then are meant persons visibly wicked in the Church be it habitually or actually Matth. 13. vers 27 38. compare John 8 34. These Tares Mr. Humphrey will by no means have pluckt up We Answer Then farewell Excommunication which is a plucking up of the Tares This Mr. Humphrey doth not answer leaving Christ to answer for himselfe if he please yet is resolved to hold the Conclusion What heresie may not passe for current if Mr. Humphrey his Disinity be good For instance The Anthropomorphites teach that God is a Body and that because eyes ears hands c. are attributed to him in Scripture We reply God is a Spirit John 4. 24. and therefore cannot be a Body How easily now may they with Mr. Humphrey hold the Conclusion still and say There is no doubt of Gods reconciling his own Truth God will indeed reconcile his owne Truth and Ordinances be we never so negligent to reconcile them but we can expect but little thanks from God and Christ if either through carelessenesse or prejudice we do not our endeavour to reconcile them For the Satisfaction therefore of tender Consciences whom Mr. Humphrey leaves in a confused maze of doubt Know 1. It s true in some sense that the Tares must not be plucked up for the Scripture saies it and the Scripture cannot be broken John 10. 35. 2 ly In some sense it is true the Tares must be plucked up because Excommunication which is a plucking
look upon mine affliction and requite me good for his cursing this day c. Ans Such passionate digressions at which Mr. Humphrey is excellent contribute far more to take upon the affections then his arguments do to convince the judgment Had he struck at so inconsiderable a person as my selfe alone without such sad reflections upon the whole Presbyterian party whom he looks at as Children not fit to have the knife of Church-Censures committed to them well might it have been born and buried in silence though I believe that Ministers are bound more then others in the use of all honourable means to wipe off from themselves the blot of false aspersions Nor can I blame Mr. Humphrey for vindicating himselfe if I have been so injurious in my charge as he pretends But to the point Such stresse doth Mr. Humphrey lay upon Judas his receiving a thing 1 so controverted and improbable enough 2 ly So insufficient a ground for universall admission though granted his own party being judges as he concludes in expresse termes What need more be urged but that men when they are willing not to see will let any hand put over their eies be enough to blind them By this rash censure of his I noted that 1. He condemned the Churches at home and abroad as sinning wilfully against light in owning and practising Suspension contrary to the cleer and undoubted example as he apprehends of Judas his admission 2 ly That his Pen savoured rankly of pride in this unchristian censure 3 ly That himselfe I fear deserved more then suspension for this his scandalous and wicked censure In all this 1. Where is there any forgery unlesse the quotation of his own words be a forgery 2 ly Where is the least word of cursing him or of devoting him irrecoverably to the pit of Hell I but in my sense it is so Ans Let the Reader judge if herein Mr. Humphrey deal charitably with me I charge him only with his own expresse termes he charges me with that of which I wrote not one tittle meerly upon jealousie of my sense and meaning 2 ly He charges me formerly as entring into Gods secrets yet here takes upon him to enter into Gods secrets and to judge of my heart and meaning where my words bear no such thing 3 ly He charges me with cursing him and devoting him to the pit of Hell irrecoverably who had not one tittle in my book nor owne thought in my heart to that purpose I but all this is implyed when I say he deserves more then suspension Ans 1. I say more against my selfe and the Presbyterians in generall upon supposition that we were guilty of Mr. Humphrey his charge namely that then we were in the high way to the sin against the Holy Ghost and deserved not only to be suspended but also to be excommunicated 2 ly I said not peremptorily that he deserved more then suspension but that I feared he deserved more then suspension 3 ly Had I said he deserved for this his uncharitablenesse everlasting damnation supposing he were so uncharitable of which let the Reader judge by his own words I said no more then the truth unlesse it be false Doctrine that an uncharitable act deserves damnation 4 ly If the saying that such or such a sin deserves damnation be the cursing of a person guilty thereof or the devoting of him to damnation then I cannot tell a man his sin deserves hell and curse but in that very act I curse him and devote him to the pit of hell and so the greatest act of charity shall be made the foulest act of uncharitablenesse 5 ly As my words bear no such cursed sense as Mr. Humphrey pins upon them so I here professe that in those words I was far from cursing or devoting him to the pit of hell but did apprehend indeed that such an uncharitable censure of the Churches of Christ at home and abroad deserved a higher degree of excommunication then suspension is And if Mr. Humphrey or any else can make it out that therein I have been uncharitable I shall willingly cry both God and him mercy and be ready to make as publick reparation as I have given thereby publick offence I never to my remembrance heard before now that to say a man deserves excommunication is a cursing of him and a devoting of him irrecoverably to the pit of Hell nor do I believe that the Apostle by excommunicating the incestuous Corinth did either curse him or devote him to the pit of Hell but designed rather to bring him to Heaven 1 Cor. 5. 5. Whereas therefore page 90. he makes his appeal to Heaven in these words Judge me O Lord try me if herein there be any iniquityin me I shall not wish him so ill as he wisnes himselfe but do hartily beg of God that he would please to open his eyes and pardon this and all other his iniquities and if this be uncharitable I shall thank Mr. Humphrey or any else for such uncharitablenesse towards me Sect. VIII Mr. Humphrey Pag. 91. My third Reason was drawn from Church-fellowship which ought to be in charity humility without judging every one esteeming others better then themselves Now if men will go to set up a discriminating Ordinance they cannot keep themselves from entrenching on these duties and occasioning divisions Our sad experience hath made this Argument too weighty for Mr. Drake 's particulars which are not worth the naming unlesse he could first prove its the Ministers duty to discern between the worthy and unworthy as the rule of Admission In the same page also Mr. Humphrey denyeth that the rule of visibility hath any foundation in Scripture c. Ans 1. That Church-fellowship ought to be in charity and humility we willingly grant and earnestly desire it 2 ly We say that this may stand with Suspension as well as with reproof admonition or excommunication all which may be corrupted with pride or graced with humility and charity according to the temper and affection of those who do either administer or receive them and that each of them do ordinarily occasion divisions and heart-burnings where they meet with persons disaffected through ignorance prejudice or malice for which not the Ordinances but our naughty hearts deserve blame 3 ly In charging us to set up a discriminating Ordinance he seemes to deny that Church-Ordinances are discriminating If that be his meaning I apprehend it is erroneous since every Ordinance is discrinsinating in some sense as in an other sense every Ordinance is common Every Ordinance so far as it is publick is common as to presence yet all parts of every Ordinance are not common immediately and absolutely to all The Word is common to all yet not every part of the Word the Sacraments are common to all yet not every part of the Sacrament namely not the participating part 4 ly Because here Mr. Humphrey chargeth us with setting up an Ordinance of our own
then it is unlawfull to admit those who cannot eat of the Lords Supper in a morall sense since that and that only is morally impossible which is sinfull Compare Gen. 39. 9. Deut. 21. 16. Josh 9. 19. and 2 Cor. 13. 8. they had all naturall but no morall power to do the things there mentioned yet they say absolutely They cannot do such and such things Those places Deut. 16. 16. and Josh 9. 21. are rendred He may not and We may not c. but in the Originall it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cannot and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot c. or shall not be able This is the more remarkable because the same phrase is used about the Passover Numb 9. 6. Certain men were defiled by the dead body of a man that they could not keep the Passover on that day Moses in the Old Testament saies You cannot eat the Passover and touch the dead body of a man Paul in the New Testament saies You cannot partake of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devills In both the Cannot is morall not naturall An unclean man might not eat of the Passover one in communion with Devills might not receive the Lords Supper Now that all intelligent Church members have not a morall power to receive is evident by the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 21. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devills ye cannot be partaker of the Table of the Lord and the Table of Devills Undoubtedly they had a naturall power to eat the Sacramentall bread c. but they had not a morall power because being under the guilt of communion with Idolls it was unlawfull for them at that time to eat The Steward sins against his Lord in giving bread to those of the Family or otherwise who ought not to eat it Doth Christ the Master of the Family say I will not have such a one to eat of my Supper and dare any Minister say to that person Take and eat If the Lord say it s morally impossible for such a one to eat he saies its unlawfull for him to eat And what a man must not do that no man must tempt him to do nor permit him to do when he can lawfully hinder it But Church-Officers may very lawfully and easily hinder those from partaking who may not partake and such are all who have fellowship with Devills Now fellowship with Devills is either explicite as in Witches c. or implicite when men drive the Devills trade and do the works of Sathan willingly John 8. 