caro et sanguis dictat ab hoc coetu excluditur c. I pray what is the animal-man but the naturall man 1 Cor. 2. 14. I hope then it s not my singular opinion That persons unconverted ought not to receive What was the opinion of Calvin Beza and their Followers is well known therefore I shall not trouble my Reader about it Let us descend to the Lutheran Churches of whose consent with us in this particular Gerhard a person of great learning and industry gives a satisfactory account in his 5th Tome treating of the Lords Supper cap. 21. his words are these Neque verò omnes Christiani promiscùe admittendi ad Sacram coenam sed juxta regulam Paulinam 1 Cor. 11. Next he shewes who ought not to be admitted and 1. Such as either cannot or will not examine themselves particularly Hereticks notorious sinners And here he argues from the analogie of the Passover and from 1 Cor. 5. 11. Persons excommunicated possessed that are deprived the use of reason that exeroise infamous Arts or Trades shewes in what cases deafe and dumbe persons may be admitted upon what account Infants were admitted to the Sacrament for 600 years together in the Primitive times and produceth Chrysostom professing That he had rather lose his life then admit unworthy persons to the Lords Supper He notes further against Bellarmine that the Hussites admit to the Sacrament Infants of six weeks old And for my part I believe that upon the account of unworthinesse there is lesse exception against an Infant then against a grosly ignorant and scandalous person Cap. 22. Gerhard hath these words Sedulo providere debet Ecclesiae Minister ne quis indignè hoc est sine verâ poenit entia fide hoc Sacramento utatur Whence its evident he judges them unworthy who want true faith and repentance See Sect. 232 of the same Chapter Who do not try themselves that is who do not acknowledge their sins do not seriously grieve for them do not judge themselves have not a serious purpose of amendment and walking regularly that are not reconciled to their neighbours In the same Chapter he grants that 1 Cor. 10. 20. is valid to prove that they who have fellowship with Devills ought not to partake of the Lords Supper and shewes out of Lyranus and by comparing other Texts of Scripture that the Cannot there must be understood of a morall impossibility Yea lastly the very Papists themselves are strongly against Mr. Humphrey his free Admission I shall produce only Aestius and Biell Aestius upon 1 Cor. 11. 27. shewes first who receives unworthily to wit not only he who comes irreverently as Mr. Humphrey would have it but also he Qui affectum gerit aut reatum peccati mortalis And though their distinction of sins into Mortall and Veniall be corrupt yet seeing they conclude he is in mortall sin who 1. Affects sin 2 ly Is not duly humbled and contrite 3 ly Is unpardoned See Biel Lib. 4. Distinct 9. Quaest 2. It s evident they must needs conclude that none in the state of nature can receive worthily Yea Aestius in the fore-quoted place notes that he who comes to receive with a spirit of enmity against God yet unreconciled is guilty of high Treason against our Lord Jesus Christ and deserves to be puninished as Judas who betrayed Christ and those who spit upon him bound and crucified him Further upon 1 Cor. 11. 28. he shewes 1. That every one is bound first to examine himselfe whether he be a fit guest and if he finde he be not he must labour to be such a one by purging his Conscience from sin which makes him unworthy of the Lords Table The Councill of Trent Sess 3. Cap. 7. besides Contrition requires Sacramentall Confession where it can be had of all sorts before they partake of the Lords Supper which they ground partly upon that precept of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. 28. and partly upon an Ecclesiasticall Custome It seems they were not for Mr. Humphrey his free Admission but judged that before Receiving satisfaction should be given to the Church though in determining what that satisfaction must be they declined to Superstition and Tyranny In the antient Lyturgy the Minister before the Sacrament cryed out Sancta Sanctis See other testimonies of the Fathers cited there by Aestius and severall arguments he uses to prove that no naturall man ought to receive the Sacrament Upon 1 Cor. 5. 11. the same Aestius hath these words His verbis excommunicationis poena significatur minor tamen ea quâ superius plecti voluit incestum illum Where he also cites Augustine as referring the place to a lesser degree of excommunication which may fall upon him who is a Brother and so a Church-member And upon 2 Thess 3. 6. he expresly saith Haec excommunicatio non à consortio fidelium sed tantùm à Sacramentis Ecclesiae removet hominem And upon verse 15. of this Chapter Excommunicatio hujus loci non separabat hominem ab Ecclesiâ ut membrum ejus et proinde fidelium frater esse de sineret c. By which its evident they held that positive Suspension was 1. A degree of Excommunication 2 ly That it did not unchurch a man 3 ly That it was a bar to the Sacrament Our Suspension which yet Mr. Humphrey cries out of is but negative and so not a Church Censure but an intreaty to forbear till fitted by competent knowledge c. to receive Biell upon the Sentences Lib. 4. Dislinct 9. Quaest 1. Effectus Eucharistiae non est prima gratia quâ justificatur impius sed illam praesupponit Effectus enim manducationis Eucharistiae est gratiae augmentum quâ anima Deo gratae nutritur et crescit in gratia ut ad perfectionem perveniat The Papists then acknowledge the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance In the second Question he shewes that diverse by comming to receive sin mortally and withall that in some cases if a man be scrupulous and fear he is under the guilt of mortall sin he