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
own liberty of converting when and whom he pleases the Ordinances being not natural but arbitrary means of conversion in the hands of God Page 172. while Mr. H. would seem to be more accurate by way of distinction he faulters wofully and tells us That the Sacrament confirms not faith formaliter but onely consecutive and improperly as putting us upon the exercise of faith and thereby strengthening the habit Answ 1. By concession the Sacrament confirms faith consequentially Yet 2. It s true also that it confirms faith formally by ratifying those promises which assure the increase of faith as well as of other graces which promises are a special part of the Covenant Mat. 13. 12. Our Saviour tells us He that hath to him shall be given and he shall have more aboundance Is this promise a part of the Covenant or no I presume Mr. H. will not deny it If it be then increase of faith is formally sealed in the Sacrament or else the promise it self is not formally sealed If by formaliter he mean immediate as may seem by the opposite branch consequenter we grant the promise in that sense is confirmed formally that is immediately by the Sacrament and faith mediately the promise of saith is confirmed immediately faith inherent is confirmed mediately by the promise ratified by the Sacrament and that not onely by putting us upon the exercise of faith which may be done by the bare promise without a seal but 1. by giving faith greatersecurity by the seal annexed to the promise 2. by conveying farther degrees of faith to the worthy receiver upon his acting of faith in the Sacrament spiritual habits being confirmed not onely naturally by their acts but also supernaturally by divine infusion their growth being suitable to their birth Initial faith is infused not acquired gradual faith is got both by infusion and acquisition M. H. ibid. Whatsoever God doth properly ratifie by way of seal he attests the truth thereof but he doth not attest the truth of our faith by the Sacrament ergo The Sacrament is not the Seal of our faith Answ 1. It s enough to us that God attests the truth of the promise by the Sacrament and the promise undertakes for degrees of faith as well as for perseverance in it therefore to every worthy Receiver the Sacrament doth formally and properly seal increase of faith 2. God in the Sacrament doth attest by consequence to the truth of the worthy Receivers saith M. H. ib. The Sacrament is common to Hypocrites with Believers therefore it cannot ascertain any that he hath grace Ans 1. It s common indeed in use and practice but whether so by divine institution is the Question 2. The thing it self that is common cannot ascertain but the right use of it may Neither Providences nor Ordinances evidence grace of themselves but onely the right use of either or both of them The Worthy Receiver gets evidence of grace not simply by receiving but by worthy receiving M. H. ib. The Sacraments are not seals because they confirm our faith which is the error but they confirm our faith because they are seals And page 173. It s derogatory I think to say the Sacrament is onely a metaphorical or tropical seal whereas indeed it is a very proper formal seal to the Covenant Rom. 4. 11. Answ 1. Here are dictates indeed but what proof Dictates charging error upon others but where is conviction M. H. should blush to be so excessive in dictares so defective in proof who himself is so apt to censure others for the same fault and too often without a cause 2. What is a seal but an instrument of confirmation annexed to a Covenant and is not the Sacrament such a thing And if faith be a branch of the Covenant is not the Sacrament a seal of faith because it confirms faith 3. Let us spell out M. H. his meaning in those words of his The Sacraments confirm our faith because they are seals If they confirm faith because they are seals I pray what or whence is their sealing Is not their sealing-vertue in its very formality a confirming vertue And have they not this confirming or ratifying vertue from divine institution If he mean the latter we easily agree the Sacraments are seals because God instituted them to be such which makes nothing against us if he mean the former he speaks a meer tautologie telling us the Sacraments are seals because they are seals and confirm our faith because they confirm our faith and so by making onely a flourish abuses both me and the Reader unless his meaning be the same with ours That the Sacrament confirms faith promised formally and immediately but faith inherent consequentially and mediately but then it s still a truth in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least That the Sacraments are seals because they confirm our faith as well as its a truth in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they confirm our faith because they are seals by divine institution 4. He trisles in opposing tropical to proper as if that were not proper which is tropical It s not proper indeed as to the first notion or intention the first and second intention being not formally the same but its proper enough as to the thing intended or signified Do not we hold against the Papists that the Sacramental words Hoc est corpus meum are proper enough as to the sense though they be tropical as to the terms The Scripture indeed calls Circumcision a seal but where doth it deny it to be a tropical seal or where doth it say that a tropical seal is not properly a seal A seal in its native signification is a bodily substance graven and so apt to make a sensible impression of it self in a fit subject Will M. H. say the Sacrament is a seal in this native signification he will not be so absurd Then it must be a seal tropically yet properly also because it hath the essential use of a seal namely to confirm and ratifie which is all we contend for and M. H. opposes but in vain M. H. p. 173. If confirming or strengthening a mans faith were enough to denominate it a seal Then 1. Acts of grace should be the best seals 2. Then all other Ordinances should be seals too 3. Then Baptism should be no seal to infants 4. Then shall both the Sacraments cease to be seals when they are admitted who have not true faith Answ 1. By concession acts of grace are the best seals He that is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise is better sealed than he that is sealed onely with the Sacrament Eph. 1. 13. 5. 30. where you see a seal is applicable to persons as well as to a Covenant 2. It follows not that therefore all other Ordinances are seals though they confirm faith because it s not every kinde of confirmation makes a seal but a confirmation by way of authentick ratification which makes a deed good in Law or