44. and 1 John 3. 8. From which number I know not how persons grosly and wilfully ignorant and scandalous especially after due admonition can be exempted Sure I am they communicate more with Devills then did the Corinthians who are of the Idolls Feasts in the Idoll Temples without any intention to honour the Idoll as judging that under the Gospell there was no uncleannesse either of meats or of places Yet even these are forbid by the Apostle to receive the Lords Supper when they feasted at the Idolls Temples The Argument stands thus He that hath communion with Devills cannot that is ought not to partake of the Lords Table All grosly ignorant and scandalous persons have communion with Devills Ergo No such ought to receive And if they ought not to partake surely the Minister ought not to admit them and therefore he must needs suspend them This I might further illustrate and confirm by comparing 1 Cor. 5. 12. With such an one no not to eat 1 Cor. 10. 21. You cannot partake of the Lords Table And 1 Cor. 11. 20. This is not to eat the Lords Supper or as it s rendred in the Margent Ye cannot eat c. The Verb substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I may not partake with other of Gods People nor they with me surely I must be suspended for what is Suspension really but non-Admission By what hath been delivered I hope it will appear that the Sacrament is a discriminating Ordinance as to the point of receiving and that Suspension is not an human invention but a divine institution which as other Ordinances may be dispenced with love and humility if the dispencers thereof be wise holy and humble persons that make conscience to judge themselves more then others and when ever by virtue of their Office they are called to try and judge others Sundry other arguments for the divine right of Suspension or Abstention See in Mr. Collins his Vindic. c. The ground why I pitched upon the two forementioned Arguments was because I apprehend they come neerer the point not only in their scope but also in the very letter Now lest the Reader should think we go alone or have only some few inconsiderable persons to abet us in this cause I shall take a little pains to evidence the contrary And first besides the declared Judgment of the Church in ancient Councills and modern Synods of which before let us consider the testimonies of the Fathers divers of which are cited by Gerhard in this matter of Suspension from the Sacrament To begin with Justin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians Hoc alimentum apud nos appellatur Eucharistia quod nulli alii participarelicitum est quam veram esse doctrinam nostram credenti lavacro propter remissionem peccatorum regenerationem abluto ita ut Christus tradidit viventi Basil Lib. 2. de Bapt. Cap. 3. Probat quà m periculosum sit si quis non repurgatus ab omni inquinamento Corporis Spiritûs edat Corpus Domini ejusque sanguinem bibat Chrysost Homil. 3. ad Ephes Cum tali puritate accede semper sine hac ne praesumas unquam Regem utique non audeas osculari siquidem os tuum olet graviter et regem Caelorum impudenter oscularis anima tua vitiis olente c Augustin de Eccle. dogmat Cap. 53. Habentem adhuc voluntatem peccandi gravari magis dico Eucharistiae perceptione quam purificari Yea he saies further Persons unreformed receive unto judgment that they are rather corrupted then healed rather kil'd then quickned by receiving the Sacrament Serm. Dom. 1. Advent Tom. 10. Sure then he thought not receiving did convert Hesychius Lib. 6. in Cap. 22. Levit. Polluti non sunt admittendi nec mundati prohibendi This he explains afterwards to be morall pollution which is a bar to the Sacrament till repented of Chrysostom Homil. 83. in Matth. professeth He had rather lose his life then admit an unworthy person to the Sacrament Cyprian Serm. 5. de Lapsis from 1 Cor. 10. 21. and 1 Cor. 11. 27. declaims vehemently against those who come from Idol-Feasts or under the power of morall pollution to the Lords Table Author Sermonis de Coenâ thought to be Cyprian hath these words Inter Dominicae Coenae convivas animalis homo non admittitur Quicquid
of their own and the Devils making who are willingly thereby deceived and so catch both at promises and Sacraments writing and feal to their own destruction To prevent which mischief as much as lies in man cautions are an usefull boundary in order to the promises and suspension in order to the Sacrament which though it cannot keep away all Hypocrites yet it serves to uncase divers and to make all Church-members studious of competent knowledge and outward reformation a blessing highly to be prized in every reformed and reforming Church Mr. Humphrey in his vindication page 24. Let our Independents answer why do you allow a Syntax in the whole service of God besides and being in a quae genus of Anomalaes and Heteroclites onely at this Ordinance Dr. D. My answer hereunto see pag. 79. and 80. of my Barre Indeed I looked at those words of his as a challenge to both parties To which the first part of his answer in his rejoynder pag. 116. is so modest that I think my self bound to note it with approbation Mr. Humphrey For the Later branch that the Independents scruple not a free admission of their own Members c. lb. Ans 1. Note his own words whither they turn away any before excommunication I cannot say but guesse so The expressions are ingenuous but do a little thwart his former assertion He that speaks onely by guesse cannot assert that which he speaks to be a truth Secondly though some separated assemblies own divers of our Congregations as true Churches yet will they not admit divers not onely of our Church-members but also of our Communicants upon this very account because they apprehend them not so visibly worthy An apparent Testimony to me that they with us measure the subject of Sacramental Admission rather by visibility than by Church-membership Especially considering withall that one main ground of their first separation from us was offence taken at the promiscuous Admission of Church-members to the Lords Supper Upon which account those who feared God among the Presbyterians were the more zealous for Sacramental tryal that by reformation in this particular they might prevent further separation and if it might be reduce our brethren of the Congregational way by removing that unhappy stumbling-block Mr. Humphrey ibid Mr. Drake tells them They are beholding to me for my too favourable opinion of you Ans Mr. D. says The Independents are much beholding to him for his favourable opinion of them He doth not say they are beholding to him for his too favourable opinion of them I will not utter what I guesse to be Mr. Humphrey his designe in crowding in the adverbe too but I apprehend by that addition he was not too favourable unto me The next question in debate is how we can baptise the Children of Church members at the same time turn away their parents from the Sacrament of the Lords supper Mr. Humphrey pag. 117. I will not infringe what Mr. Drake hath said pag. 82 83 84. I wish it may be maintained But as for those who never tooke notice or not approved of any other ground of their baptisme but as they are immediately born Christians of such as visibly professe Christ according to my terms the right which the Parents derive upon their Children unto baptisme must be acknowledged to be in themselves unto the Sacrament unlesse there be a manifest impediment to retrench that right or the present injoyment of it by excommunication distraction or infection Dr. Drake Ans 1. He granting my conclusion that the Children of all Church-members be they suspended or not may be baptised his exeption is impertinent as to us who hold and approve other grounds of admitting Children to baptisme than the right they have to it by their immediate Parents either as Professours or as Church-members Nay were both the immediate Parents excommunicated we shall not refuse to baptise their Children provided any person of trust will undertake for their education in the Christian faith into which they are baptised The right a Childe hath to baptisme by his immediate Parents is a good right but not the sole right See more in my barrel pag. 81. 87. Secondly should I retort the question upon Mr. Humphrey how can he allow baptising the Children of divers Church members and yet discourage those very Church-members from the Sacrament He that discourages from the means discourages from the end Mr. Humphrey discourages from Sacramental trial the means Ergo. Here indeed we come to the very hinge of the controversy which Mr. Humphrey pag. 117. and 118. states bewtixt us thus Mr. Humphrey the substance of the whole comes unto thus that the Parents must have a further right to shew than what they have common with their Childe to this ordinance And here indeed lies the very point of our difference I hold it is Church-membership where there is none of our former yielded impediments that gives an immediate outward right to the Sacrament He holds a man must be first tried if he be visibly worthy and it is that alone can give him admission Ans In my Barre pag. 81. I proved that Church-membership is not the adequate foundation of receiving because the all Church-members should be admitted to the Lords supper But all Church-members ought not to be admitted Mr. Humphrey himself being Judge to wit Infants Idiots to which I may now add out of Mr. Humphrey persons ipso jure excommunicate all which he grants to be Church-members yet is pleased to suspend them from the Lords supper If the Lord hath excluded them let Mr. Humphrey shew the Decree of Heaven by some expresse place of Scripture Where hath God said in termes Infants Idiots and persons jure excommunicate shall not receive If it be because they cannot prepare themselves rightly nor discern the Lords body no more can ignorant and scandalous persons in statu quo therefore say we either exclude all or none If he say the inability of Infants and Idiots is natural but that of intelligent Church-members is moral Ans 1. Natural inability doth not exclude from all ordinances instance in Circumcision then baptisme now the word preached c. Secondly that natural inability excludes from the Lords Supper is more than Mr. Humphrey can prove unlesse he make it out by consequence Thirdly the inabiliby of persons jure excommunicate is moral yet their suspension Mr. Humphrey allowes and why not the suspension of other intelligent Church-members also who are morally unable as well as they If yet he say Persons jure excommunicate are suspended to avoid scandal upon the very same account say we must ignorant and scandalous persons be suspended Object Persons jure excommunicate are suspended in order to excommunication Ans So may ignorant and scandalous persons be also if they shall wilfully persist in grosse ignorance or scandal though of an inferiour allay yet we had rather use suspension to prevent than to prepare for excommunication The issue of all is this
