Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n believe_v faith_n know_v 8,213 5 4.2899 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A81720 A boundary to the Holy Mount, or a barre against free admission to the Lords Supper. In answer to an humble vindication of free admission to the Lords Supper. Published by Mr. Humphrey minister of Froome in Somersetshire. Which humble vindication, though it profess much of piety and conscience, yet upon due triall and examination, is found worthy of suspension, if not of a greater censure. By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap London. R. D. (Roger Drake), 1608-1669. 1653 (1653) Wing D2129; Thomason E1314_2; ESTC R209198 85,461 218

There are 6 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

one that doubts groundedly and hath no grace at all 1. It cannot convert him understand me still of actuall receiving as hath been formerly shewed 2. It cannot confirm him unless it be in sin by sealing judgement to him For can he be confirmed in grace who hath no grace at all 2. Where he saies The Receiver seals not necessarily to the condition in esse but in fieri I answer He seals as necessarily in point of duty to the condition in esse or de praesenti as in fieri or de futuro and that man who ingages not to believe at present plaies the hypocrite in ingaging to believe hereafter It is not with elicit as with imperate acts in the former he that truly wills them doth in part perform them whence Divines make a true desire of faith one degree of faith and he that in truth desires and resolves to beleeve hereafter may as well act that resolution now since faith it self as well as the resolution of faith is an act of the will And this M. H. would speak in those words Page 86. If he resolve now for the time to come without procrastination to walk according to the Covenant Is not faith the first step of this walk He that resolves in truth to beleeve cannot but desire to beleeve and the true desire of faith is both Scripturally and by the consent of Divines one degree of faith Thirdly By the very act of receiving he seals to faith in esse or de praesenti in point of profession the very language of his receiving the Elements is I receive Christ signified and offered to me in particular by them and therefore he that receives the Elements and doth not act faith at the same instant he playes the hypocrite wofully mocks God and Christ and as the mockers of Christ were guilty of his death so is every unworthy receiver Pag. 86. He proceeds The faith therefore that is absolutely requisite to a beleever is not assurance but consists I take it of these two things only 1. An historicall assent to the Gospel c. 2. A resolution to submit to the Government of Christ c. Let a man then but believe his Creed and resolve to go on in no known sin that is the main c. pag. 87. Answ 1. I easily grant assurance is not absolutely requisite as a means but only in point of duty namely that every one is bound to labour after it and in order unto our benè esse or comfort 2. Against every Sacrament a Christian is bound in an especiall manner by soul-searching examination to make out his evidence and if he have truth of grace and take pains to search he will by Gods grace finde so much truth in himself as may bring him to some assent about his good estate though usually this assent be much assaulted and weakned with doubting for removing whereof the Sacrament is an especiall help But 3. Whereas M. H. professeth to know no other kindes or ingredients of saving or justifying faith but only an historicall assent and a good purpose or resolution 1. I must tell him he is very defective on the one hand as omitting the speciall act of justifying faith namely adherence or leaning upon Christ for justifycation and salvation which is an act of the will not of the understanding nor will his historicall faith for kinde go beyond the faith of hypocrites yea of devils Iam. 2.19 and will aggravate a mans damnation if the faith of adherence follow not upon it 2. I must also tell him he is as excessive on the other in mistaking a good resolution for a constitutive part of faith which is either an antecedent or a consequent and effect of faith antecedent if it be a Legall consequent if an evangelicall resolution I wish M. H. would study fundamentalls better before he come to be so criticall about superstructures By his following discourse pag. 89. its apparent he speaks very confusedly about the spirituall estate of a Christian For 1. He supposeth a man hath not saving grace and yet that at the same time he is willing to accept of Christ to leave sin and yeeld to Christs termes all which are most precious saving graces Afterwards he compares these graces to a little gold mixed with much drosse in a lump of Ore yet at last concludes God can make grace of these least beginnings as if at present they were not grace till God does as it were transubstantiate them and turn our water into wine By all which