must lay aside such a scrupulous Conscience before he receive but must not receive against Conscience He shewes also out of other Schoolmen in what cases a Minister sins if he admit such to receive and instances as the Lutherans in divers sorts of Church-members that are not to be admitted and concludes that Nulli danda est Eucharistia qui non potest habere devotionem nec fidem actualem And for the instance of Judas Mr. Humphrey his great foundation for free Admission both Lutherans and Papists though of his minde that Judas did receive yet look at it as no ground at all for the free admission of all intelligent Church-members I hope Mr. Humphrey will be more charitable then to say that Councills Fathers the Reformed Churches Lutherans yea divers Papists put their hands over their eyes and sinned against Light because they were not of his minde that Judas
sense and thence we deduce that Where it proves excommunication There it necessarily proves suspension 4 ly We say that Mr. Humphrey his Bulwark from this place is a Battery against himselfe and makes him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he would prove out of this place is That all intelligent Church-Members not actually excommunicated ought to receive the Lords Supper because all intelligent Church-members did receive those Sacraments 1 Cor. 10. We answer If his argument be good from this place then pariratione all unintelligent Church-members yea persons excommunicated yea very Heathen not to instance in bruit Beasts ought to receive the Sacrament Therefore say we this argument cannot serve his turn there being an apparent hiatus in it Mr. Humphrey therefore pag. 50. perverts and corrupts the scope of the Apostle who never intended to encourage the Corinths to receive pel-mel because the Israelites did so For then by the same reason hee should also have given incouragement ro admit pel-mel all persons of age living in the same Parish or Neighbourhood to Baptism without any Examination or Confession of their Faith they being so Baptised unto Moses 1 Cor. 10. 2. whereas the apparent scope of the Apostle was to warn the Corinthians and in them all Christians not to presume upon Outward Priviledges but to study reall Piety else they should perish for all their Priviledges Yea their perishing would be sadder because of their Priviledges as is evident by comparing 1 Cor. 10. ver 6. to 12. Mr. Humphrey Pag. 51. For the difference he makes between our Elements and theirs which he saies is manifest namely theirs was to nourish their Bodies as well as their Souls c. It is grosse and fit for none to say but the Papists that hold there is left only the qualities of the Bread that cannot nourish in Transubstantion Ans My words are Pag. 29 30. Herein is a manifest difference Their Sacramentall Elements had a double use and end namely to nourish their Bodies as wel as their Souls nor had they ordinarily in the Wildernesse other food to live upon and therefore must either receive these Sacraments or die I hope there is not such an absolute necessity of our Sacramentall Bread and Wine c. I appeal now to the Reader whether this be grosse and Popish nay whether this bee not a very truth which Mr. Humphrey cannot contradict and therefore discovers too great a spirit of Cavilling and wresting my sense and meaning Can any rationall man apprehend that I insinuated 1. That our Sacramentall Elements have lost their substance and retain onely the Accidents of Bread Wine Or 2ly That I took away all bodily nourishment from the Sacramentall Elements My scope is clear that their Sacraments were their ordinary food and when the people needed them no more for food they failed Jos 5. 12. so not ours and that if they had eaten and drunk no more of their Sâ—craments then we do of ours they must have starved and choaked unlesse Mr. H. could have taught them an Art to live an whole month or six weeks upon one bit of Manna and one draught of Water Mr. Humphrey Whereas he saies they must have choaked and starved also I say if it be necessarily sin to eat of Christ Sacramentally unlâ—ss men be regenerate there is no doubt but they should have rather dyed than be guilty of Christs Blood c. If it be not a sin but accidentally here is good reason indeed for their eating and drinking all of them But what reason is there Saint Paul should parallel our eating and drinking with theirs unlesse it be true likewise that we are to eat Ans 1. For the first Branch he answers himself saving that his distinction whereby he opposes a sin necessarily to a sin accidentally is lame as being a distinction without a difference in the present subject Since the same sin may be a sin accidentally and yet necessarily a sin also For example a wicked man in hearing praying c. fins accidentally yet he sins necessarily and cannot but sin so long as hee continues in that estate It is so in receiving the Sacrament and the great reason we bring for his non admission to the Sacrament is because in statu quo understand it of actuall receiving it cannot benefit but will certainly hurt and prejudice him Wicked men sin necessarily in their Ordinary repast yet must eat to prevent starving 2ly Yet further as some other instituted precepts this is dispensable with in case of necessity as was Davids eating the Shew-bread that was Sacramentall and for the Priests only 3ly Parellels as Similitudes do not run on 4. feet nor doth the present Parellel lie in countenancing a mixed communion like theirs but in warning us to take heed of abusing our Priviledges like them we have Priviledges like them Sacraments like them are apt to abuse our Priviledges like them and upon this abuse are in danger of Gods wrath as well as they But for admitting all pel-mel to the Sacrament as they did to their