is the minor of the Syllogism of assurance Now to produce this assent you must clear it by Scripture-evidence that his act of adherence is conformable to the rule of the covenant In order whereunto two things are necessary 1. An assent by reflexion that I have produced an elicite act of adherence upon Christ 2. An assent of faith in my understanding that this act of adherence is not an act of presumption but a regular adherence according to the minde of the Covenant Both these concur to make out the minor which therefore depends partly upon faith and partly upon inward sense and experience Now so far as my faith of evidence depends upon Scripture so far its evidenced by the Covenant and sealed in the Sacrament which is all I drive at And here I must intreat M. H. to take heed lest by opposing the truth I bold in this particular he turn not too much aside to the Papists who upon this very account deny faith of evidence without an immediate revelation because it s no where said in Scripture Thâ—… Jâ—… or William believest If I mistake not this is a good maxim in Divinity The act of Grace is seen by reflexion the truth of grace in that act is known by comparing it with the rule of tryal Evidence is the beautiful childe of a direct and reflex act married together It s possible some evidence may be like Christ a virgin birth but ordinarily that evidence which hath not both the forementioned parents is a Bastard presumption instead of faith Mr. D. The marks and signs which Conscience makes use of to evidence the minor are in Scripture therefore the minor is consequently in Scripture M. H. ib. That is because the medius terminus is both in the major and the minor therefore whatsoever proves the major must prove the minor Answ That M. H. wrongfully fathers on me so absurd a Consequence I shall endeavor to evidence by clearing his misty expressions which must be done by instance and example thus The Syllogism of Assurance is He that believes shall be saved I believe ergo The minor I believe is thus proved He that receives Christ for righteousness believes I receive Christ for righteousness ergo The middle term or argument in the first Syllogism is believing the middle term in the second Syllogism is receiving Christ for righteousness Whence its evident I prove not the minor of the first Syllogism by proving its major for the argument that proves the major is pure Scripture in express terms If any should say its false That he who believes shall be saved will you bring receiving of Christ for righteousness as the medium to prove it He will still deny That he who receives Christ for righteousness shall be saved and so in infinitum Therefore to prove the major irrefragably you must argue thus That which the Scripture says shall be that shall certainly be The Scripture says He that believes shall be saved therefore he that believes shall certainly be saved The major holds forth the connexion between faith and salvation the minor holds forth the assertion of my faith which as they are very different propositions so they are proved by very different mediums The way to prove the minor is not pure Scripture in express terms for no Scripture says in express terms Thou Roger believest c. But partly Scripture and partly Experience namely Reflexion upon an Act compared with the rule of Scripture and therefore cannot be the same way of proof with express Scripture unless simple and compound be the same Therefore I do not prove the minor I believe by the same medinus terminus by which I prove the major He that believes shall be saved Where a thing consists of more terms than one it must be proved by more terms than one Faith of evidence doth nor depend upon a simple or double direct act as do sundry other proofs drawn from Scripture but upon a direct and reflex assent combined which holds so long till the reflex assent be as evident to me as it is evident that I see or hear c. for if there be the least doubt or scruple it must be removed by Scripture else the reflex assent cannot be firm undeceiving Suppose I would prove that Paul had faith of evidence or affurance I must use this Syllogism He that by producing regularly a direct and reflex act assents to grace inherent in himself hath assurance Paul did this ergo he had assurance Here you see the medium proving Pauls assurance is a direct and reflex act regularly united or he that assents directly to this proposition He that receives Christ believes reflexly to this proposition I receive Christ hath assurance that himself believes Paul had both these assents ergo he had assurance But faith of evidence consists of more terms than one namely a direct and reflex act and therefore must be proved by more terms than one which terms yet being united make one compound medium or argument You may prove Gabriel to be an Angel by one simple term of spirituality but you cannot prove David to be a man but by two terms of Spirituality and Materiality united Why Because David is compounded of spirit and matter and therefore must be proved by those terms united in one medium or argument In like manner faith of evidence consists of two terms namely a direct and reflex act united and therefore must be proved by two terms united not so the faith of general assent But two terms united are not the same with one simple term And if proof by two terms united be not the same with proof by one simple term then the medius terminus proving that I believe is not the same with the medius terminus proving that He who believes shall be saved M. H. ib. Though the evidence in actu signato be in Scripture this is nothing seeing that goes to the major proposition But his evidence in actu exercito is the business and that is no where I hope in Scripture by his own Confession Answ 1. If by going to the major he mean an Identity with the major its true the evidence in actu signate is the major or the same with the major the evidence in actu exercito is the minor But I pray may I not prove a weak and trembling evidence in actu exercito such are generally our evidences by a strong and firm evidence in actu signato If by going to the major he mean proving the major of the foregoing Syllogism which he must mean or he speaks not to purpose then its false that the evidence in actu signato goes to the major which I must evidence by the former instance of the Syllogism of Assurance thus He that believes shall be saved I believe ergo The minor I believe is thus proved He that receives Christ for righteousness believes I receive Christ for righteousness ergo In the second Syllogism which
Gamesters and sorry I am to see and hear that any passionate expressions on my part or bitter scoffs falling from Mr. Humphrey his pen on the other part should contribute more to pierce the hearts of any of Gods precious ones with griefe than the managing of this controversy on either hand hath contributed to satisfie their judgments and consciences by solid conviction If in heat of dispute I have any way transgressed I am assured I was far from malice I shall be ready to throw the first stone at my selfe and blesse God who hath given me the opportunity to mend first which once was in Mr. Humphrey his hands before he put forth his Rejoynder Some sores are better cured by lenitives then by corrosives Passing therefore his reflections upon my selfe in a great part of his Preamble as extrinsecall to the matter in debate I observe page 5. and believe he speaks in good earnest That unlesse his Latitude of Admission be allowed tender consciences can never have solid peace at the Sacrament Sacraments will still be neglected by Ministers and People separations fomented human Forms set up as necessary c. Ans If this hypothesis were true and such inferences did naturally and necessarily flow from our principles well might we be at a stand and look with a more favourable eye upon Mr. Humphrey his principles and practice Scruples may possibly be raised in tender consciences and false conclusions inferred by mistake c but far is it from us to hold forth any such principle or principles as of their own nature have any aptitude to