pag. 22. of his rejoynder These are some though not all of our grounds for suspending the ignorant and scandalous Will Mr. Humphrey allow these grounds of suspension for some intelligent Church-members and not for all If this be not strange partiallity I pray what is As for what he adds pag. 120. As for infants and the distracted we know signes cannot have any real work on them Answ 1. What if they cannot is this a sufficient ground to deny them the signes then let Mr. Humphrey turn Antipaedobaptist Secondly Though the signe cannot work cannot God work by the signe as an instituted antecedent or concomitant of Divine operation Otherwise Children are baptized in vain There is better ground for applying signes to persons naturally unintelligent than to persons morally unintelligent I can baptise a Childe that is naturally unintelligent not so a person at years of discretion who is morally unintelligent And if there be par ratio utriusque Sacramenti then he who is not to be baptised because of his grosse ignorance at years of discretion were here then unbaptised ought upon the same account to be denied the Sacrament of the Lords Supper though formerly baptised Mr. Humphrey If I should do the Church service In submitting to this way onely as humane then I shall do God service to oppose it as divine and not let it sit in his Seat as a necessary antecedent to this ordinance Answ 1. Where an humane order is prest as a divine ordinance I may and ought so far forth to oppose it and shall do God good service therein so my opposition be regular Yet secondly at the same time in some cases I may submit practically to the same provided it be in it 's own nature indifferent especially upon declaration of my dissent from it as a divine ordinance thus Paul opposed yet practited Circumcision upon occasion which then was no divine ordinance yet was by the Jewes prest as a divine ordinance compare Gal. 2. 3. and 5. 2 3. With Acts 16. 3. Had Mr. Humphrey perswaded people to submit to trial though not as a divine ordinance he might have done both God and the Church more service than now he doth Several judgements may unite in the same practice upon several principles without prejudice to Gods worship or the breach of faith and love I both wish and hope Mr. Humphrey may be of this minde we desire unity of practice and shall pray for unity of principles Philip. 3. 16. Thirdly To submit to trial or to be ready alwayes to give an answer to every man that asks us a reason of the hope that is in us is in a large sense as a thing commanded a divine ordinance the timing of this trial is humane and prudential in which I hope we may adhere to the judgement of a Parliament and Assembly of Learned and pious Divines rather than to the judgement of any private Christian or Minister Hearing and receiving are divine ordinances hearing at ten in the morning receiving every first Lords day in the month are humane orders and prudential yet they who will not hear and receive at times particularly appointed by man may haply go without word and Sacrament all their dayes and are guilty of excommunicating and suspending themselves Will any be so fond hence to conclude that either the State Church or Minister hold the timing of the Sacrament to be a divine ordinance or a necessary concomitant to the Lords Supper by way of special institution In like manner that all should submit to trial is a divine ordinance or precept but that they should be tried before or after a Sacrament and often or seldom or but once in all their life is humane and prudential and no more a necessary Antecedent of receiving than the timing of the Lords Supper is a necessary concomitant of receiving yet as he who will not come to receive at the time ordered suspends himself from the Sacramant so he that will not submit to the time appointed for trial is a self suspender Submission to trial is a duty the season of this trial is indifferent and being agreed upon by a common order or consent ought not to be sleighted or opposed by any private Christian or Minister Let the trial be when it will it must be either before or after the Sacrament And if the terme Antecedent be offensive we shall onely desire the people to submit to a consequent trial Pag. 121. Mr. Humphrey is pleased to close this section merrily with a Jury of 12. I envy not his mirth but wish it may do himself and his reader much good If it hurt not himself more than me he will have no great cause to repent of it Sect. XI Mr. Humphrey his sixth Argument is drawn from his innocency in admitting all And 1. Because he doth but his duty therein Dr. Drake This is the main thing to be proved Mr. Humphrey The precept of dispensing and receiving is general Ans 1. The 12. were not all the Ministers of that time Secondly That all the 12. did receive is not evident Thirdly The adjective all is seldom used in Scripture to note absolute universallity and if in the matter of the Sacrament it be so universall then Mr. Humphrey his limitation of that universall is erroneous But of this formerly Secondly Mr. Humphrey I have no power to turn away any This Mr. D. accounts most true but makes lamentable use of it Ans 1. I say not this is most true but that I take this assertion of Mr. Humphrey for one of the truest passages in all his book Secondly He wrongs me in reporting that I do boldly and openly tell the people that Christ had not so much power to turn away one of his disciples as I and my Elders have over my people My words are that Christ as a Minister had no juridical power to turn away Judas or any other What power he had as God or as Mediatour is not imitable Thirdly Though haply a Minister have no power of himself to suspend any or turn him away yet he may have power over his own act and forbear giving the Sacrament to a visibly unworthy person and withall may round him in the ear if occasion serve and bid him beware least taking the Sacrament unworthily he do eat and drinke judgement to himself Thirdly He hopes the best of all and there admits all without trial Mr. Drake So did the Angel of the Church of Ephesus yet could not bear them that were evill and tried the false Apostles Rev. 2. 2. Mr. H. while the Church hoped well of them it might bear with them to do them good Ans 1. How ever the Church might hope well of them c. till convinced yet she did not forbear to try them I may at the same time hope well and yet out off an holy jealousy fear evill yea of an whole Church much more of any particular person 2 Cor. 11. 2 3. May private
persons passe a judgement of discretion upon things or persons and may not publicke persons passe a judgement of decision May I upon just occasion try all things and may I not try all persons 1 Thess 5. 21. and 1 John 4. v. 1 3. Or can either of these judgements passe without trial Object I but then admit them till they be tried Ans 1. That is passe them for currant before tried I may passe some pieces for currant before tried upon an honest mans word but if I have the least suspition of them he must not be angry if I try his gold or should he be angry might not this anger of his be looked upon as a further ground of suspition Secondly What if they will not submit to trial at all Must I passe them for currant upon their own word Doth not their opposing of trial make them the more suspitious My other answers he passeth as answered elswhere Ans Then I hope those answers of mine are vindicated elswhere My instance of the Magistrates trying all though he also hope the best of all Mr. Humphrey passeth over with a sleight in these words pag. 124. And for the Magistrate what followes Ans It followes strongly that hoping the best of all is no bar to the triall of any This Mr. Humphrey did well to slubber over because too strong an evidence for us and against himself Fourthly Mr. Humphrey pag. 124. I know God can turn even the worst at this ordinance if he please This Mr. Drake counts true but questions his will and requires of me some promise or president for it For promises we have sufficient Amos 5. 4. and 2 Chron. 15. 2. Math. 7. 7. Let any shew me an exception in particular against this Sacrament or else these particulars stand good Ans 1. For that promise Amos 5. 4. The thing promised here is life this life is initiall or graduall That life initall or the first infusion of saving is grace premised to every ordinance as it is to the word preached doth not appear by this place and were it true Mr. Humphrey doth ill to allow the suspension or excommunication of any from any ordinance The Lord forbid we should deny the means of initiall conversion to any without expresse warrant from Heaven therefore we pray for all that ordinance being a means of conversion by way of impetration be the persons prayed for present or no. Therefore we preach to all the word being an instrument of conversion an immortal seed c. Acts 17. 