Sacraments of Baptism Manna and Water I am confident it never so much as entred into the Apostles heart 4ly He breaks the neck of his own Parallel and therefore cannot blame us in making bold with it If his Parallel run even then as all sorts without any difference did eat of the Manna drink of the Rock so all sorts without any difference ought to receive the Lords Supper and then admit Infants distracted and excommunicated persons yea Heathen also Which how absurd Had Mr. Humphrey said thus What reason is there Saint Paul should parallel our eating and drinking with theirs unlesse it be true likewise that we are All to to eat to wit Infants excommunicated persons c. as they were all to eat of the Manna the nakednesse of his inference would have been shamefully uncovered He therefore very prudently omits the word All which would would have cryed out against him Fie for shame Mr. Humphrey I have two things here for tender Christians 1. That to eat Christ symbolically is no such dreadful thing as is made of it I mean above other Ordinances for Saint Paul makes no account to say they all drank Sacramentally of of him provided alwaies you come with reverence c. Ans 1. Extenuation of sin and Alleviation of duty is at best a wrong course to relieve tender Consciences The Gospell holds forth duty in its stricknesse sin in all its aggravations more then the Law and that Minister who lightens either sins against Moses or against Christ that to his own great perill Matth. 5. 19. But herein the Gospell makes amends that it gives strength in and through Christ to perform in sincerity the strictest duties and aboundant consolation in Christ against the guilt filth and power of the greatest sins repented of c. 2 ly The Apostle tells us that to eat Sacramentally is of very great consequence if the danger of
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
a Church-member some part of communion Mr. H. p. 156. God forbid but we should put a distinction between sins that stand not with sincerity and that stand not with publike profession I do not think the detection of a man living in any known sin that contradicts the one ought to excommunicate him but the open conviction of such sins which are notoriously scandalous and obstinate bringing discredit on the Church and contradicting the other Answ 1. By concession a difference must be put between sins that stand not with sincerity and that stand not with profession caeteris parâ—bus This we do by suspension and dismembring But Mr. H. will have no Church-censure applied to them who live in known sins that contradict onely sincerity whence it follows that by his doctrine known hypocrites must enjoy all Church-priviledges as well as persons of known integrity 2. Note here Mr. H. grants the Church may know a mans heart and particularly that he is an hypocrite which yet flowing from my pen was by him declaimed against as a prying into Gods secrets though we profess to know the heart onely as Mr. H. doth namely by the fruits when a man is known to live in fins that contradict sincerity 3. To me it is a paradox how the open conviction of living in any known sin should not be notoriously scandalous bring discredit on the Church and contradict publike profession especially if continued in obstinately which I wish were not the case of too many Church-members The Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 5. 11. That a Church-member who is covetous a railer or extortioner is to be censured as well as he that is a fornicator an idolater or a drunkard Doth it not discredit the Church that any Church-member convinced of gross ignorance and continuing therein obstinately after the use of means should still be imbraced and honored as a Church-member He that will make a profession of he knows not what doth he not by that act contradict his very profession before all to whom his ignorance is known should any profess learning and be known at the same time to be grosly ignorant of the very Alphabet were not such profession ridiculous and a contradiction of it self especially if continued in wilfully after sundry means used to put him upon and promote him in learning Mr. H. ib. As for the Antiquaerist he quotes here of his side so magnificently and so often Mr. Prin tells us it is himself Let another man praise thee and not thine own mouth c. Answ These words as they are impertinent so they discover too palpably a spirit of Cavilling Page 105. of my Bar I have this passage Eating 1 Cor. 5. 11. is extended to Sacramental as well as domestical eating as is cleared by the Antiquaerist in his answer to Suspension suspended to which therefore I refer Now I pray Sir what do these words import of quoting the Antiquaerist magnificently 2 How doth it appear the Antiquaerist is my self I grant Mr. Prins testimony is valuable where he speaks upon his own knowledge but may not Mr. Prin be misinformed And if 1. There be no vaunting expressions And 2. The Antequaerist be not Dr. Drake is not Mr. H. guilty of a double flander Nor do I think it expedient to inform him in this particular who is so apt to make a bad use of his information From the same spirit flows that Aspersion p. 156. There are many precious Christians herein made weak which yet are not to be sleighted with Mr. Drake but tenderly to be satisfied Doth not Mr. H. here reflect upon me as if I sleighted many precious Christians and were not tender about their satisfaction yet forgetting himself in the very same page he quotes those expressions of mine which shew I was far from sleighting them Thus out of the Eater comes meat and the slander carries its own confutation in its mouth yea himself assents to two of my conclusions about that particular To the first absolutely To the second conditionally about which to