stumble the weak or offend Christs little ones And this I hope by Gods assistance to make out in the following discourse as the forementioned particulars shall come to be scanned in their proper places Page 6. He thinks me very for ward to be known among the Elders in the Gate and Charges me for passing sentence before conviction Ans Had Mr. Humphrey known how oft I was solicited to write how unwilling I was to have my name appear either in the frontispice or otherwhere in the book after it was finished he would not have passed so rash a censure had I not been acted more by conscience of my duty then by desire of vain-glory it might have been long enough ere so poor an inconsiderable person as my selfe had took him to task For his second charge I hope Mr. Humphrey doth not imagine I made the Title Page first and my Answer afterwards and for a due Examen let the Answer it selfe speak whether I took not some pains according to my poor modell in order to his conviction before I passed a publick sentence The cause indeed may suffer much by my weakness but I hope it neither then did nor now shall suffer by my wilfull negligence Page 7th he spends in indeavouring to excuse those harsh expressions I noted and represented as savouring more of pride then of humility contrary to his profession in the frontispice and that first by begging pardon if any pious men are offended at those expressions 2ly By professing that to his utmost memory none of those passages came from him with the least reflection upon any Ans Taking it for granted Mr. Humphrey speaks the truth I believe it 's the best Apologie he could make Yet secondly Mr. Humphrey cannot blame me for charging those expressions with pride and censoriousnesse since verba are indices mentis and if proud and censorious words do not argue pride acting though not alwaies raigning in the heart I know not what doth Let the Reader peruse those expressions of Mr. Humphrey in the third and fourth pages of my Bar to free Admission and if I have past a wrong sentence let him judge mee for Pride and Censoriousnesse Sect. II. Page 8 Mr. Humphrey charges me with a contradiction as if I had said in one place Christ cannot give Judas the Sacrament and in another he cannot deny it him Ans pag. 8. I onely bring Arguments to prove Judas did not receive the Sacrament Page 9. I say it was not sit Christ should be both judge and witnesse And page 11. Christ acting as a Minister could not be both witnesse Judge and Executioner Where I pray is the contradiction Let Mr. Humphrey produce but one place where I say Chirst cannot give Judas the Sacraments I bring arguments indeed to prove Iudas did not receive but whither Christ denyed him the Sacrament or ordered it in providence Iudas should go out be forehand and so misse of the Sacrament that is left in medio and the latter seems more probable And whether Iudas received or not it is not much materiall for Mr. Humphrey his cause no not in Mr. Timsons judgement in his bar to free admission removed pag. 3. 4. though otherwise a great friend to Mr. Humphrey his Latitude for Sacramentall receiving In answering my 2d Argument against Iudas his receiving he saies Christ died for the sins of the whole world and so for Judas 1 Iohn 2. 3. As When Mr. H. can prove that by whole world There are meant the Reprobate as well as the Elect he saies somthing indeed to invalidate the argument otherwise he doth but shuflle And the Sacrament had been a poor Cordial to the Apostles had it seal'd no more to them than it doth to Reprobates But I shall not trouble my self or my Reader with the further vindication of those five Arguments here as studying all possible brevity and judging it not material in this businesse whether Judas received or no what ever weight Mr. Humphrey may lay upon it But whereas pag. 10. He saies I answer those five reasons my self In that he mistakes I brought indeed five reasons to prove Judas did not receive but I brought no reason to prove Christ denied him the Sacrament nor do I believe Christ did deny him the Sacrament Only by laying open his wickednessc its probable Christ did either shame him away or fright him away or occasion his going away in a pet and Judas being gone Christ spake very comfortably and applicatorily to the Eleven which very probably he would not have done without a distinction had the Traytor been present Pag. 10. 11. He saies Many more Authors are of opinion Judas did receive it than those I produced out of Gelaspi to the contrary Answ 1. This is said but not one word of proof brought by Mr. Humphrey 2. Grant it true he answers himself or I may answer him with his own words I do not value them at the rate of Scripture It s well we both agree here I wish heartily all Disputers were of this mind Here therefore Mr. Humphrey presseth Mark 14. 23. They all drank of it I answered All is put for all present and twelve for eleven from 1 Cor. 15. 5. To this Mr. Humphrey returns pag. 11. If All be put for All present then is it put for the whole twelve for the twelve sate down with him Ans 1. The
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
were ignorant or scandalous no not Judas himselfe therefore his or their receiving is no warrant for any ignorant or scandalous person to receive Mr. Humph. This is not true for indeed we shall finde both ignorance in the Apostles and scandall in Judas The Apostles were ignorant of Christs Death and Resurrection and of the Sacrament and Judas had made his bargain to betray Christ Ans 1. They knew Christ to be the Bread and Water of Life and the Saviour of the World Iohn 6. 68 69. Secondly had as much knowledge as might stand with grace Thirdly were willing upon all occasions to be further instructed and Catechised by Christ And we trust Mr. Humphrey shall never be able to charge us with keeping any away who are of this temper As for Iudas though he had made his bargain of betraying Christ yet it was not then scandalous Nor did Christ though he knew it well enough discover that Iudas had made any such bargain but did only foretell that Iudas would betray him However therefore pag. 15 16. he is pleased to charge me as speaking a very untruth a grain of charity might have informed him that Iudas however he purposed plotted and contracted all which he knows or may know I believe as well as himself yet betrayed not Christ as to the Execution till he kissed him in the Garden True in Gods account a purpose plot and contract of evil is an Execution thereof but civill and Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed usually by evidence of the fact not of the purpose plot or contract I might adde that Iohn 13. ver 18 19 21. 