its apparent the man doth not sibi constare and no wonder then if he bring his Reader into a labyrinth Object 9 The Ordinance is polluted if all be admitted Pag. 76. The summe of his Answer is That the Ordinance is defiled only to the unworthy receiver not to the admitters or joyners Answ Though we place no great confidence in this Argument nor believe the presence or actuall receiving of a wicked person doth simply defile either the Sacrament or the communicants as had an unclean man eaten of the Passeover supposing he neither touched any clean person nor any part of the Passeover but that he ate that Ordinance had been Levitically polluted only to himself yet connivance both in the admitters and joyners contracts morall pollution as he that suffers another to sin where he may and ought to hinder him or at least do his endeavour in order thereunto is partaker of his sin Lev. 19.17 1 Tim. 5.22 His application of Mark. 7.15 and of Peters vision to the Sacrament is ridiculous pag. 77. For do we hold that any either person or meat is Levitically unclean Contra dares he deny that any person yea any meat may be morally unclean namely as defiled with sin or occasions of sin Tit. 1.15 That which enters into the mouth defiles not a man Levitically but morally it may defile him and that either by his intemperance or irreligious receiving of it as eating the forbidden fruit defiled our first parents and he who when he may hinders not these sins is himself defiled by sinfull tolleration We believe as well as himself pag. 79. That the unworthinesse of another should not make the true beleever separate from the Sacrament Yet if I know another grosly ignorant or prophane and do not either endeavour to reform or discover him his unworthy receiving shall be set upon my score alone without any prejudice to the other communicants If it be a priviledge of the Gospel to have free Ordinances and to account no man unclean in the use of them ib. How dares M. H. set a spirituall rayl as he calls it about the communion Table and thereby refine and spiritualize old superstition to use his own termes by keeping from the Sacrament Children and distracted persons who have a better right to it then many prophane ones that his charity can admit and yet in one breath accuse and condemn us for doing the like to that he allowes in himself
pell mell to the Sacrament 3. I wish his conversion by entertainment of this opinion be not like that of the Galatians It s a common errour in these loose times to mistake perversion for conversion Such conversion calls for repentance which I wish to this godly man For further confirmation pag. 48. he propounds the tenour of the Covenant in a syllogism thus He that believes shall be saved adde I believe Ergo I shall be saved Then he denies that the Sacrament seals either the minor or the conclusion Answ The Sacrament seals what the Covenant of grace promises but the Covenant of grace promises and not only offers salvation to particular persons Rom. 10.9 That if thou shalt confess c. thou shalt be saved This is evident by the promise of salvation to believers in generall Mark 16.16 John 3.16 What is promised to a whole kinde is promised to every particular of that kinde Let Mr. H. tell me how the Sacrament seals the offer of grace to him in particular and I will tell him how it may also seal the promise of grace or salvation to him or any else in particular Where is it said in Scripture I offer to thee John Humphrey Minister of Froome c. grace and salvation by Jesus Christ will Mr. H. yet deny the offer of grace is made as particularly to him as if he had been named in Scripture Or where is it said Thou John Humphrey shalt not commit adultery c. yet doth not that command reach him as particularly as if he were named He that saies Omnis homo est animal rationale doth he not as truly say that Mr. H. is Animal rationale as if he had mentioned him by name In like manner when the Scripture saies All that believe shall be saved doth it not say that Mr. H. believing shall be saved If therefore Mr. H. de facto do believe it promises salvation as particularly to him as if he were mentioned by name or that I believing shall be saved as if my name were in the promise Where the condition is performed there the promise is absolute but when I believe the condition is performed Ergo the promise That I shall be saved is absolute This premised I resume What the Covenant promiseth that the Sacrament seals The Covenant promises that I shall be saved in particular Ergo the Sacrament seals that I shall be saved in particular But this is the conclusion which Mr. H. denied to be sealed by the Sacrament Next for the minor of his syllogisme namely That I believe I shall prove against him that this is also sealed in the Sacrament not to all Receivers but to all worthy Receivers thus as formerly What the Covenant ensures that the Sacrament seals the Covenant assures me that I believe Ergo the Sacrament seals to me that I believe The