30. Rom. 10. v. 14 17. and 1 Petr. 1. v. 23 24. But where is the Sacrament so stiled The Sacraments suppose but do not worke conversion For the other branch of the text namely the condition or precept of seeking God That every one is bound to use every ordinance in order to the seeking of God thereby for imitiall conversion is not proved by that place which onely requires the seeking of God in generall but layes no command upon every person to partake of every ordinance but onely to seek God in those ordinances he is capable of we must here again distinguish between natural and instituted worship Those ordinances which are parts of natural worship lie upon all and are beneficial to many in order to conversion not so those ordinances which are parts of instituted worship This is evident in hearing prayer Sacrifices and Sacraments the two former being incumbent upon all at years of discretion not so the two latter All are bound to seek God in all estates as well as in all ordinances but all I hope are not therefore to get into all estates or to partake of all ordinances Instance I am bound to seek God in the Ministry or in a married condition if I be in either of these estates but I hope every man is not therefore bound to be a Minister or to marry In like manner I am bound to seek God in all ordinances if or when I do partake of all but it followes not thence that I am bound to partake of all ordinances no more than I am bound to marry or to be a Minister but if I be in either of these estates I am bound to seek God in them Here that precept or permission of our Saviour is pertinent though with a little variation of his scope Math. 19. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like may be said of the other two promises Mr. Humphrey quotes yea of all general promises about Ordinances 1. I must seek God by partaking of all Ordinances that I am capable of Secondly My great designe must be to seek God in all those Ordinances I do actually partake of But it follows not thence that I must partake of every Ordinance whither I be capable of it or no. Yea Mr. Humphrey his jure excommunicate proves that all Church-members are not capable of all Church-Ordinances This is among others the exception we make to his alleadging the general promises and which Mr. Humphrey must own or contradict both the truth and himself His whole side of Rhetorick following at which I must confesse he is good will not help him where Logick and Divinity fail him Therefore I let those flourishes passe Fifthly I endeavour my utmost de jure that all come prepared Mr. Drake This self encomium is unseemly false proud dangerous Mr. Humphrey Upon this he reviles me two or three pages Ans 1. How can there here be reviling when I speak 1. no more than the truth 2. ground what I say upon his own expresse terms he professing he endeavours his utmost de jure and that in a series of actions if he have administred the Sacrament often 3 ly since I say no more of him than I may warrantably say of the Godliest man under Heaven if he dare make such a boast of himself Let the pious Reader peruse what I say of this matter page 92. 94. of my Bar and judge whither it 's a piece of reviling or a necessary though sharp reproof I hope without offence I may propound one question to Mr. Humphrey leave it upon his conscience Dare he professe and stand upon it before Christ at the day of Judgement That he hath endeavoured his utmost de jure that all come prepared If not let him acknowledge Dr. Drake is his friend not his reviler in so seasonable and necessary a reproof Yet further to clear himself pag. 125. Mr. Humphrey hath these words To exhort men to examine themselves and to warn them of the danger of neglecting their duty is all the Minister can do de jure which Mr. Drake himself grants where there is no Presbytery Ans If by that exhortation and warning he mean onely publick exhortation and warning which to me seems more than probable this is not all a Ministers duty de jure what ever a private Christian as such is bound to that much more a Minister is bound to but private Christians are bound to exhort and warn each
shewes that when persons come to eat they must observe order Is it probable the Apostle should condemne receiving unworthily and yet allow receiving though unworthily If receiving though unworthily be allowable then let persons jure excommunicate receive for they can but receive unworthily Pag. 130. Mr. Humphrey charges me with two Schisms and 1. For saying that an unregenerate man must examine himself and so abstein Ans I say no such thing if examination be taken in the Apostles sence for the whole worke of preparation and as oppsed to unworthynes in the next vers 1 Cor. 12. 28 29 The end of examination being self discovery and reformation these two last must needs be included in it Let an unregenerate man thus examine himself and I am confident he is bound to receive so far am I from seperating between such examination and receiving Mr. Humphrey Nay Mr. D. sayes he most be present too but not eat which is an other Schisme in the Actions Ans I believe all may be present without sin 1. Because I finde no prohibition to the contrary Secondly because they may receive good by presence which inclimes me to believe presence is a duty here as at Baptisme Yet herein I dare not be so peremptory as in the other branch that all must not eat When Mr. Humphrey can make out an inseparable union between presence and receiving then I shall be ready both to confesse and reforme the Schisme he charges me withall till then he must excuse me But whereas Mr. Humphrey charges me with slander as affirming I say Let a man eat though he do not examine himself Ans I do not remember nor can finde this passage in this paragraph yet haply elswhere I may have expressed as much and believe it 's far from slander yea should be very glad were I mistaken therein I shall therefore put it to this issue Either Mr. Humphrey is of the minde the a man must eat though be do not examine himself or he is of the contrary minde for between two contradictions there is no middle If he be of the former minde then I have not slandered him If he be of the contrary mind then he is of our judgement That self-examination abstractedly taken is not enough to vvarrant receiving To evidence this let us compare the two propositions 1. Prop. Let a man eat though he do not examine himself 2. Prop. Let not a man eat unlesse he do examine himself If the former be not his judgement then the latter must needs be his judgement it being contradictory to the former and so Master Humphrey is of judgement that a man must not eat unlesse he do examine himself namely when he either doth not examine himself at all or upon examination he findes himself Evangelically unworthy the end of examination being not onely or principally discovery but reformation which therefore must needs be included in Apostolick examination He that tryes onely in order to discovery had as good not try at all yea such tryal will aggravate his judgement and make him more inexcusable as sinning against conviction James 4. 17. If now I have slandered Mr. Humphrey as I am sorry for the material slander though unwittingly done so I am not a little glad he is more of our judgement in this particular then I formerly took him to be But be it what it will he must either clear me of slander or accuse himself of errour Yet withall let me be bold to tell Mr. Humphrey That he who sayes let all receive must by necessary consequence say let those Church-members receive who do not examine themselves unlesse he can make it out that all Church-members do make conscience of examining themselves Dr. Drake The Sacrament must not be attended on as the word understand it as to actual receiving in order to conversion but to edification Mr. Humphrey pag. 131. we must not receive this doctrine without Scripture which will wholly dispeople this Ordinance Ans 1. I hope in due place Mr. Humphrey wants not for Scripture proof Secondly In the mean time is not Mr. Humphrey too uncharitable as to many other so particularly to his own Congregation in his sad Prophecy If the Sacrament must be quite dispeopled unlesse it be a means of conversion them belike Mr. Humphrey hath no communicants but such as receive in order to initial conversion If so then there is not one Godly person in all Mr. Humphrey his Parish or amongst all his receivers A censure so uncharitable that I dare not passe it for a world but hope that among his Communicants there are some who partake in order to edification I mean that are truely Godly and receive for growth in grace and comfort Mr. Humphrey Pag. 131. The Sacrament is not instituted to convert Heathen for the word is not a sealed word unto them Answ 1. By way of Concession Truely if it be not instituted to convert any 1. Neither is it instituted to convert Heathen Yet secondly Prayer and preaching two necessary attendants upon the Sacrament are instituted to convert Heathen as well as any Thirdly That a means of conversion should universally be denyed to any who need conversion is a Doctrine we cannot receive without Scripture Fourthly That the word is not a sealed word unto Heathen is soon said but not so easily proved cannot a priviledge be sealed to me * Is not this proposition whosoever believes shall be saved a branch of the revealed Covenant Secondly It is not sealed at the Sacrament Suppose now an Heathen stand by at the the Lords Supper Is the forementioned propositioned sealed to him conditionally or not If it be we have enough If not then the Sacrament doth not seal that the aforesaid proposition is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the seal is not as extensive as the writing for the Covenant sayes all that believe shall be saved but the seal belike assures onely that all Church members that believe shall be saved unlesse I eat the seals Indeed onely some few are fit to eat and drink the seals but who may not hear the Covenant proclaimed and see it sealed at the Sacrament yea to himself in particular conditionally whither he be a Christian or an Heathen whither he receive or not Mr. Humphrey Pag. 132. Forbearance of the Passe over was allowed to none but for a moneth Answ 1. This is grat is dictum what if a person were unclean not onely at the first but also at the second Passe-over was he bound to receive the second Passe-over though never so unclean Indeed if a man were clean and brought not the Lords offering he ran a great hazzard but where is he threatned that forbore because he was unclean at the second Passe-over Then belike even Lepers ought to eat the Passeover in the second month Yet secondly our case is far better we having eight or twelve Sacraments every year and he who is unclean at this Sacrament may receive the