27. our blessed Saviour even after the discovery looks at Iudas his betraying him as a future act In some sense therefore it is a truth that Iudas had not betrayed Christ And if so then I did not speak a very untruth in saying Iudas had not yet betrayed Christ no more then Peter had denied him understanding it of the ultimate and compleating act of his Treachery which Christ endeavourd to prevent by the Commination as well as Peters denyall by the Premonition Besides our Saviours dispensation here was extraordinary admitting onely men Ministers Apostles and that without self-examination foregoing which is no rule for our imitation in point of Sacramentall admittance no more is his admittance of Iudas supposing he did receive And if this supposition fail where is Master Humphrey his superstructure upon it His upbraiding me again by comparing Christ with the Presbytery hath been formerly answered Which therefore with other passages of lesse moment for brevities sake I passe I shall onely adde this Iudas his treachery if it were before the compleating of it matter for a Judiciall cognizance and if Christs extraordinary knowledge and discovery of it were legall evidence as Mr. Humphrey would â—ave it was a just ground of excommunication yet our Saviour did not excommunicate him for it no more then he did suspend him nor did he send to the High Priests or their officers for evidence against Iudas May not the Church therefore excommunicate or seek for evidence against scandalous or suspected persons Even before this all judgment was committed to Christ Iohn 5. 22. yet we read not that Christ judged any either Civilly or Ecclesiastically but rather the quite contrary Iohn 8. 11 12. 47. Doth it therefore follow that either the Magistrate or the Presbytery do lift up themselves above Christ the great Master of Discipline because they undertake that both in Civill and Ecclesiasticall Judgement which our blessed Lord would not meddle withall in his State of humiliation Mr. Humphrey Pag. 18. As for the Question whether he acted as a Minister or Mediator It is vaine for he acted as both He could not institute an Ordinance for his Church but as he was Head and Mediator nor could he administer it but as a Minister Ans 1. If this Question be vain the more to blame Mr. Humphrey who troubles his Reader with it especially since we both agree Christ acted here both as a Mediator and as a Minister Secondly I onely distinguished between Christs acting as a Mediator and as a Minister And added that Christ is imitable not in his acting as a Mediator but as a Minister We doubt not but Christ as Mediator might be both Judge and Witnesse But in that he is no pattern for our imitation If as a Minister he might be both Judge and Witnesse then every Minister may be both Judge and Witnesse Thirdly Mr. Humphrey himself here grants Christ could not administer the Sacrament but as a Minister Yet at the same time Christ was Mediator We say Christ as Mediator might be both Judge and Witnesse but not as a Minister Will he forbid us the same liberty of distinction hee takes himself The other instances he excepts against pag. 18. of Christs administring it only to Ministers c. prove strongly that all Christ did at the Supper is no necessary rule for our imitation amongst which Judas his Admission upon Mr. Humphrey his supposall being one falls under the same notion unlesse Mr. Humphrey can prove that Christ did not only admit Iudas a person then as he saies scandalous but also with this very intention that his practice herein might bee a Rule for all Ministers to the end of the World to admit to the Sacrament scandalous persons As for his appeal in the close of pag. 18 I have shewed formerly that Mr. Timson though his Second in this cause looks not at Judas his receiving or not receiving as clearly argumentative in this cause pag. 3 4. And should the stresse of this controversie lie upon Iudas his receiving or his not receiving at what uncertainties should we be about our practice herein when it is so hard to determine out of Scripture whether Iudas received or not His Quotation out of Doctor Hammond makes not for his purpose We easily grant with that learned Clerke That Christian professors may lawfully be admitted though their hearts be full of villany and when we have done all we can such will be admitted Where we find competency of knowledge professed subjection to all the waies of Christ not contradicted by a scandalous life we blesse God for the good we see in them cheerfully give them the right hand of fellowship leaving their hearts and inward condition to Gods Judgement For that other worthy Gentleman he quotes in the end of this Section I have some reason to believe what ever may bee his judgement about Iudas his receiving he is not of Mr. Humphrey his Latitude for admittance to the Sacrament Sect. III. Mr. Humphrey comes to the stating of his Question In which for explication pag. 20. He premiseth That between these two a covenant-relation visible and truth of grace which is invisible there is no middle thing injoyned in the Scripture for the rule of our Admission Answ If this Rule be true then Mr. Humphrey doth very ill to coyn divers middle things for
should it not be so at the Lords Supper Mr. Humphrey We cannot compell any tryall of Church-members more unlesse by way of Catechisme and Instruction wherein yet there is no man too old to learn Luke 14. but it must be as to the truth of their profession or effectuall sincerity which for to do where no scandall calls them in question is to go about to judge mens hearts and to enter into the seat of God c. Ans 1. Note it Mr. Humphrey grants we may compell tryall of Church-members by way of Catechisme and Instruction from Luke 14. 23. and that mone are too old to learn Doth not Mr. Humphrey know that one great make-bate is because many Elder persons will not be perswaded much lesse compelled to tryall by way of Catechising no not by their own Minister though none of the Elders be present 2 ly By Mr. Humphrey his own confession in some cases persons may be tryed as to the truth of their profession or effectuall sincerity to wit when some scandall calls them in question Let Mr. Humphrey give any Scripture-rule for such tryall in case of scandall which will not extend to the like tryall upon other occasions 3 ly If tryall as to the truth of profession be a going about to judge mens hearts and to enter into the seat of God how can Mr. Humphrey allow it at any time in any case If it be not an entring into the seat of God then Mr. Humphrey his main Argument against it failes him 4 ly If putting a man to the test about his sincerity be an entring into the seat of God then Philip in asking the Eunuch Whether he believed with all his heart Acts 8. 37. entred into the seat of God and Ministers when they ask the party Baptised supposing he be of age Dost thou for sake the Deviâ—l and all his works c. enter into the seat of God Yea then Jehu asking Jehonadab 2 Kings 10. 15. Is thy heart right as my heart is with thy heart entred into the seat of God He indeed that will undertake to know the heart immediately intuitively and infallibly enters into the seat of God Not so I hope he who by discourse observation and consequent effects labours to draw out what is in the heart Prov. 20. 5. The Tree may be known by its Fruit yea by its Leaves and the heart may be known by some expressions and actions or at least shreudly guest at Otherwise how did Peter perceive Simon Magus to be in the gall of bitternesse Acts 8. 