cut off ambiguity and dispute I pray Sir take notice That in that place under presence I include receiving though I did not express it But how the Assertion is superstitions as expressed in my own terms I may haply understand hereafter if Mr. H. will please to inform me by which information I trust he shall soon bring me to reformation I would not that my heart hand or tongue should wittingly be abettors of Superstition Mr. H. p. 157. The third is much amiss and equivocal They partake of those sins they should have reproved and do not but not of any sin in their receiving any more then in their hearing and praying Such words as these are subject to do hurt as if it were our duty simply to keep one another from Gods service and that this were the onely eminent piece of piety when it s certainly our duty to excite call provoke them to as counsel fit and prepare them for the attending all Ordinances Answ The conclusion Mr. H. lays load upon is this They partake in their sins who do not their duty to reform them or keep them from the Sacrament otherwise Here 1. He doth me wrong in leaving out those expressions which render my sense clear and fair My words are these pag. 109 of my Bar They partake in the sins of unworthy receivers who do not their duty to reform them or to keep them from receiving in case they will not be reformed As Mr. H. quotes my words I grant there is much ambiguity to instance in one and a gross one The Reader may apprehend that I am of opinion that if the Church keep unworthy persons from the Sacrament she is not bound to do her endeavors to reform them A conceit far from my thoughts and expressions if intirely and candidly represented Mr. H. makes my sense worse as if I were of the minde that its our duty simply to keep one another from Gods service yea that this is the onely eminent piece of piety A flander so gross and absurd that the very naming of it is sufficient confutation 2. Those words of Mr. H. They partake not of any sin in their receiving more than in their hearing and praying are erroneous For clearing whereof note we may sin two ways about our duty 1. In the matter 2. In the manner Proportionably two ways I may partake of other mens sins 1. If I do not instruct and warn them about their duty both for matter and manner where I am called so to do 2. If I admit them to do that which instatu quo they are bound to forbear and I am bound in my place to endeavor to keep them from To apply this I sin not in the matter by admitting any to prayer or hearing provided they be not disturbers c. but I sin in the very matter by admitting some to receiving who ought not to be admitted else how can persons jure excommunicate be denyed the
Sacrament we preach to and pray for and with the vilest malefactors that are ready to be sacrificed to Justice but dare not admit them to the Lords-supper till they testifie their repentance It s evident then I partake more of sin in admitting some to the Sacrament than in admitting them to prayer or hearing In the former I may be guilty both in matter and manner not so in the latter but onely in the manner We acknowledge it our duty and profess it our practice to excite call and provoke all intelligent Church-members to receive and to counsel fit and prepare them for the Sacrament but too many care not to come and divers who affect to come are extreamly unwilling to be counselled fitted and prepared by us as they ought Hinc hinc illae Lachrymae We wish all Professors were worthy Receivers we charge all to make conscience to fit themselves we offer our selves to help to fit them and cordially admit those who are visibly fit waiting upon others till God give them real and visible fitness but till visibly fit we dare not admit them Page 157. Mr. H. thinks I wrong him by charging him with self-contradiction Let the Reader compare my Bar page 109. with Mr. H. his vindication page 32. and then judge I but he spake those words onely secundum quid not simpliciter Ans His peremptory delivery of them both negatively and affirmatively insinuates strongly that he spake them simpliciter Mr. H. ib. But how do any of these ends concern them as to their own act of receiving Ans By them he means either the parties censured or the Congregation I think Church-censures and particularly suspension do much concern them both the party censured to bring him to repentance the best of the Congregation in order to their satisfaction who are much offended by the admission of persons visibly unworthy and the whole Congregation who by the suspension of any are warned to take heed of his sins left they be suspended as well as he as also to prevent that guilt which would defile them should they consent to his admission whom they know to be unworthy Such consenters are they who after due admonition in private do not give notice to the Church of a person they know to be unworthy as also those Church Officers who admit him in the like case As Church-members we are bound in the use of all lawful means to prevent one the others sins Receiving is a sin in persons visibly unworthy therefore Church-members as such are bound to prevent it Some acts are essentially sinful which never can be done by any some are accidentally sinful by the manner of doing some are relatively sinful when done by a person uncapable as when a private person takes upon him the office of a Judge Here judging is not essentially evil for then none might judge nor upon the supposition is it accidentally evil as to the manner of judging for the private person may pass a right judgement but it s relatively evil because a private person takes upon him the work of a publike person and such judging we truly say is evil in fieri though it be not essentially evil In like manner a person receiving who