minor which onely is questionable I prove thus That which gives to me clear evidence that I believe that assures me I believe The Covenant gives me clear evidence that I believe Ergo. The minor is good because the Covenant affords infallible signes and evidences of faith in what heart soever it is and so of faith in my heart particularly or in any other heart whatsoever As therefore by the properties of a man I may know my self to be a man so by the properties of faith held forth in the Covenant I may know my self to have faith That Gospel which saies He who receives Christ for righteousness c. believes the same Gospel saies That I receiving Christ for righteousness do believe and so by consequence it faith absolutely that I believe But what the Covenant affirms that the Sacrament seals or ratifies namely that I believe in particular And this is the minor which Mr. H. denies to be sealed by the Sacrament For clearer explication consider that the minor or assumption of the Syllogism of assurance depends partly upon faith and partly upon sense or experience upon faith that the evidence is right in actu signato and not a false evidence upon sense or experience in actu exercito that this right evidence is in me For as a false evidence in me so a right evidence without me are both equally null and invalid as to assurance For example Would I know my faith is right and thereby come to assurance that I am in the state of grace I must look into the Word by a direct act of my understanding for a true and undoubted evidence of faith and into mine own heart by a reflex act whether that true evidence of saving faith be indeed in me As in the Syllogisme of assurance about my particular resurrection at the day of judgement the major That all men shall rise is in tearms in Scripture the minor That I John or Roger am a man is not expresly in Scripture but depends partly upon faith as to the essentiall notes of a man recorded in Scripture partly upon sense I finding by a reflex act that those essentiall signes of humanity are in me from both which the conclusion flows necessarily that I in particular shall rise at the day of judgement And indeed had not a conclusion drawn partly from faith and partly from sense been firm Christs apparitions had not been a solid argument to confirm the resurrection which yet he proves partly by Scripture out of Moses the Prophets and Psalmes partly by sense and experience Luk. 24 39 46. and though it be possible in some cases sense may be deceived yet a man in his right wits may easily know that hic nunc sense is not deceived And were not this true no man could possibly be convinced of his estate or that he is a sinner or that his life is frail and short or that faith and repentance is his duty or any other Divine truth that concerns himself in particular since it s no where said in Scripture Thou Roger art a sinner thy life in particular is frail and short faith and repentance is thy duty but all these in Scripture are expressed onely in generall tearms Yet I hope it s as true de fide that faith and repentance is my duty as if the Scripture should say Thou Roger must believe and repent c. The major then in the Syllogisme of assurance is in tearms de fide The minor also as to the truth of the evidence is expresly de fide but as to the inbeing of the evidence it depends upon sense and experience the conclusion is de fide by necessary consequence though not in express tearms Now whatsoever is de fide that is sealed in the Sacrament so are all three Propositions in the Syllogisme though the minor is partly of faith and partly of sense therefore all three Propositions of the Syllogisme of assurance are sealed by the Sacrament contrary to Mr. H. his Assertion And since the minor in the Syllogisme of assurance namely that I believe is the conclusion in the pros-Syllogisme it follows
himself if he will urge it in order to the Sacrament since its evident Christ here makes a distinction and separation and 1. Would not have all admitted and 2. In particular he rejects sound and righteous ones namely that were so in their own conceit and such were most of the Pharisees and do we suspend any others then those who ate wiser in their own eyes then seven men that can render a reason and fitter for the Lords Supper if themselves may be judges then the best of the approved or approvers Pag. 22. His third instance is John 8. from the woman taken in adultery accused by the Pharisees but not condemned by our Saviour Answ 1. Doth this man take the Scripture for a nose of wax that he perverts it so grosly cither through ignorance instability or prejudice to say no worse what is this to our Sacramentall triall The Pharisees came to trap Christ with a practicall case and a civill case John 8.5 6. Had Christ bid them stone her he had been accused to the Romans as stirring the Jews up to act the supreme power which was taken from them by the Romans see John 18.31 Had he forbid them to stone her he had been slandered to