23. yet I hope at that time he entred not into the seat of God A dying man sends for his Minister to comfort him May not the Minister puts him to the Test whether at least in the judgment of charity he be a subject capable of comfort May he not 1. try him in point of Knowledge 2 ly May he not enquire about his truth of grace and from Scripture-evidence labour to finde out whether he hath true faith and repentance that accordingly he may either comfort or warn him 3 ly In so doing is he justly chargeable with entring into the seat of God Do we any more to people in order to their Sacramentall preparation then they will be glad to have us do at the houre of their death if they have any sense of their spirituall condition and minde their poor soules in any measure The truth is if many of our people minded Heaven but halfe so much as they minde Earth they would upon their very knees intreat us to do that against every Sacrament which we beg of them we may do but once in order to their edification comfort and salvation Yet they will not hearken unto us upon which account in some poor measure though we dare not say we have endeavoured our uttermost de jure in any thing we may wash our hands from the guilt of the blood of their poor soules Oh Sir I beseech you do not bolster up People in that of which one day both you and themselves will see there is great cause to repent Mr. Humphrey I must confesse I believe it was only the zeal and piety of good men that made them thus to rise up against ignorance and sin without intending to enter upon Gods Throne but if we have erred c. Ans 1. Sir you speak in part truly and charitably as to the first branch Therefore I beseech you be not a Quench-cole to that zeal and piety 2ly It was not a blind zeal acted them herein but a zeal according to knowledge I beseech you do not seek to hide that Light under a Bushell 3ly In so doing they neither did nor intended to enter upon Gods Throne I beseech you do not charge them falsely and uncharitably But where you have erred I wish the same to my self by false Doctrine misapplication and wrong-imputations be content to lie down in the dust to acknowledge the truth whereby you may be sweetly led to acknowledge Gods hand in returning your Captivity from the Rivers of Babel when you have sate down and wept c. Sect VI. Having surveyed Mr. Humphrey his stating of the Question and his proofs from Scripture and laid open what strength or weaknesse I apprehend therein I shall now proceed to his Reasons and Arguments with candor and simplicity of heart by the grace of God as in the presence of God to whom both of us must one day give an account of this and all other our Transactions Glad shall I be to close with him in any truth and to keep company with him one mile if I cannot goe with him twain And where I am forced to shake hands with him I shall endeavour to give him and others such grounds of my dissatisfaction in the Spirit of meeknesse as thereby it may appear I do not act either irrationally or uncharitably The Lord send the Spirit of truth grace and love into all our hearts to lead us into all truth holinesse and unity Mr. Humphrey Pag. 61. My first reason was from the nature of the Sacrament It is the shewing of Christs death a visible Gospell and so a firm ground of free Admission Unto this the sum of what he saies over and over from pag. 37. to pag. 52. comes but to this All may be present but not actually receive granting the foundation Ans 1. If the Reader wil please to peruse my Text I am confident he will be more candid to me then Mr. Humphrey hath been and not judge I have spent those seven or eight leaves in meer tautologies Such weak imputations argue more strength of passion then of reason and serve rather to catch than to convince the Reader 2ly Can there be fairer play then to yield my Antagonist by way of position or supposition as much as he desires for his stronger conviction 3ly If Mr. Humphrey his Free-Admission flow not from this Principle I hope he will remember himself better and not here-after charge
thou do believe And it 's all one as if I should say to a proud and insolent Traytor acting in the height of Rebellion Sir Pardon is yours if you do come in and submit taking the words in their Grammaticall construction I may assure him he shall be pardoned if he will presently come in and submit But it 's incongruous to say Sir Pardon is yours if you do submit since at present he is visibly neither an object of pardon nor a subject of submission Upon which account I apprehend those expressions of Mr. Humphrey not so congruous Christ is thine if thou wilt believe I may say Christ is thine if thou do believe where I have not clear evidence of the dominion of unbeliefe Or Christ shall be thine if thou wilt believe where I have never so clear evidence of unbeliefe in dominion But to apply the Promise de praesenti upon a condition de futuro I think is neither Grammaticall Logicall nor Theologicall Some truth there may be in it if understood Rhetorically but Rhetorick is fitter for an Oratour then a Disputant 3 ly Mr. Humphrey himselfe scruples to use these words to a person visibly in the state of Nature witnesse those expressions of his VVho doubts but I dare say this to one in the state of Nature conceiving we know it not and cannot judge thereof Where therefore we know and can can judge a person to be in the state of Nature Mr. Humphrey will not encourage us to say Be assured all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are actually thine Pag. 63. To answer therefore Mr. Humphrey his retortion I dare say to the visibly Godly what Christ said before me in the Sacrament The Body of Christ is broken for thee the Blood of Christ is shed for thee for remission of sins But these words I dare not say to one against whom I have evidence by his grosse ignorance or profane conversation that he is in the state of Nature However therefore page 63. Mr. Humphrey utterly renounces the very undertaking to make any Church-Member visibly in the state of Nature Yet that herein he is heterodox is evident by clear testimony of Scripture Matth. 7. verse 15. to 20. our Saviour there teaching us that as a Tree so a Person may be known by his fruits And Acts 8. 23. Peter by that wicked offer of Simon Magus knew he was in the state of Nature See also Tit. 3. verse 10 11. the Epistle of Jude 2 Pet. Chap. 2 and 3. and 1 Cor. 6. verse 9 10. and Ephes 5. verse 5 6. But I will not trouble the Reader in so clear a case And indeed if grosse ignorance fundamentall errours obstinately maintained open profanenesse scoffing at holinesse if these I say lived in especially after due means of conviction be not palpable evidences of a person at present in the state of nature then the forementioned texts must be rased out of Scripture and Ministers as to this particular must learn a new Gospell of Mr. Humphrey Mr. Humphrey The solidity of this answer may appear the more by this mans weaknesse to solve the objection page 48. which otherwise cannot be done It is this Doth not the a Minister seale to a lie if he seal to the unworthy He answers most miserably He does but seal to an untruth not to a lie so long as he comes in to the Elders and is thought visibly worthy by them Well but what if the Elders should admit one visibly unworthy and the Minister judge him so to be yet the Major part carrying it what shall become of him then â—…g 64. Here his untruth must be a lie again It is not his pleading an admonition or that he cannot help it will serve him if it be positively a lie or a sin to admit any that is visibly unworthy he may not offend his Conscience and presume upon God though he lost his place and life too So that he must of necessity come over to us and then he may know how neither to commit an untruth nor a lie neither by saying He offers or applies Christ but conditionally c. The truth is seeing the Minister is Gods Embassador and what he does is by his Commission we may as soon say the God of Israel can lie as that the Minister ever Seales an untruth or lie either in