he mentions or with any other that bears the name of a Scholar or Divine nor desire to expatiate in controversies which I look at as the shell not the kernel of Divinity Nor was I or am I acted with malice in coping with Mr. H. in this unhappy controversie which himself among others whom I honour in the Lord started against the votes and judgement of a Parliament assisted by an Assembly of very pious orthodox and learned Divines to the general sadning of eminently godly persons in the Nations who looked at the Presbyterian Government and the exercise of it in this particular for the substance thereof as most consonant to the rule as the fruit of many prayers that have long hung upon the file in heaven and as the great Instrument under Christ to extirpate Ignorance Errour Prophaneness Schism c. and therefore opposed by some maliciously by others through weakness and prejudice in which last rank I place Mr. H. however he look at me as malicious If the Lord shall bless my poor endeavours to convince him I shall think it abundantly worth my pains though it bee to me a troublesome work in the midst of other weighty avocations However I shall submit the issue to God and sit down in peace that I have sincerely though weakly endeavoured to do my duty and hope some body will be the better by this poor peece though it must expect to meet with much contempt and opposition Mr. H.p. 147. I shall propose him only that one Text Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs Excommunicated persons are generally interpreted to be dogs and swine the word and prayer are holy things as well as the Sacrament which yet was not instituted when this precept was first given and so cannot hee primarily intended here Ergo. Ans 1. All excommunicated persons are not dogs Even godly men upon just ground may be excommunicated and I hope children are not dogs 2 All dogs are not to be denied holy things Heathen are dogs Matth. 15. v. 22. 26 27. yet may be admitted to the word preached 1 Cor. 14. 24. 3 Some persons within the Church are dogs yet must not be denied the Sacrament if upon trial it appear they have competent knowledge and no scandal be objected or proved against them the Church in censures being bound to proceed Secundum allegata probata 4 Therefore we must distinguish of dogs Some are dogs really but not visibly such are natural persons undiscovered these with due provisions can be denied no Ordinance Others are dogs both really and visibly Such are Heathen who must not be denied the Crums though they may not sit with Children at the Table Others are scornful and malicious dogs and therefore are in an especial manner unworthy of any Ordinance and so far as they are visible must be denied 1 The pearl of private reproof more particularly there intended by our Saviour who forbids private judging of any and private reproof of some unless it be for others sake 2 They must be denied that holy thing the Sacrament which as the Cabinet of that pearl of price they sleight visibly But as for publick prayers and preaching unless they be publick Affronters and disturbers of the very exercises of these Ordinances which are means of their conversion and which do not so much irritate their spleen as being not particularly and personally applied against them I see no warrant of Scripture to thrust any dog from them unless it bee known he have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost In this sense Mr. Perkins his Comment upon Matth. 7. 6. I cordially subscribe to That such dogs as do publickly blaspheme and vent their heresies against the truth at the very time when it is delivered are to be forced away from the publick Ordinances or separated from if the Church want co-active power Act. 13. v. 45 46 50 51. where you have both the barking and the tearing dog as well as they must bee denied private reproof at least for their own sakes where they scoff at and oppose it privately This rule our Saviour seems to explain Matth. 18. v. 15-17 where the remedy rises up gradually with the malady and neglecting to hear is a degree of Swinish-trampling But little doth Mr. H. think how he hath prejudiced his own cause by this quotation of Reverend Mr. Perkins pag. 148. especially where in a Parenthesis he bids the Reader Mark that Mr. Perkins his words quoted there by Mr. H. are these Indeed if the party be excommunicated for some particular crime c. then although he be excluded from communion in the Sacrament and Prayer Mark that yet may he be admitted to hear the word to help him to repent which is the end of all Church-censures Is not Mr. Perkins here clear that some persons excommunicated yet may be admitted to the word preached and that in order to their conversion And what is our suspension in the rigor of it but an excommunication from the Sacrament with an admission at the same time to the word preached Mr. Perkins then is a profest friend to suspension which is also beholding to Mr. H. for affording it so honourable a testimony You will say I but Mr. Perkins excludes such from prayer also Ans True and probably because he looked not at prayer as a converting Ordinance which had he done it s not likely he would have been against presence either at Word Prayer or Sacrament by which all that are cureable may receive good although they do not actually receive the elements 5 If the Sacrament be not primarily intended here because this precept was given before the Lords Supper was instituted no more was it primarily intended in the wedding feast Matth. 22. upon the same account which yet Mr. H. builds upon as a bottome for free admission It s enough for our purpose First That the Sacrament is an holy thing Secondly That by Mr. H. his own grant it s to be denied to some dogs to whom other holy things are not to be denied namely heathen and persons jure excommunicated to which last at least he yeelds it may be denied Thirdly That upon Scripture-ground it is to be denied to some dogs within the Church yea to real children But neither must holy things nor dogs be understood universally which both the manner of expression and our Saviours reason hint sufficiently where a pearl is First cast away Secondly exposed to contempt Thirdly exposes the giver to danger there it s not to be tendered caeteris paribus An indefinite Proposition is not equivalent to an universal unless in materiâ necessariâ He that sayes absolutely No holy thing must be given to any dog doth not only sin against faith as corrupting the Text but also against charity as cutting off innumerable persons from all means of conversion His distinction p. 148. of real relative exclusion is pithy pertinent and well express'd and may do very much to
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
to seal the promise where he may erre seeing his visible Legatees really may not be such Answ 1. The Minister must seal what Christ would have him and that is both offer and promise they ever going together in the Sacrament nor is he at his own choice to seal whether he please What God promises in the Covenant that he offers by his Ambassadors both in the word preached and at the Sacrament onely at the Sacrament there is not onely a promise and offer but also a sealing of them both 2. The promise and offer are considerable 1. As to their real existence and thus the Sacrament seals that the promise and offer of Christ to all present yea wherever the Gospel is preached conditionally is no fiction but a fundamental truth 2. As to its attingency and efficacy and thus it s not promised or offered to all present or to all receivers My meaning is that at the Sacrament Christ with all his benefits is never so either promised or offered as that all present are assured thereby they shall either obtain infallibly the good things promised or accept the good things tendered Whence it follows that though the Minister may mistake as a man about the person of any receiver thinking charitably he hath grace when he hath it not yet he cannot mistake as to his office since he undertakes not to promise or tender Christ effectually to any that being onely Gods work though he groundedly hope God by him doth effectually promise and tender Christ to divers receivers namely where the Spirit is pleased to strike in effectually with the promise and tender sealed in the Sacrament by the Minister as Christs Ambassador Object How can the Minister seal absolutely to the regenerate when he cannot seal to them but upon condition of regeneration And since he knows none that are regenerated I mean as such must he not needs seal conditionally to all and so to the regenerate among the rest Answ As a promise may be both absolute and conditional so it may be sealed both absolutely and conditionally Now the promise is made to the regenerate both absolutely and conditionally therefore it may and must be sealed to them both absolutely and conditionally The promise of salvation is made and sealed to Timothy 1. Conditionally that is upon condition of his acting and persevering in faith c. 2. Absolutely because really the condition is and shall be performed by him The same promise is made and sealed to Judas onely conditionally because those conditions are neither performed nor performable by him whence the promise can no way be made or sealed absolutely to Judas as it is to Timothy Though therefore the Minister at the Sacrament seal