the Jews as an enemy to and contradictor of the Law of Moses Our Saviour at first waves answering to so captious a question ver 6. But when that would not satisfie their malicious importunity he gives them so wise an answer as 1. He avoyded both extreams and 2. He caught them who came to catch him And for the woman though he condemn not her person either to civill death as being no civill Judge Luk. 12.14 nor eternally as not coming in the state of humiliation to destroy but to save Luk. 9.56 John 12.47 yet he condemns her sin and gives her good counsel John 8.11 What is this to our keeping persons visibly unworthy from the Sacrament and that by just authority in a publick and judiciall way I wonder this man doth not now condemn the civill Magistrate for executing adulterers incestuous persons Sodomites c. which Christ and his Apostles would not 1 Cor. 5.1 6 9 11. onely they judged them spiritually shewed them the danger of those sins and Gods mercy in pardoning and purging them Are not many justly cut off both by the Civill and Ecclesiasticall Sword whom yet Christ as absolute Lord of life and death may pardon Shall not man do justice because Christ shews mercy Had this woman been stoned to death had that been any barre to Christs Pardon The most righteous Judge in the world is conscious of the seeds of incest murder c. in himself shall he not therefore condemn such persons legally convicted before him The most pious Minister or Church Officer is conscious of the like shall he not therefore either suspend or excommunicate such persons when legally converged and convicted upon just triall David himself was actually guilty both of murder and adultery was it ever after unlawfull for him as a King and Judge to condemn such persons Indeed the consciousness of our own weakness and guilt should make us put forth such acts with abundance of self-reflection and pity to such offenders but hath not the leaft shew of warrant to root up or make void the power of triall and judgement either in Church or State Foolish pitty mars a City in this case shall the woolf be spared to worry the sheep If such pity be not the greatest cruelty both to soul and body I know not what is Pag. 22. His fourth reason arises from the vanity formality and impossibility of selecting people to this Ordinance For put the case you will have a gathered company I pray whom do you account to be fit and worthy receivers if not all that make profession as we do mixtly then those only that have an interest in Christ and are true Believers Well but how will you be able to know them The heart of man is deceitfull above all things who can know it And if we can hardly discover our own hearts how shall we ever discern others So that all will come but to those that have the fairest shew those that seem such and you cannot be secured but there may be and will be some hypocrites and so this true partaking as all one body and one blood in such a mixt communion as you pretend vanishes and there can be no such matter But now if men here stand upon a formall purity and will have the outward purest Church they can they go to separating again as we have daily testimony till they are quite separated one from another even as in the peeling of an onyon where you may peel and peel till you have brought all to nothing unless to a few teares perchance with which the eyes of good men must needs run over in the doing Answ 1. Here Mr. Humphrey thinks he hath us fast But let me intreat him not to boast before he put off his harness And that both himself and others may see how wide he roves from the mark we shall deny both his Extreams and tell him that neither bate profession on the one hand nor troth of grace on the other hand is the rule we walk by in admitting persons to the Sacrament if considered quatenus Could not all the art Mr. Humphrey hath think of medium participationis between these two extreams which will do very good service for his conviction and our justification 1. Therefore let him know that we look at his rule of bare profession as a very loose principle which will open a door not onely for the wickedest varlets as murderers c. but also for children and fools contrary to his own principles now in print And indeed if bare prosession were enough to warrant admission to the Sacrament how dares Mr. Humphrey excommunicate any baptized person though he be the wickedest villain that ever Tyburn groaned for since even the worst of them are professors as well as the truest Nathanael Therefore say we Profession if joyned with sufficiency of knowledge in fundamentals and sutable practice in conversation at least negatively that there be no evidence against a person as living after conviction in a known sin this is the rule we walk by in admission to the Sacraments though withall we do not neglect inquiry after truth of grace so far as may stand with charity 2. Let him and the world know that truth of grace in the heart on the other hand is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper The reason is because we cannot admit divers persons though we should infallibly know they had truth of grace as 1. Children and fools divers of whom undoubtedly have truth of grace in their hearts and that because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lords body according to the rule of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.28 29. Nor 2. Such who though they have truth of grace yet fall into some foul and scandalous