doing his Office c. Ans This charge being heavy and managed with a very high hand by H I thought it needfull to recite his words more carefully lest by altering of them as he hath done mine I should seem to wrong him 1. Therefore in propounding the Objection he takes not my words but frames it for his own advantage and my prejudice My words are these But doth not the Minister Seal to a lie by giving the Sacrament to those who are visibly worthy yet really unworthy pag. 48. Mr. Humphrey propounds my Objection thus Doth not the Minister Seal to a lie if he Seal to the unworthy The Objection thus propounded may bear a very foul sense as seeming to include persons both really and visibly unworthy whereas my Objection clearly hints a distinction between persons visibly worthy yet really unworthy and between persons both really and visibly unworthy Besides that in the latter branch also I use not the terme of Sealing but of giving the Sacrament And however he may possibly agree with me in sense yet the termes altered may occasion a foule mistake in the Reader But to passe that Let us scan his exceptions against my answer to that Objection And 1. He corrupts my Text in the answer as he did in the objection Mr. Humphrey frames my answer thus He does but Seal to an untruth not to a lie so long as he comes in to the Elders and is thought visibly worthy by them page 63. This Answer thus framed is obscure absurd and little better than nonsence Obscure the second Person thee being there applicable either to the Minister admitting or to the person admitted Absurd c. as making the Reader believe we hold That the Minister without danger of a lie may assure that Communicant of a saving interest in Christ who he is assured hath no part in Christ and all because the Elders have approved that Communicant against the vote and certaine Knowledge of the Minister Besides That expression He is thought visibly worthy is little better then nonsence For I pray what is a person visibly worthy but one that is thought and judged worthy at least upon evidence of competent knowledge and vacancy of scandall So then to think a person is visibly worthy is to think I think such a man worthy which for my part I think is little better then non-sence either in Grammer Logick or Rhetorick Thus you see how Mr. Humphrey propounds my Answer I will not say faithfully but I dare say very prudently My answer to the Objection is this pag. 48. He may possibly Seal to an untruth but doth not
Seal to a lie in admitting that person whom in charity being approved upon due tryall he may and ought to judge worthy 2ly If the Minister suspect a person legally approved he may and ought the more carefully to warn him c. and by this means I conceive he may clear himself but cannot keep back him that is approved by the Major vote of the Eldership Onely afterwards hath power to appeal c. Let the Reader now judge whether by Sealing a saving interest in Christ to a person whom I may and ought to think Evangelically worthy the Minister doth Seal to a lie Or 2ly If he Seale a saving interest in Christ to a person whom himself suspects yet cannot evince to be unworthy and whom others having the same power and piety with himself judge worthy be a Sealing to a lie If indeed the Minister know this person to be unworthy as being in the state of nature or jure Excommunicate here the case is much altered of which I speak not in that Paragraph onely I am much beholding to Mr. Humphrey for endeavouring to pin such an absurdity upon my sleeve If Mr. Humphrey and the Reader desire my judgement in this particular For my part if not only a Presbytery but if a Classis yea Province voted a person worthy whom I knew to be unworthy as having sufficient evidence of his gross ignorant or scandalous conversation backt with impenitency and obstinacy I must desire them all to excuse me for giving the Sacrament to such a one Yet would I not make any stirre in the Church if they appointed an other Minister to give him the Sacrament in my Congregation By which means I apprehend I shall be both cleare of the guilt of his Admission and withall preserve the peace and unity of the Church And should this carriage of mine cost me a Sequestration I hope I should chuse rather to suffer a penall then to commit a Morall evill The case may be illustrated by other Acts of Judicature both Civill and Sacred Suppose the Eldership vote the Excommunication of a person whom I knew to be innocent or vote the non-Excommunication of a person whom I knew to be jure-Excommunicate In such case they must give me leave to enter my protest and not to act according to their vote against my Knowledge and Conscience Again in Civill Tryalls suppose the Jury find a person guilty whom the Judge knowes to be Innocent were I Judge in that case I hope by Gods assistance neither Law nor Jury should prevail with me to pronounce sentence against such a person The like might be said about the Judges clearing a person whom hee knows to be guilty yet is acquitted by the Jury if the Judge should be put to pronounce a Sentence of absolution against his Knowledge and Conscience Which yet I think is not in practice amongst us since the Verdict of the Jury doth acquit the Prisoner only the Judge in such case might haply complain of the Jury c. My drift and scope in all this is to shew the weaknesse of Mr. Humphrey his Cords where-with he thinks to bind me and withall that I might make it appear to the Reader That however pag. 64. Mr. Humphrey triumphs before the Victory yet we are not forced either to lie on the one hand or to come over to Mr. Humphry on the other hand For the last clause in this Paragraph That seeing a Minister is Gods Embassadour and what he doth is by Commission we may as soone say the God of Israel can lic as that the Minister either Seals an untruth or tie in doing his Office Ans Either the sense is That a Minister when he acts clave non errante Seales neither an untruth nor a lie which is as pertinent as if I should say when Mr. Humphrey Preaches Truth hee Preaches not an untruth or lie Or his meaning is that because a Minister is Commissioned by Christ therefore he cannot erre in this or any other part of his Ministeriall function which as it is a palpable errour so it smells strongly of Popish infallibility What he addes by way of amplification Pag. 64 65 66. as there is much truth in it so his great mistake lies in apprehending that we cannot judge a person to be worthy or unworthy but presently we meddle with Gods Ark and enter upon Gods Throne The weaknesse of which inference hath been formerly laid open and therefore I do but only note it here For his answer to my exception against divers Church-members receiving Pag. 66. though all may bee present c. That yet the Minister may be free in his Office in delivering the Sacrament in generall as Christ did and that especially because it is a visible Word Ans 1. This indeed accompanied with due admonition may be a relief to the Minister hee being thereby excused from giving the Sacrament to persons visibly unworthy * My meaning is If the Minister acquiesce in the vote of the Elders and do not his indeavour in a Morall way to have such a person kept from receiving For I do not think the Minister is bound to thrust him away from the Table or to pull the Bread and Cup violently out of his hands who upon the unrighteous vote and incouragement of the Elders laies hold upon