ought not to receive sins in the fieri as to the act of receiving though the act of receiving be not a sin essentially but onely relatively I hope all persons must not practice all affirmative precepts to judge and preach are duties must all men therefore judge and preach Are not the very acts of judging and preaching sins in some persons They are not so essentially but relatively when men who are not called undertake these works Mr. H. p. 158. It is indeed the great fallacy here that misleads many when they plead our duty of watching over others c. they winde it all in still in order to the Sacrament as if they were to be done meerly in reference unto it when as they are each of them distinct duties and the neglect of or doing one is no ground or hinderance of the other Ans The particulars Mr. H. mentions are First Watching over others Secondly Not partaking in their sins Thirdly Getting the scandalous to be censured Here first by way of concession we winde them all in in order to the Sacrament but not meerly in reference to it That is Mr. H. his fallacy wherewith he would fain deceive the Reader Whereas we make use of all three in order to private communion and in order to dismembring as well as in order to suspension Secondly True They are each of them distinct duties but its false That the neglect of or doing the one is no ground or hindrance of the other For first Omission of the one whether it be by neglect or otherwise is a ground for the omission of the other I must not reprove my neighbour unless I first watch over him it being a sin to reprove blindly which he must needs be guilty of that observes not First The sin Secondly The person committing that sin He that watches not is it any wonder if he mistake either the fact or person or both Secondly It s false That doing the one is no ground of doing the other for I must watch over others that I may reprove and admonish as well as incourage them lest I partake of their sins And I must take heed I partake not of their sins upon this account among others that I may be the fitter to reprove and admonish them and more effectually instrumental to get the scandalous censured since fellow delinquents will never be forward to call each other to account Is it not more probable the intire part of the Church will call the corrupt part thereof to account rather than the corrupt part will call it self to an account we grant the three forementioned duties are distinct but are they not therefore copulative Distinction I hope is no enemy to union whether in a way of co-ordination or of subordination By all it appears there is a subordination of duties as well as of sins And as some sins cannot be committeed without other previous sins so some duties cannot be performed without other foregoing duties of which nature is the act of receiving in order whereunto self-examination is ever necessary and Church-examination also where it may regularly be had or at least in its room Pastoral-examination Page 158 159. Mr. H. falls ironically upon me as if I took a great deal of pains seemingly to confute him when I only speak his part for him The bitter scoffs wherewith he here closes this first Section instead of returning an answer discover both the weakness of his cause in that particular and the impotency of his passion But to the matter it self Mr. H. in his second part undertakes to answer several objections against free Admission to the Sacrament The first Objection you have p. 30. of his Vindication The Objection is this This Doctrine will take away the use
order thereunto he distinguish the Covenant into its Condition Benefits Tenor which consists of both For still I ask him Whether the Tenor of the Covenant belong to all by way of Tender If he hold the affirmative as he seems to do I disprove him thus The whole can belong to none further than as both parts belong to him But both parts of the Covenant belong not to all by way of tender therefore the whole namely the tenor belongs not to all by way of tender The major is firm as I shall clear by instance Let homo be the totum its evident homo cannot belong to Socrates farther than materia forma hominis which are its parts belong to him The minor That both parts of the Covenant belong not to all by way of tender is as evident upon M. H. his principles since according to him the condition which is one part is not tendered but required The Condition then belongs not to all by way of tender but onely by way of duty and obligation And though it be a truth that the benefits of the Covenant are tendered to all upon condition of faith yet because M. H. holds that faith is not tendered but required in the revealed Covenant sealed in the Sacrament of which we now speak he cannot say the tenor called by him the Covenant is tendered to all without contradicting himself but must say if he speak uniformly to his own doctrine that the tenor of the Covenant is partly required of all and partly is tendered to all the tenor consisting as himself declares of the condition required and of the benefits tendered and he may as rationally say the tenor is required of all as say the tenor is tendered to all both being false in his sense and contradictory to his Doctrine Page 152. and 153. of my Bar I oppose four things to M. H. his universal obligation of receiving 1. Infants c. and because this infant-passage offends him now seventeen times I shal put in the room of it his ipso jure excommunicate 2. I say there All have a mediate but not an immediate right He tells me page 205. This distinction is in vain because all must prepare as well as come Answ True yet 1. I hope a person prepared hath a more immediate right than a person unprepared 2. If he sin who prepares but doth not receive when he may why doth not he sin also who receives but doth not prepare when he ought Let not M. H. separate where himself confesses that God hath joyned My illustration from the Passeover he tells me That one Text 2 Chron. 