sin for which they deserve excommunication it self and much more suspension which is but an inferiour degree of excommunication As truth of grace cannot excuse a man from death if he be a murderer c. so neither can it excuse him from Church Censures if he be foully scandalous especially if wilfull which yet for a time may stand with truth of grace witness Asa 2 Chr. 16.10 12. Doth not Mr. Humphrey know that a person habitually worthy may be actually unworthy or that a person invisibly unworthy may be visibly worthy and contra Did he never hear of the worthiness of person and the worthiness of preparation visible worthiness and reall worthiness Reall and compleat worthiness I mean as to its parts when a person hath grace and in some measure of truth labours to fit himself is onely known to God outward or visible worthiness may be known to man by due search and triall accompanied with charity and prudence in which better to fail on the right hand then on the left and where we see competent knowledge and have nothing to object against a mans conversation the person professing his universall subjection to Christ and desire to receive for his further edification the Eldership ought to give such a one the right hand of fellowship And should he afterwards be uncased the same power of the Keyes which admitted him can either suspend or excommunicate him according to the demerit of his carriage And whereas he objects That do what we can hypocrites will creep in That we easily grant but it s nothing to his purpose since not hypocrites simply but hypocrites as uncased or godly men as grosly extravagant are the object of Church Censures The best use therefore can be made of his peel'd onyon is to draw tears from his own and others eyes for these extravagant discourses of his whereby he hath as much as in him lies troubled the Church hindred Reformation strengthened the hands of the wicked and sadned the hearts of the righteous whom God hath not made sad Ezek. 13.22 Had we the peeling of his onyon we would take off onely the skin and make good use of the pulp either for food sauce or medicine And so much good do him with his Onyon whether he feed upon it or weep over it Pag. 23. His fifth reason he gathers from the uniformity of the service of God If all other Worship lies in common it is an intrenchment upon the common liberty to put an enclosure upon the Sacrament Answ 1. Let him answer himself if all other worship lie in common for this I suppose he means by uniformity for children and distracted persons unless they trouble the Congregation why doth Mr. H. enclose the Lords Supper from them Let him extricate himself and then see if we come not out at the same gap Where hath Christ in terminis forbid children and distracted persons to receive If Mr. H. can exclude them by consequence the same or like consequence will serve us to exclude divers far more unfit to receive then either of them 2. Must all Divine Service be laid in common because most parts of it are Why then not all time because six parts of time are so why not all places and persons because many are Let us bless God so much of his Service lies in common and not quarrell that all lies not in common since the best are unworthy that any part of Gods Worship should lie in common 3. There is no part of Gods Worship so enclosed but all persons of age and discretion may injoy it if the fault be not their own and that upon very honourable and equall yea easie conditions 4. As in every Ordinance some part is in common some part inclosed so is it in the Sacrament In every Ordinance a great part of the Letter is common to all the spirit of it is inclosed In prayer I can bless God for truth of grace wrought in some but can I without lying praise him for true grace wrought in all In preaching the Minister ought to apply some commands universally others to such and such states conditions and sexes threatnings to obstinate sinners promises to the penitent c. Is not here a plain inclosure If all parts of prayer or preaching be not applicable to all shall all parts of the Sacrament be applicable to all We deny not but all may be present at the exhortation consecration administration but the question is Whether all may actually receive and whether the seal may be applied to them whom the Covenant of grace in statu quo is visibly inapplicable Hereby also will appear the weakness of what he adds by way of amplification Are all the commands of God universall why not Do this also Answ 1. Many commands of God are not