those holy mysteries but it cannot clear him of guilt as permitting them to eat and drink judgment to themselves whom he ought to keep back 2ly Though the Elements and divers Sacramentall actions be explicatory and so a visible word common to all be they Church-members or no yet giving and receiving are applicatory and where a Minister or a private Christian cannot apply the writing or promise of Christ I speak as de jure there they cannot apply the seal of that writing Here I cannot but take notice of Mr. Humphrey his ingenuity in confessing That presence at the Sacrament is more free than actuall receiving in these words Pag. 68. Not that I am so moved at free presence but that actuall receiving is not as free to our intelligent Members Not that bare presence makes them guilty but their unworthy carriage at the Sacrament and their unprofitablenesse under it as a visible word And I do as easily yield to him that by presence onely persons may be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as well as by receiving but not as much since actuall receiving is like Judas his betraying Christ with a kisse whereby hee contracted deeper guilt then others of his damned Crew especially such as came haply to see Christ taken but put not forth a tongue or hand in order to Christs apprehension Yet withall it being agreed on both hands that presence is freer then receiving for which Mr. Humphrey himselfe holds forth the practice of the Primitive Church let him confider how he will salve his own Objections against this Tenet and that it argues weaknesse for a man to yield the
accepted by others and by some of these feignedly by others cordially Some Professors reject Christ offered both outwardly and inwardly some accept him both outwardly and inwardly Between both these as a middle of participation are they who accept Christ outwardly but reject him inwardly as do all cased Hypocrites It 's evident then that Christ in this Parable ownes a middle of participation between both extreams By the way take notice how again page 103. Mr. Humphrey is pleased to put off my instance of Children with a jest which at good earnest will be too hard for him His wit and mirth may tickle the Reader and make his Books the more vendible But I shall not tire the Reader with repeating what I have said formerly in order to the vindication of that instance For that other Argument of mine to prove Mr. Humphrey his Principle loose because it will open a dore for the wickedest varlets Hear what Mr. Humphrey saies to it page 103. He should say in plain termes it is a loose Principle because it is not his Principle and then he had hit it Ans What is this to the eviction of my Argument May not I as well return Mr. Humphrey should say in plain termes his admitting pel-mel is a good and warrantable practice because it is his practice and then he had hit it What weight can such froath bear in the ballance of right Reason and Religion D. Dr. If profession be Mr. Humphrey his ground how dare he excommunicate any Baptized person though most wicked Mr. Humphrey I answer As the Priest durst shut up the Leper from the whole Congregation because of Gods speciall command Ans And with us persons are suspended from the Lords Supper as they were suspended from the Passover by Gods especiall command 1 Cor. 10. 21. May I forfeit a right to all Ordinances and may not I forfeit a right to one Ordinance Was not the Incestuous Corinth a Professor even when excommunicated That he was Baptized Mr. Humphrey will grant that he was kept from Hearing or any other Ordinance but actuall receiving Mr. Humphrey cannot prove He was then a Professor even after excommunication though not a Church-member till received again upon testification of his repentance If therefore profession be enough for admission then even persons excommunicated ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper In persons at age profession must precede Church-membership and may continue after a person is cut off from Church-membership unlesse he openly renounce Christianity which I believe few excommunicated persons do D. Dr. Did he never hear of reall and visible worthinesse Mr. Humphrey Page 104 and 105. I confesse I have heard of the visible Church Saints by calling Professors c. But this visible worthinesse as distinguished therefrom I have not leightly read of but in him and look at his expression and his meaning therein as exotick to the Scripture Ans 1. Let Mr. Humphrey shew me the terme visible as applyed to the Church in Scripture if he can I am assured he cannot 2 ly The thing of visible worthinesse the Scripture warrants as distinct from Church-membership for which take these Texts 1 King 1. 52. If he will shew himselfe a worthy man c. But if wickednesse shall be found in him c. Is not worthinesse shewn visible worthinesse and contra Is not wickednesse found in a man visible unworthinesse Again Matth. 10. 11. Enquire who is worthy in a City Surely Christ sets them not to enquire who had truth of grace that were as Mr. Humphre phrases it to pry into Gods secrets Nor doth he bid them enquire barely who were professors by Church-membership fince the whole City or the greatest part thereof were such as being Jewes to whom only the Apostles were sent Matth. 10. verse 5 6. It must needs then be a worthinesse of accepting the Gospell and of suitable pious walking that the Apostles were to look after and not to lodge in profane but in religious families which worthinesse might be found out by inquity And if this be not visible worthinesse I pray what is Once more Luke 7. verse 4 5. The Elders of the Jewes testifie the Centurion is worthy Surely they were no merit-mongers nor would Christ have acted upon such an account He had then a worthinesse of meetnesse and this worthinesse was visible by his love to Gods people in building them a Synagogue That this Centurion was Circumcized Baptized or a Church-member I think Mr. Humphrey will not assert I am consident he cannot prove it Yet here is worthinesse and visible worthinesse in one that was neither Baptized nor a Church-member The like may be said of Cornelius Acts 10. 22. From all which I conclude by Mr. Humphrey his leave that visible worthinesse as distinct from Church-membership is not exotick to the Scripture In the close of this Section after some flourishes at which he is excellent I perceive that my anatomizing of his Onyon which I hoped might open his eyes and make him weep hath put him into an angry I will not say spitefull distemper I had rather such words should drop from Mr. Humphrey his pen then from mine And because he cannot justly quarrell with my words therefore he is pleased to put a sense upon them As if I censured him and all of his minde to be opposers of the Church and the wicked and my party only to be the godly pag. 106. A sad charge and very uncharitable in reference both to my words and meaning My words are these page 75. of my Bar The best use therefore that can be made of his pield Onyon is to draw tears from his own and others eyes for those extravagant discourses of his whereby he hath as much as in him lies troubled the Church hindred reformation strengthened the hands of the wicked and sadned the hearts of the righteous c. These are my words and 1. Have I in them spoke any more then the very truth 2 ly Is here one word charging him and all that are of his minde to be wicked Thirdly doth not this discourse of M. Humphrey sadden the Godly and make the wicked rejoyce I uttered not these expressions by roat as he is pleased to upbraid me but deliberately and with grief and Sympathy Fourthly what is there of spight or of the Spider sucking poyson in those expressions of mine As for Antiquity I wonder how in the same page Master Humphrey can pretend to it which if he know any thing of Antiquity he cannot be ignorant is against him I see the man is galled and cannot bear the gentlest Item of reproof but presently throws malice and spleen in the face of the reprover Truely Sir what I spake was not by roat nor in passion I am of the same mind still what ever bitter misconstructions you are pleased to make of those words of mine Indeed I looked at him and all that vent themselves for his loose principles as troublers I did