conditionally to Timothy yet at the same time he seals absolutely also though haply unwittingly because the condition of eternal salvation is performed by Timothy not so by Judas Mr. D. Christ may be given to all at the Sacrament if you take giving for holding forth though they do not receive Page 190. M. H. What an unworthy shift is this to be made use of so often As Christ is held forth to all Sacramentally he is held forth to this end to be Sacramentally eaten and drunken Take eat this is my body that is thus taken and eaten it is his body and not otherwise The Sacrament then gives not out Christ or holds him forth Sacramentally but to those that receive it The fallacy lies in the term Sacramental At the Lords Supper you have Christ Spiritual and Sacramental At every Lords Supper Christ Spiritual is offered to all present and it s their duty to receive Christ Spiritual But it follows not thence that Christ Sacramental that is the Elements must be offered to and received by all present They are justly denyed the sign who visibly refuse the thing signified Answ I perceive M. H. hath a strong breath to blast a mans sense where he cannot convince it I dare not boast of any worthiness either in my person words or actions I hope the Lord hath made me truly sensible of my exceeding great unworthiness in them all However as I have I shall endeavor through grace to assert and vindicate truth though I must confess too unworthily As to the point in hand 1. It s false that Christ is or must be held forth to all present Sacramentally if by holding forth you mean an offer or tender Suppose one jure excommunicate be present must the Minister offer Christ Sacramental to him M. H. himself hath granted the contrary True he is held forth to all present Sacramentally by way of Declaration but not by way of Oblation or offer to all present All present may see Christ set apart and broken Sacramentally c. they may also see the Covenant sealed in the Sacrament to all present conditionally But it follows not thence that Christ must needs be offered Sacramentally to all present though he be always offered to some present Sacramentally and must be so received by them 2. It s false that unless the Sacramental bread be eaten understand proportionably of the Sacramental Cup as Christs blood it s not Christs body for 1. It s Christs body by consecration according to Christs institution before it be taken and eaten otherwise the Minister would utter an untruth in speaking those words Take eat this is Christs body c. 2. The not receiving of some present whether it be orderly or sinful cannot make void Christs institution but by vertue thereof the bread is Christs body so long as the solemnity of the Sacrament continues 3. Though Christ be not offered Sacramenttally to all at the Lords Supper yet he is offered Spiritually to all present and the promise of Christ spiritual is sealed conditionally to all present who seeing Christ crucified by them and for them may be much affected and wrought upon though they do not receive the Elements Gal. 3. 1. as well as the Communicants themselves who I hope are affected with the Elements set apart broken and poured out before their actual receiving May not a Look upon Christ crucified affect as well as a receiving of Christ crucified Zach. 12. 10. I do not say as much since both of these actions will affect more then one of them M. H. p. 191. As the Minister doth not onely loose but binde in the word so doth he in the Sacrament but conditionally in both Answ If his meaning be that the Minister looses and bindes onely conditionally then he looses the wicked as much as the godly and bindes the godly as much as the wicked the reason is because at the same time that he looses the godly conditionally he bindes them also conditionally and at the same time he bindes the wicked conditionally he looses them also conditionally Dare he say absolutely to a godly man Thy sins are remitted though thou repent not or to a wicked man Thy sins are bound though thou repent I pray what difference between Timothy
is a virtue or power from Christ goes along with his command Answ True so far as Christ hath promised vertue shall go along with his command But the great question is Where Christ hath promised that converting power shall go along with his command of taking in the Sacrament as he hath that it shall accompany the command of believing in the word preached M. H. p. 216. God hath promised in general to meet with those that wait on him in his ways Answ Here he begs the question as if receiving were a way God commands unregenerat men to walk in M. H. ib. Christ consecrated this Ordinance with a blessing Answ So he did the Ordinance of the Ministry yet I hope all are not therefore bound to turn Ministers Mr. H. ib. Mr. Drake tells us this Take is a short exhortation and will he demand a promise to prove that Exhortation is Converting Answ Mr. D. p. 158. of his Bar onely supposes the word Take as a short and virtual Sermon may convert and then addes What think you of that person who stands out against this word also can he be converted by actual receiving A Supposition I hope is not a Position Besides it will puzzle Mr. H. to prove that every virtual Sermon is converting for then every moral Precept yea every Creature should be a means of Conversion M. D. The word is both seed and food not so the Sacrament M. H. p. 216. The Sacrament works by the word and therefore may work the first grace as well as further degrees of grace Answ The question is not What the Sacrament may do if God pleases but what it doth Let M. H. produce one Scripture to prove that the Lords Supper as received is converting M. H. p. 217. In the Sacrament there is a Take and this is certainly seed and there is an Eat including food Answ A strange interpretation and contradictory to it self That the command of taking Christ for nourishment should be seed as is the command of taking Christ for Conversion M. H. ib. Prayer is no where called the immortal seed yet it is seed I doubt not in this sense to beget grace in us Answ Prayer as such converts not as seed but by way of impetration setting God on work to cast the seed of grace into the heart If an Husbandman upon Mr. H. his request cast seed into the ground I hope M. H. will not say His request was the seed wherewith the ground was sown 2 The matter of Prayer is the Word since we can ask nothing but what is promised Upon which account Prayer in some sense may be called an immortal seed and may prove very effectual in order to conversion especially where spiritually and powerfully uttered But as Prayer it works properly by way of Impetration Psal 2. 8. And thus Stephens prayer Act. 7. 60. might be effectual to convert Paul Mr. H. ib. Ex quibus nascimur ex iis nutrimur That which nourishes us can beget us Answ I perceive Mr. H. is better at quotation than at translation A Grammar-Scholar would have translated it better thus That which begets us nourishes us or we are nourished by those things by which we are begotten Which makes for us and against Mr. H. we being nourished by the word that begets but not being begotten by the Lords Supper that nourishes us And though nourishment contribute remotely to the making of seed yet I hope nourishment as such is not seed though sometime seed may be nourishment Mr. D. But suppose a man stouts it out before and after the word take If actual receiving can convert him the Apostles rule is not universally true He that eats unworthily eats judgement to himself Mr. H. Suppose the Jaylor had stouted it out against the word Beleeve c. Answ He belonging to the election of grace the Lord no doubt would have converted him by another word of command to beleeve c. as he doth all the Elect sooner or later 2 Pet. 3. 9. the word being still the Instrument of conversion not so the Lords Supper What ever Mr. H. may think or would make the Reader beleeve a Dilemma if right is no Sophistry but a forcible Argument On the other hand Let me warn the Reader to take heed he be not deceived by Mr. H. to think that a person in the state of nature can receive worthily in the Apostles sense Or that the sin of not discerning the Lords body is nothing else but the making of the Table of the Lord a common table in the gross and litteral sense But of this formerly Mr. D. But suppose a man may be converted by that short exhortation Take this may be done by presence c. Mr. H. Page 218. If all come to this still you may see what he must have a Sacrament without receiving which yet himself decryes Answ Soft Sir no such thing follows If there be persons either visibly or really worthy there will be no Sacrament without receiving If there be none such in a Congregation I think that at present there ought to be no Sacrament in such a Congregation Though the Sacrament as a mixed Ordinance may convert standers by yet I am far from turning the Sacrament into a Mass to be received by the Minister alone all the people in the mean time being only Spectators and Auditors I beleeve some present must receive but it follows not that all must receive who are present or that none must be present unless they receive Nor is the command of Taking an empty liveless word unless it convert I hope an edifying word is no empty liveless word Page 219. Mr. H. is a little too confident in daring to lay his life upon his opinion That Christ would never have so indeterminately commanded Drink you all of it if so many thousands of unregenerate members that come thither must but necessarily therefore eat their damnation He considers not that the term all in Scripture-phrase very seldome notes an absolute universal Mr. D. Every natural man notwithstanding all his preparatory acts hath still the unworthiness of person and comes to the feast without the wedding garment c. Mr. H. p. 219. f. This himself satisfies for the feast he sayes is Christ and I hope a man must come to Christ for conversion c. Answ A man indeed must come to Christ for conversion but not under every notion I come to Christ as a Father for conversion I come to him as a Feast for nourishment and edification Christ as a Father begetâ— us by the word as a Feast he nourishes us by the Sacrament Such confounding of notions by Mr. H. may well puzzle but will not inlighten or edifie the Reader Page 220. Mr. H. catches now again at a marginal scape of mine p. 160. of my Bar which I will not justifie but thank Mr. H. for shewing me my error though it be with a scoff That fruit is to be attained by the Sacrament as