universall as was shewed before and why then may not this be of that number 2. If this command of actuall receiving be universall why doth himself limit it by excluding some persons 3. Then it were a sin for the Minister or any other to perswade any to forbear the Sacrament though he came with his hands imbrewed in blood or actually drunk or played the part of Zimri or Cosby in the face of the Congregation immediately before the Sacrament For neither can my wickedness nor the perswasion of any creature loose the bands of an universall command Were I certain this were Mr. H. his judgement as I have ground to suspect from what he delivers pag. 7. haply I might say more to him but till then shall forbear What further he objects is truth That an unregenerate man sins in every service and duty yet must not thereupon plead a quietus est from service but there is not par ratio in order to receiving 1. Because it s not every mans duty to receive 2 Because other duties though sinfully by him performed instance particularly in hearing the Word preached may be means of his conversion not so the Sacrament unworthily received of which more hereafter In the same Page he throws his glove first to the Independents then to the Presbyterians To the former in these words Let our Independents answer Why do you allow a Syntax in the whole Service of God besides and bring in a Quae genus of Anomalás and Heteroclites onely at this Ordinance Ans 1. The Independents are much beholding to him for his favourable opinion of them as good Proficients in Christs School They are good Grammarians indeed if they have perfected the Christian Grammar so as to leave in it but one Anomalum or Heteroclite 2. I think it s rather optandum then credendum that they allow a Syntaxis in the whole Service of God besides 3. Yet as to free admission in order unto presence at all Ordinances I beleeve they as well as we allow a syntax in the whole worship of God 4. Heteroclites and Anomala's are no more absurd in Worship then they are in Grammar As no rule in Grammar but bath
righteousnesse and salvation let this man be never so pious outwardly I should sooner admit a common adulterer c. then him Objection 4. page 41. The Seal is set to a blank if be admitted An. 1. For understanding this Objection the better we must know that what the Philosopher said in generall that Anima est rasa tabula is too true of all men since the fall in order unto saving grace They are Tabulae as capable of the Spirits writing they are rasae tabulae which notes 1. They are naturally destitute of this writing 2. This writing was rased out by Adams fall and thus all men naturally are blanks in order to the writing of the new Covenant in their hearts The similitude you have 2 Cor. 3.3 Heb. 8.10 2. This Blank is either visible or invisible To God all blanks are visible and he may use his liberty to set his seal where he pleases by commanding to baptise all Infants of beleeving parents c. and to admit to the Lords Supper all visible Saints that are Church-members The Question is then Whether man may apply the Seals to visible blanks It 's clear he may not for then Heathen themselves before instruction and profession as also their Infants might be baptised I assume But there are visible blanks in the Church as well as in the world namely persons that are as notoriously ignorant and profane as Heathen and who if they had not been baptised in their infancy should not be now admitted to baptism without evidence first given of their knowledge and piety Therefore say I seeing according to M. H. his own rule Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti they who at present would be uncapable of baptisme had they not been baptised are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper though baptised in their infancy The Objection thus stated we conceive to be good Le ts see now what M. H. hath to object against it I shall at present passe his first distinction as waved yet by himself Page 41 and 42. He conceive it 's a generall mistake that people take the Sacrament to be a Seal to their faith and if there be m true faith that it is set they think to a blanks Answ 1. Sacramentall seals as others relate either to parties or to things 1. To parties namely the Covenanters on both parts God and the creature in Covenant from God to the creature they seal the Covenant of grace from the creature to God they seal dutifulnesse and thankfulnesse Here we say the Church cannot apply the seals of the Covenant to any who are visibly out of the Covenant but in our Congregations there are many grosly ignorant and prophane persons visibly out of the Covenant You will say they are visibly in the Covenant as Church-members and professors though at large True but their visible profession is not equivalent to their visible ignorance and prophanenesse no more then profession of honesty is to open cheating as a cheater uncased loses the repute and priviledges of an honest man so an hypocrite uncased