must not be admitted And if he judges not himself really worthy for his own part he must not eat he has stretched a line of division over the Church a plummet of lead on weak consciences and wiped the Sacrament as a man wipeth a dish wiping it and turning it up side down in wiping Answ Some are notable at Cyclopick Divinity let the Reader judge whither M. Humphrey be not excellent at Cyclopick Rhetorick which in stead of illustrating doth obscure his sense and make it ambiguous could we not guesse at his meaning by his mewing Grammer and Logicke had bin here more usefull than Rbetoricke Doth not the word stretch a linse of division over the Church See Jerem. 15. 19. Doth it not stretch a plummet on weak consciences but to regulate them not to crush them The Sacrameut indeed is the Dish Christ the meat in that dish should not the handmaids of wisdom wipe her dishes clean on all sides so far as lies in their power that is purge and keep pure this and other Ordinances If his meaning be that by Sacramentall triall we cause sinfull division wound the consciences of the weak or grieve them and make the Sacrament a nullity this first is false Secondly a new dressing of what is elsewhere answered I pray Sir be not offended that we dare not make the Table of the Lord contemptible that we dare bring no bread to the Lords Table but such as upon grounds of charity we apprehend to be Shew-Bread Malach 1. v. 7. and 12. I wonder therefore Mr. Humphrey so forgets himself pag. 133. as to charge me bitterly with censoriousnesse but for noting his censoriousnesse To which I briefly answer 1. What need I quote Chapter and verse in a place so well known and quoted by himself Secondly That I charge him with censuring us in a Rhetorical way did I not therein say the very truth unlesse Interrogation be no part of Rhetorick Doth not M. Humphrey turn the Apostles assertion into an Interrogation and is that no part of Rhetorick Thirdly Did I frame any interpretation but what his words must of necessity carry unless he will have them speak non sense He findes fault with us for doing evil that good may come what is that evil but want of free Admission the very same with Suspension in a negative sense That this is the evil Mr. Humphrey charges us withall is evident both by the context and by the whole scope of his book Let the Reader now judge whither I frame an interpretation or speak Mr. Humphrey his genuine sense That Suspension is not a sin but a duty hath been elsewhere proved nor are we ashamed Sir that you charge us with Suspension as our Act and practice but think you do us wrong by charging us with this practice as a sin The Act we confesse concerns us but the guilt must rest upon him who charges guilt wrongfully Is not he censorious who charges me with a sin I am not guilty of Yet that nothing may be wanting in point of censoriousnesse Mr. Humphrey pag. 134. charges me with spight for forgiving him and praying for him Lord how doth passion and prejudice blinde a man to interpret the preatest acts of charity a plece of spight and malice Sir I finde not fault with the terms of giving or humbly committing your reasons but that you mistake weight for number and think you give them by weight when you give or humbly commit them onely by number For a farewell Mr. Humphrey 1. Tells me I rail at his Arguments Secondly Takes his leave with a scoff Thirdly To sharpen his Sarcasme abuses Scripture and so concludes the first part of his Rejoynder whither with that piety and charity becomes a Brother and a Minister I leave it to indifferent judgements THE BAR TO FREE ADMISSION FIXED OR An Answer to Mr. Humphrey his Rejoynder The Second PART Sect. I. IN the beginning of his second Part though Mr. H. hesitate about the account of our practice in the matter of Excommunication yet since he is so charitable as to acknowledge it may be fair I cannot but look at it as a good beginning in order to a right understanding and hopes of an happy close I shall therefore proceed to that wherein we more palpably differ Dr. D. p. 107. of his Bar. In his description of Church-censures Mr. H. omits their main end which is the amendment of the party censured Mr. H. p. 146. of his Rejoynder I express it just over the leaf as soon as it is to purpose Ans In dispute and only by the way I note your description of Church-censures as defective Logicians tell us that Finis is a necessary ingredient in our description of an action the end being essential to the moral goodness of actions This end Sir you omit in your description of Church-censures which your mentioning in the next leaf will not salve Therefore by your leave I was neither blind nor cruel in censuring unless the Respondents discovery of the faylures of his Opponent against the rules of Logick be malice and blindness and if so then a Disputant because he acts rationally in order to the conviction of his Adversary is blind and malicious In this I allude only to his own story Such Logick is fitter for St. Albans executioner than for a Scholar or a Divine Next he blames me for extending Church-censures to ignorant persons or to any other wilful sinners Yet in the same place grants some Church-censures belong to such but not suspension or excommunication Ans Sir I extend not Church-censures to ignorant persons simply but to persons wilfully ignorant And till Mr. H. can prove such ignorance and wilfulness is not a great and scandalous sin he doth ill to censure me for saying they deserve a Church-censure yea some degrees of excommunication if persisted in If this doctrine would soon leave him destitute of Church-members as himself confesses p. 147. Surely his Church is in a very lamentable condition whose members are it seems not only grosly ignorant but also wilfully ignorant I do not charge them to be so but only shew them what a slur their own Ministers argument casts upon them Mr. H. ib. Dr. D. challenges all the world to shew him proof that persons excommunicated may not be present at any publick Ordinance c. If he think so learnedly of himself let him send his challenge to Dr. Hammond c. Ans I know far better than Mr. H. or any other that I have great reason to think very meanly of my self nor will I stand to justifie the manner of expression which yet had its mitigation or allay would Mr. H. have pleased to take notice thereof my challenge being only in order to Scripture-proof by which I still beleeve it cannot be made out that an excommunicated person ought to be kept from all publick Ordinances yea the Scripture seems to favour the contrary I dare not compare with that learned Clerk