30. 18 19 20. may convince Answ True when M. H. can prove that one extraordinary dispensation makes a rule and command to be void The third Mr. H. sayes is answered somewhere else Answ And I hope that answer is confuted somewhere else 4. I say That in a strict sense actual receiving is no more an act of worship than preaching is c. Mr. H. answers I should say they are no duties neither else it will not adde one cubit to my stature Answ Mr. H. did prudently omit my third answer which but mentioned had stopt the mouth of this Objection There I shew that affirmative precepts binde not at all times nor in all cases therefore though receiving be a duty yet being an affirmative precept it bindes not at all times nor in all cases For his flouting Simile in the close of this Section I forgive him and confess that in some part of it he speaks too true I being no bigger than my shadow that is an empty nothing and so very unfit to compare with him or any of my brethren and fathers in the Lords work The Lord send me more humility and him more charity Sect. VI. THe sixth Objection is The Sacrament is only for the regenerate it is no converting Ordinance c. From page 206-212 Mr. H. is large by way of preamble before he come to down-right blows And 1. He sayes Suppose the Sacrament convert not yet it must be received by all because God commands all to receive it Answ 1. Is not this the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether God command all to receive 2. Mr. H. knows I dispute against a natural mans receiving not only upon the supposition that it cannot convert him but also because it can do him no good in statu quo but evil which answers his instance of Alms-deeds commanded a natural man though it be not converting And this argument doth no where cross Gods revealed will but highly commends his rich and free grace which commands nothing but what is profitable to the creature as well as what is honourable to his Majesty I grant God may command without respect to the creatures profit but I deny that in the Covenant of grace he doth command any thing the performance whereof is not of its own nature and by divine institution advantagous to the creature It s a slander therefore that by this argument I advance my benefit above divine authority c. as Mr. H. would make the Reader beleeve p. 206. yea I joyn together Gods authority and my benefit in saying That in the way of duty I am ever in a possibility yea probability of spiritual good 1 Tim. 4. 8. and that act which imports no such possibility or probability is no duty Yea Mr. H. himself confesses in the same page That there is no man but so far as he doth his duty it shall tend to his good which if true then that which tends not to my good is not my duty If therefore this doctrine be a tradition Mr. H. is guilty of it as well as my self Page 208. Mr. H. makes the Sacrament a converting Ordinance not for Heathen but for Church-members Answ 1. I desire a Scripture proof for this distinction 2. I perceive Mr. H. is not clear in opening this distinction but confounds Conversion and Edification together in these words The Sacrament as it serves to edifie unregenerate Church-members it must be a means of their regeneration p. 208. I had thought Conversion was the Foundation Edification the superstructure and that as there is a double Conversion 1. To profession 2. To truth of grace so there is a double Foundation the one upon the sand the other upon the rock Matth. 7. v. 24 26. and proportionably a double Edification one of the house upon the sand the other of the house upon the rock which doctrine if true then surely the house upon the sand is not properly edified by saving Conversion but is new founded upon the rock Page 209. Mr. H. layes a foundation in two Propositions 1. That the same faith which served to admit men to be Church-members served to admit them to the Communion 2. That a faith that falls short of saving to wit the very receiving of the Apostles doctrine served to make men disciples and adde them to the Church With all he grants there That
man I grant for the most part it is not so evident that John is a beleever as that he is a man and that therefore it is not so easie for him to beleeve that he shall be saved as to beleeve that he shall rise but still its a truth That both these Conclusions flow from Scripture by consequence and therefore are in Scripture by consequence which is the thing here opposed by Mr. Humphrey He might therefore well have spared himself the labour of his merry Tautologies he that is in the right is in the right c. but that he hoped to catch his Reader by a frothy expression rather than to convince him by a solid Argument Had he closed with this Syllogism If Mr. D. be in the right then Mr. H. is in the wrong but Mr. D. is in the right ergo he had done both himself his Reader and his Antagonist more right than now he doth Page 198. Mr. H. mentions an Objection of mine about the Sacrament supposing assurance and faith unto which he sayes I can make no solution when at the same time my solution is laid down p. 147 148. of my Bar only he tells the Reader that he is not of my mind That we must forbear the Sacrament till we have effectual faith And truly I think he is not of my mind in that particular nor is it material what is his mind or what is my mind but what is the mind of truth Ib. Mr. H. grants That a general faith and acknowledgement of the Gospel or Covenant of Jesus Christ as the only means to be saved by is prerequisive to adult Church-membership and so to the Sacraments Answ Then 1. What will become of all