forfeits the priviledges of his profession and the Church both may and ought to take the forfeiture till the breach made upon his profession be repaired by a new profession of his repentance and promise of reformation yea and visible reformation too so far as it can be had and certainty if such a person may be denied all publike Ordinances in M. H. his judgement much more may he be denied one Ordinance He that deserves the greater penalty much more deserves the lesse Secondly To come neerer to his Answer Sacramentall Seals relate to things as well as to persons And thus as Seals 1. They confirm the Covenant 2. They confirm the faith of the worthy receiver 3. They confirm judgement to the unworthy receiver To apply the distinction 1. All sorts may be present to see the Covenant sealed 2. None but persons Evangelically worthy may partake these only having faith to be confirmed 3. None visibly unworthy may by the Church be admitted to partake as being visibly without faith either in the habit or actings thereof which last I note in reference to godly persons who sometimes may be justly either suspended or excommunicated 4. Supposing they may be admitted on the Ministers part where the power of the Keyes is imperfect yet to clear his own soul the Minister is to deal plainly with every unworthy receiver and let him know that he will but betray and murther Christ as our Saviour did to Iudas supposing he did receive and that the Sacrament which confirms other mens faith will confirm his unbelief and seal judgement unto him To summe up all That which confirms or ratifies is tropically a Seal but the Sacrament doth confirm faith and ratifie the Covenant to faith Ergo It s both a seal of faith and a seal to faith contra where there is no faith to confirm as to that particular it must needs seal to a blank as sealing to a blank is a known expression to note the application of a seal to a paper that hath no writings and where nothing is writ there nothing can be confirmed 2. That the Sacrament seals Christs bloud in particular for pardon to the receivers by vertue of its primitive institution is evident by comparing Matth. 26.28 with Luk. 22.20 The latter place saith This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you the former place sheweth for what end namely for remission of sins The language then of the Sacrament given to every receiver is the body and bloud of Christ is thine for the remission of thy sins and how dares any Minister say or seal this to a person known to be grosly ignorant or profane Pag. 42. God doth not attest our faith but the truth of his own promises but the Sacraments are Seals properly of the Covenant Answ 1. I know none so simple as to assert that God doth in terminis * My meaning is the Sacrament doth not say in expres terms thou Roger beleevest no more then the word doth but only by consequence attest our faith in the Sacrament as M. H. seems to insinuate the Sacrament doth not so attest but suppose and require faith and then seals the Covenant to faith 2. In vain doth it seal the Covenant if to no persons A Covenant cannot be but with some body and if it be sealed it must be sealed to those with whom it is made therefore the Covenant being sealed in the Sacrament it must be sealed to some body and sealed regularly it cannot be to those who visibly reject it but grosly ignorant and prophane persons uncased do visibly reject the Covenant of grace Ergo the Covenant of grace cannot regularly be applied to them by the Seals 3. If the Sacraments are seals properly of the Covenant why may not Infants and distracted persons partake of them who have a more visible right to it then grosly ignorant and
2. His doubtfull expression about coming though unprepared evidences his hesitancy about that particular and not without just cause True he that is bound to come is bound to come worthily but not contra he that is bound to come worthily is bound to come absolutely no more then he that was bound to come circumcised and pure to the Passeover was bound to come absolutesy Every Jew was bound to be circumcised pure and so to come to the Passeover but had he neglected Circumcision and Purification he was not to eat the Passeover at that time In like manner every Christian is bound to be 1. Habitually worthy 2. Actually worthy 3. And so to receive 1 Cor. 11.28 yet is not bound to receive but rather to abstain if he want either of the former The Apostle doth not say Let a man eat absolutely but so let him eat 3. Sinfull unpreparedness will not excuse a man from guilt but unpreparedness either sinfull or lawfull will excuse him from receiving A negative unpreparedness will excuse children and those who have urgent and just occasions that hinder them from receiving not so privative unpreparedness He that travelled of purpose to avoid the Passeover sinned not so he who had just and necessary occasions to travell Numb 9.10 13. But be unpreparedness negative or privative that man at present ought not to