a joynt virtue of the word and discernment which children have not may as well exclude them from Baptism of which they have no more discerning than of the Lords Supper Page 224. M. H. grants 1. That the Lords Supper is instituted for edification 2. That this edification refers to the whole Church Whence I infer from M. H. his five principles That those intelligent Church-members who are warrantably suspended instance in his jure excommunicate at least may if not must be present in order to their edification to which in his sense the Sacrament refers How can I edifie by an Ordinance if I be not present at that Ordinance He that is absent in reference to place is further from edification than he that is absent in understanding 1 Cor. 14. v. 17 24. His conceit of making regeneration to be edification hath been formerly answered We dispute not about the latitude of the word edification but grant that in a large sense he who lays a foundation edifies if the foundation be a part of the building yet I hope in precise speaking the terms and notions of founding and building are distinct both in the Civil and Spiritual Edifice 1 Cor. 3. 10. and that an Ordinance or part of an Ordinance may be effectual to edifie which is not effectual to found in a precise sense Besides edification must be proportionable to the foundation therefore edification in common grace follows and suits with the foundation of common grace and edification in saving grace follows and suits with the foundation of saving grace which is regeneration Common grace founds but upon the sand saving grace founds upon the rock which are two distinct foundations and must have two distinct edifications But of this formerly M. H. p. 225. In that word fancy he wrongs me for his sense is answered A vital Ordinance can beget life Answ Then M. H. wrongs himself the word Fancy being his own word page 63. of his Vindication An Ordinance may be called Vital not onely as it begets but also as it preserves and increases life Christ indeed is vital food but not before he be vital seed and in the Sacrament he is received as vital food not as vital seed Page 170. of my Bar I blame M. H. for saying That confirmation of the Covenant is a primary end confirmation of faith a secondary end of the Lords Supper Page 225. of his Rejoynder M. H. tells me scoffingly That I blame him for saying but what I say my self For confirmation whereof he quotes page 126. of my Bar. Answ I say there indeed That Sacramental seals confirm 1. The Covenant 2. The faith of the worthy receiver But where do I say that confirmation of the Covenant is the primary end confirmation of faith the secondary end of the Lords Supper Is not that generally first in time which is last in intention Confirmation of the Covenant as a means is first in order of time or at least in order of nature before the confirmation of faith as the causa synechtica is before the effect but the confirmation of faith as the end is in order of intention before the confirmation of the Covenant That is first in order of existence which is last in order of intention and contrà In order of existence the confirmation of the Covenant is before the confirmation of faith as the means are before the end but in order of intention or design the confirmation of faith is before the confirmation of the Covenant as the end is before the means I say the confirmation of the Covenant is in order of existence before the confirmation of faith M. H. says it is in order of intention before the confirmation of faith Let the Reader judge whether these two propositions are all one and whether M. H. does not violate the Law of Moral Philosophy as well as Divinity in holding That the confirmation of the Covenant is the primary the confirmation of faith the secondary end of the Lords Supper Who knows not that the Covenant is confirmed by the seals as well as by Gods oath Heb. 6. v. 17 18. in order to the confirmation of our we ak faith As Gods oath so the seals by confirming the Covenant do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in order to the confirmation of our faith as the end And if so then the confirmation of our faith is the end of the confirmation of the Covenant whence it follows necessarily that the confirmation of the Covenant cannot be the primary end of the seals and confirmation of our faith their secondary end as M. H. would have it M. H. p. 226. Let me help him out here There is the end of the Ordainer and the end of the Ordinance It may be true that the Churches edification is primarily the intention of the Ordainer But the primary end of the Ordinance must be that which goes into the institution and the secondary that which flows from it Now the end that is thus express in the institution is for to be a memorial of Christs death and so outwardly to seal solemnize or confirm the Covenant and then the confirming a mans faith as begetting it in others is plainly a consequent effect result or concomitant thereof By this one passage well considered you may have a guess at the man Answ In the former branch of his answer M. H. is pleased to make himself and his Reader merry with me with the rehearsal whereof I shall not waste and defile paper but give him leave to make up in frothy wit what he falls short of in solid argument Now he profers to make amends by helping me rather himself but I fear his help will prove as unserviceable as his jesting is unsavory 1. Therefore its false that an effect or consequent of another end is not or cannot be a primary end yea on the contrary it s most certain that the last effect or consequent is the first primary or highest end and so by proportion this being a sure maxim in morality Finis ut in executione ultimus est ita in intentione primus 2. It s likewise untrue that the primary end must go into the institution of a Sacrament I mean expresly for at that Mr. H. drives as is evident to go no further by the Passeover of which Christ and salvation by him was the primary end yet not so much as mentioned in the institution thereof Exod. 12. 3. Supposing his rule were true that the primary end of the Sacrament must go expresly into the institution Then 1. The confirmation of the Covenant by Mr. H. his own rule is not the primary end of the Lords Supper since the confirmation of the Covenant is not expresly mentioned in the institution though the Covenant it self be Or 2. The confirmation of our faith is as evidently mentioned as the confirmation of the Covenant and therefore by M. H. his rule though against his dictate may be a primary end of the Sacrament For proof
discover to us much of God c. I as Respondent answer That is not proof sufficient but he must produce a promise of Conversion annexed to the observation of those Heavenly Bodies if he will make it out that they are a Converting-Ordinance Were it now a reasonable demand on M. H. his part to bid me produce any one Text of Scripture where Converting grace is denyed to the Contemplation of the Heavenly Bodies The case is here much alike nor is every means of Edification a means of Conversion True the Respondent denying an universal Proposition and so by consequence affirming a limitation is bound to give an instance for that limitation but it lies not upon him to prove that instance but upon the Opponent to disprove it For example I deny M. H. his universal that all Ordinances are Converting in this denyal by consequence I affirm a limitation and give instance of those Ordinances which have no promise of Conversion annexed to them Doth it not here lie upon M. H. to prove that every Ordinance hath a promise of Conversion annexed to it if he mean to fortifie his Universal Will any fair Opponent here require of me to produce some Text where Converting-grace is denyed to any Ordinance Argument 3. M. H. p. 229. There is but a peradventure for the Conversion of any in the use of all means besides because there is no special promise of grace in the best use of meer naturals But there is an it may be granted by our Opposites to the Sacrament Answ There is a wide difference between the first and second it may be the first it may be or peradventure flowing from Gods ordinate power as declared by his revealed will that it shall concur with some Ordinances for the Conversion of his the second it may be flowing onely from his absolute power which is a poor ground of encouragement to expect Conversion from any standing Ordinance to which God hath annexed no promise of Conversion It s possible by Gods absolute power the damned may be saved through the satisfaction of Christ but by Gods ordinate power its possible onely for the Living to be saved The former it may be speaks no comfort to the Damned but the latter it may be speaks much comfort to the living especially those under the means of grace Why Because the efficacy of Christs satisfaction is by promise annexed to divers of the living but to none of the damned In like manner its possible by Gods absolute power receiving may convert not so by Gods ordinate power unless a promise can be produced which annexes conversion to actual receiving There is a wide difference I hope between these two it may bees It may be God may convert me occasionally by my sin as he did divers of the Crucifiers of Christ but it were madness thence to conclude that sin is a means of conversion By saying therefore that actual receiving cannot convert any I do not limit the Spirit of God but onely declare that the Spirit is pleased to limit himself not to convert any by receiving and that because he wills not to convert any by it And that God wills not to convert any by this as well as by other Ordinances I