grosly ignorant Church-members that know nothing of Faith Christ or the Gospel He that blames us as too severe for suspending them is here so severe as to excommunicate them and make them no Church-members 2. We accept as to the latter branch his good confession which makes strongly against the free admission of grosly ignorant Church-members Again we grant with Mr. H. ib. That the condition is not absolutely prerequisite to ingage to the condition but the Question is whether a natural man be bound to ingage all manner of wayes to the condition He may ingage to the condition and so to the Covenant though he do it not by receiving the Sacrament Page 199. Mr. H. tells us The receiver seals not to his condition necessarily in esse but in fieri Answ What then Our present debate is not what the beleever seals to God but what God seals to the beleever in the Sacrament and God at the Sacrament may seal to the beleever the condition in esse when the beleever cannot seal to God that himself hath the condition in esse In the same page Mr. H. pins upon me another contradiction by mis-quoting my Text p. 147. of my Bar which sayes not the Sacrament is but may be the means of initial assurance and its one thing to say the Sacrament is another thing to say it may be the means of initial assurance I beleeve if God please the Sacrament may be the means both of initial grace and of initial assurance I do not say it is the means of either Besides initial assurance is real or more sensible The word that works conversion works real assurance at the same time it works grace which yet is not then so sensible as being hid and over-born by much corruption till the beams of grace have in some measure dispelled the cloud but the first sensible or prevailing assurance may be wrought at the Sacrament Grace as light brings its own evidence with it though a person diverted haply minds neither for a while He wrongs me therefore in saying p. 200. That I affirm the Sacrament is sometimes the means of initial assurance whereas my express words are The Sacrament may be sometimes the means of initial assurance and à posse ad esse non valet consequentia I hope he that sayes Mr. H. may be mistaken doth not therein say Mr. H. is mistaken Mr. H. If the Sacrament work further degrees in the same kinde why not the kind it self Ans If food work further degrees of life why not life it self Must every thing that strengthens a weak man needs raise a dead man Acts produce moral habits but no act of the will works in it self supernatural habits yet I hope acts of the will may and do promote supernatural habits therefore that may further degrees which cannot produce the kinde Nor is the first grace wrought effectually either per modum obsignationis or proponendo objectum or per moralem actionem or mediante significatione for then all would be converted who have these but per creationem infusioonem since the first grace as some think of mans soul creando infunditur in fundendo creatur Understand me here that initial grace is not wrought by any or all of these joyned regether if abstractedly considered as moral habits may be but as assisted in an especial manner by divine concourse which concourse amounts to a Creation Not opus operatum but spiritus operaus acts eminently for the production of initial grace And God may annex this creating act to what Ordinance he please Now the great controversie between us is whether God do thus infuse initial grace by the Sacrament as a moral Instrument thereof as he doth by the word This Mr. H. seems to affirm but we deny M. H. p. 201. For this we thank him and if a man may come as lost and undone then he may come while he judges and humbles himself though he is in doubt of his regeneration Answ 1. I am glad of any agreement between us in this unhappy controversie especially in a point of this nature which tends so much to the binding up of bruised reeds Yet 2. There is some ambiguity in that expression of M. H. If a man may come as lost nor are they my express terms p. 148. of my Bar. A man is lost three ways 1. Really when in the state of nature I mean he is in a lost condition 2. Sensibly and that either in himself and thus we must ever be lost if we mean to be saved or by mistake thinking he is in the state of nature at that very time when in truth he is in the state of grace 3. Both ways when clearly convinced by the Spirit of bondage that he is in a natural estate and so under the work of Legal humiliation which is ever accompanied with reigning pride till evangelical humiliation melt the rock and level the mountain By legal humiliation a person is humbled but by Evangelical humiliation he is made humble by legal humiliation God humbles him by evangelical humiliation he humbles himself the one is humbled passively the other actively To apply the distinction 1. He that is lost really and sensibly ought at present to abstain Such are they who