conclude because God hath not revealed his will to convert any by this as by other Ordinances Let it appear that God wills to convert any by receiving and I shall easily be of M. H. his judgement That actual receiving is a converting Ordinance For his amplification ib. by a distinction of an half promise and a full promise Answ These half promises are made to none but such as attend upon God in and under the means of conversion and that actual receiving is a means of conversion is the Question to be proved Argument 4. Mr. H. p. 230 If the Sacrament be converting as it is a visible word then it must be converting as it is a gustable tactible word c. Answ 1. It s not granted that the Lords Supper converts as a visible word See my Bar p. 155. and 156 but that the word reed ' opened and applied at the Sacrament is and may be a means of conversion 2. We desire Mr. H. to produce one promise that the Sacramental elements either as seen touched or tasted are a means of conversion Argument 5. ib. The precepts of God are lively and operative and the offers of grace are the means and conveyances of that power we have not in our selves to receive it But here is this most sweet and gracious offer and command Take and eat Ergo Answ The precepts of God are lively and operative in order to the ends for which he appoints them and the offers of grace are means to convey unto the heirs of grace that grace which God offers by them but that in the Sacrament God commands us to receive in order to conversion or that he offers converting grace in tendering the Sacramental elements is still the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Argument 6. ib. The reclayming of a man from some particular vice or vices is a good step forwards towards repentance and conversion But the Sacrament is a constant experiment hereof Ergo. Answ 1. There is a wide difference between a step towards repentance materially and repentance it self In the Devils and damned there are some steps towards repentance as conviction fear c. Yet they I hope are far enough from repentance 2. A man may turn from one sin to another from prodigality to covetousness is this a step towards repentance or conversion 3. That receiving the Sacrament reclaims a natural man from any sin is still the Question begged Mr. H. pretends constant experience but names here no experiment We are sure upon his own principle we can shew him an experiment to the contrary Supposing as he will have it Judas did receive I pray what vice or vices was he reclaimed from by his receiving doth not the very Liturgie hold him forth as a warning unto natural men not to venture in that estate upon the holy Sacrament He supposes indeed a drunkard coming to the Sacrament with a resolution against drunkenness taking the Sacrament upon it and proving ever after a sober man Answ 1. This resolution of his is either against drunkenness alone which is purely carnal upon carnal principles and is often justly plagued with returning to the vomit or it is against all other sins too and this either a velleity and faint resolution made by the strength of natural free will or real and sincere the former is but a good mood or turning upon the hinges Prov. 26. 14. exposing him to a more dangerous fall the latter is true repentance begun and such a one comes not a natural man to the Sacrament but is converted before receiving Argument 7. Mr. H. 231. The acting or exercise of common grace and endeavouring to do what a man can is another good step forward towards conversion But the Sacrament is the means to
the first thing which by the power of the Holy Ghost brought over her will to the acceptance of our Lord Jesus Christ But that it was the first thing which she sensibly perceived brought over her will c. whence it follows she had her first sensible evidence at the Sacrament in receiving but whether she were not really converted till that instant is still in dispute 3. Mr. F. confesses That before her admission she had some sleight motions and conviction wrought upon her Who can say but these sleight motions in mans judgement might be converting motions That may be real and glorious with God which is but sleight with man contra Luke 16. 15. Hence I may without injury to that pious woman conclude that this example affords no solid bottome to prove actual receiving a converting Ordinance SECT VII THe seventh Objection is Judas received not the Sacrament because he went out John 13. 30. This Objection is considerable as overthrowing Mr. H. his foundation That Judas did receive But whether he received or not it s not very material to us Mr. H. p. 241. My answer was That this Supper of John was before the Feast of the Passeover and that very likely two nights Vnto this all Mr. D. answers p. 176. is Mr. H. in two leaves takes some pains to small purpose I pray note it while I alledge Scripture to prove that this Supper in John and the Passeover were two different Suppers and in two different plâ—…es he tells us this is to small purpose as if the alledging Judas went out to agree with the High-Priests from a Supper two nights before the Sacrament waâ— sufficient proof that therefore he went out at the Sacrament Answ 1. Sure those words are not all Mr. Drakes answer as is evident to any that will but cast an eye upon what I say p. 176. 177. of my Bar though withal I must confess I wonder at my self upon what account I should let pass so memorable a place as that of John 13. untouched in my answer and am beholding to Mr. H. for minding me here of it 2. Therefore now what in me lyes to make up that defect I shall first coap with Mr. H. in his humble vindication and then proceed to what he addes is his Rejoynder Mr. H. p. 64. and 65. of his Vindication There was a Supper a little before the Passeover where St. John relates a washing of the disciples feet and other things that were not to be done at the solemnity of the Passeover but the feet were to be shod then and the like gestures quite contrary Answ 1. To this Mr. H. cites his own answer p. 65. in these words Some say those passages which noted their â—aste out of Egypt were not obligatory when they came to the land of rest 2. Yet suppose they were then obligatory why might they not have their feet washed just before the Passeover and then put on their shooes c. and eat the Passeover with observation of the original rites If you say This washing was a servile work and therefore prohibited at that holy time Exod. 12. 16. Answ 1. All servile works were not forbid upon such holy Convocations and particularly washing anointing dressing of meat which served to chear and refresh them as the Rabbins note Mr. Goodwin in his Jewish Antiq. notes L. 3 c. 2. 4. That at al feasts especially at the Passeover washing of the feet was an usual ceremony 2. This work though servile in form was holy in use and in Christs design and holy works though bonily are no prophaning of an holy day Mr. H. ib. So large a circumstance as is here mentioned of John to be introduced of Christ at this time is not probable Joh. 12. 1. Answ 1. I hope all those circumstances mentioned Joh. 12. might easily fall out in six dayes 2. For the circumstances of washing and giving the Sop suppose they took up half an hour between the common supper and the Passeover the celebration whereof as also of the Lords Supper is not recorded by John as being sufficiently handled by the other Evangelists I pray what absurdity follows May not the Lord of time borrow a little time to testifie his great love and humility and to uncase an hypocrite Mr. H. ib. and p. 66. About two nights before the Passeover when it drew neer Sathan entred into Judas c. compare Matth. 26. 2.14 and Mark 14. 1.11 So that it could not be at the time supposed that is manifest Answ Grant that two nights before the Passeover Sathan entered into Judas doth not John take particular notice of that circumstance as a thing past by expressing it in the participle of the preterperfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 13. 2. though upon other occasions Sathan got further entrance vers 27. The circumstance of time then is not against us unless Mr. H. his bare assertion be a demonstration With the same confidence he affirms ib. That Judas was present till the Lords Supper and all was done for which he quotes Lukes Hystorâ—ogie Luke 22. 21. and hath been formerly answered Also that Judas stole away when Christ was going with his disciples to Mount Olivet c. But 1. where is his Scripture-proof for this particular 2. That the discovery of Judas by the Sop and by dipping in the dish was a twofold discovery and at two several times seems not probable What need they suspect every man himself on the Passeover Even if Mr. H. his assertion be true that but two dayes before the Traytor was so particularly discovered by the Sop given unto him It s more probable therefore that Christ at one and the same time and that before the Sacrament did discover Judas in general by his dipping in the dish and in particular by the Sop given him John 13. 26. and by word of mouth also Matth. 26. 25. Upon which he immediately went out John 13. 30. and as some think neither received the Passeover nor the Lords Supper It s enough for our purpose if he received not the Lords Supper Mr. H. p. 67. Johus Sop was before the bargain Matthews dipping was at the very time of accomplishing it Answ 1. How will Mr. H. make it out that Johns Sop was before the bargain If he urge John 13. 1. Now before the Feast of the Passeover c. is not immediately before as truely before as two dayes before If Christ washed his Disciples feet c. between the common supper and the Passeover I hope it was as truly done before the Passeover as if he had washed them two dayes before the Passeover and the Sop being given at that time it seems consonant to reason and not against Scripture that Judas went away before the Passeover much more before the Lords Supper to acquaint the Priests with that fair opportunity of taking our Saviour in the Garden that very night if they would furnish him with a sufficient number to