know themselves to be in the state of nature and have no resolution at the present to come up to the terms of the Gospel but are under the Regal power of sin especially of some bosom corruption and that sensibly 2. He that is lost really but not sensibly as thinking himself converted when unconverted is I conceive with submission to better judgements in the condition of one who thinks a sin to be a duty ligatus but not obligatus bound by conscience misinformed to receive but not obliged to receive yea obliged by the precept to abstain or as he who thought himself clean but was unclean was bound and obliged in order to the Passover 3. He that is sensibly lost as thinking himself unconverted when really converted seems bound by conscience to abstain but is obliged by the command to receive and in order thereunto must endeavor to get his doubts satisfied He that is both really and sensibly found as having sensibly evangelical preparation of which self-loss and self-unworthiness in a Gospel sense is a chief part is both bound and obliged to come unless detained by a just occasion What M. H. addes page 201. I shall go along with him as far as I can and be glad of his company too And therefore grant 1. That the Sacrament is a seal of faith Consecutivè 2. Objectivè 3. Conditionaliter 4. Obligatoriè as obliging the receiver to believe 5. That the Sacrament is not properly a seal of reason and experience and therefore in a strict sense doth not seal the Conclusion as it depends upon the minor which speaks experience but as it depends upon the major which speaks express Scripture But whereas he addes ibid. But if you say it is a seal of faith subjectivè properly to confirm and ratifie faith or any way so to assure or evidence faith that God shall be made to set his seal to a lye if any come without saving faith this must be denied and rejected and answered that the Sacrament is not thus a seal of faith to wit formally directly properly but of the Covenant c. Answ 1. If I may but crave to be candidly understood it s no such monster as M. H. would make it to assert That the Sacrament is a seal of faith subjectivè namely that by Consequence the Sacrament seals to Peter that he believes The reason whereof hath formerly been given because it seals the major proposition upon which the Conclusion of Assurance doth partly depend For as no Conclusion depends onely upon the major or onely upon the minor but upon both premises so the Conclusion of the Prossyllogism That Peter believes depends not solely upon the major He that receives Christ c. believes nor solely upon the minor Peter receives Christ but upon both And therefore so far forth as this Conclusion Peter believes depends upon the major which is express Scripture and as a sign discovers to Peter that the act of adherence he produces is not counterfeit so far forth it s sealed in the Sacrament it being sealed in the Covenant onely as it is in the Covenant namely by Consequence as is that Conclusion That Peter shall rise which depends upon the major That all men shall rise as well as upon the minor That Peter is a man 2. Whereas M. H. hints that by this means God shall be made to set his seal to a lye if any come without saving faith this is a most false gross and uncharitable inference and imputation it being far from my judgement or argument to hold forth that the Sacrament seals to all receivers that they have true faith but onely unto those who have saving faith indeed Suppose now Judas did receive the Sacrament which seals to Peter that he believes seals no such matter to Judas but the quite contrary namely That he doth not believe and that because it seals That he who doth not receive Christ rightly doth not believe But Judas never received Christ rightly therefore by consequence it seals to Judas his unbelief and so his damnation in statu quo 3. Therefore If by formally directly properly M. H. mean expresly we grant the Sacrament is not so a seal of faith subjectivè for it can seal nothing thus expresly but what is in express terms in the Covenant and that is onely the major yet this is no bar but that the Sacrament may seal that consequentially which is consequentially in the Covenant and such is this Conclusion Peter believes as well as that Conclusion Peter shall rise As for his vapor therefore in the close of this Section I shall say but onely this to it However my arguments be but earthen ware yet God can use them to break his conceited bar of iron SECT 5. THe fifth Objection is The Covenant belongs not to all therefore the Seals neither Page 202. M. H. first states his answer to this Objection and in the same breath overthrows it in these words The state of my answer then lies plainly that all those to whom the Covenant belongs by way of interest in it though but according to title are in Covenant so far as the external seal belongs to them without some known bar otherwise Answ Grant the whole it will not much prejudice either us or the Objection Not us who easily yield that all Churchmembers are to be admitted without a known bar the term known being rightly understood Nor the Objection since the seals cannot belong to any but as the Covenant belongs to him speaking now of the visible Covenant but the Covenant cannot visibly belong to any who visibly reject it and this with us is one of the principal known bars Mr. D. The Sacrament belongs conditionally to all but absolutely to the worthy Receivers M. H. p. 203. If there be any sense and validity in this he must argue thus The Sacrament is not to be delivered to all it belongs conditionally but to those onely to whom it belongs absolutely But it belongs onely to the worthy receiver absolutely therefore it must be delivered onely to the worthy receiver Now this you see is apparently false seeing he admits some onely visibly worthy to whom he himself counts it belongs not absolutely Answ 1. To shew the fallacy let us put the same case about the Passover and the receivers thereof thus The Passover belongs conditionally to all Israelites but absolutely to the clean Israelite Suppose now Mr. H. reply as above mutatis mutandis If there be any sense and validity in this he must argue thus The Passover is not to be delivered to all it belongs to conditionally but to those onely to whom it belongs absolutely But it belongs onely to the clean Israelites absolutely therefore it must be delivered onely to the clean Israelites absolutely Now this you see is apparently false seeing he admits some onely visibly clean to whom himself counts the Passover belongs not absolutely Is not the first branch now evidently false namely That the Passeover is