receive though he sin in bringing a sinfull necessity of abstinence upon himself None are threatned simply for not receiving but all are threatned in case they receive unworthily For further explication and confirmation Mr. H. propounds three Quaeries Qu. Whether the very eating and drinking of an unworthy Receiver be damnation He means Whether it deserve damnation He answers by distinguishing between the act of receiving which is good and the unworthiness which makes the sin onely and concludes That his abstinence from is a greater sin then his unworthy receiving of the Sacrament c. pag. 71. Answ 1. Receiving is alwaies a sin in him that is unworthy 1. Because he cannot but receive unworthily but that act which cannot be abstracted from sinfull pravity in dominion is necessarily sin 2. Because he is threatned but God threatens for nothing but sin Eating is not in it self a sin yet for a common person to eat the sin-offering was a sin So receiving simply is no sin but an unworthy person cannot receive without sin There is no sinfull act in the world but notionally you may abstract sinfulness from it but really you cannot when it comes to be acted no more can you from an unworthy persons receiving which is sinfull 1. In the manner 2. As prohibited to such a person in statu quo He is bound indeed to get worthiness and then to receive but he is not bound to receive till he be Evangelically worthy As a naturall man ought first to get grace and then assurance but not to study assurance without grace 2. Abstinence from the Sacrament arises out of contempt or from a grounded evidence and consciousness of Evangelicall unworthiness The former is more sinfull then bare receiving the latter is warrantable yea commendable 1. If it humble the man though but legally 2. If it put him upon care and diligence to prepare for the next Sacrament 2. Qu. pag. 72. His second Quaere is Whether receiving the Sacrament unworthily is otherwise damnable then praying and hearing unworthily Answ It is and that 1. Because praying and hearing are universall duties I mean for all sorts be they children distracted or excommunicated or otherwise unworthy so is not receiving in Mr. H. his own judgement 2. Because praying and hearing are means of conversion so is not actuall receiving His superstructure upon the coutrary supposition I omit since that will tumble down of it self the foundation failing 3 Qu. His third Quaere pag. 74 is Whether an unregenerate man conceiving himself not worthy must never come to the Sacrament for fear of eating his damnation The summe of his Answer is That upon the same ground he must also abstain from hearing since he cannot but hear sinfully and so provoke God c. Answ 1. Not so unless it can be proved the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance 2. Grant some parts or acts at the Sacrament may convert this proves onely that all may and ought to be present to see and hear Christ crucified but it makes nothing for actuall receiving which ever makes an unworthy person eat damnation and therefore doth not convert him He that hears unworthily may be converted not so he that receives unworthily at that time 3. In the close of this Quaere He can put no medium between receiving unworthily and an open refusing to receive I shall therefore help him at a dead lift and intreat so much charity of him as to believe that all abstainers are not open refusers and tramplers upon the blood of Christ no more then he who forbore the Passeover being in a journey or unclean was Yea some godly persons but out of fear of unworthiness dare not sometimes come will he say these trample upon Christs blood Why may not legall conviction fright a naturall man as well as a godly man from receiving Sense of unworthiness may prevail upon a Demas as well as upon a Nathanael and make him affraid of the signes as well as of the thing signified yet neither of them at that time like swine trample upon the blood of the Covenant but think it insinitely too good for them In his new Edition pag. 85. he inserts three pages more for amplification of the eighth Objection He takes upon him to answer a question of his own propounding His Question is misty and his Answer is in part false The summe of his Answer is The alteration is made onely in us the seal is the same and what is sealed is the same Answ Is not here an apparent falsity as to the latter branch of the Answer unless he will make salvation and damnation to be one and the same thing If salvation be sealed to the worthy damnation to the unworthy Receivers then surely though the seal be the same yet what is sealed is not the same thing As to use his own similitude though the Sun be the same yet the sunshine and the shadow or light and darkness are not the same but privative contraries But no wonder if loose principles produce such loose conclusions Rep. But suppose a poor soul doubts of his faith does this bring any relief to him uncertain of the Condition Answ Methinks it doth the condition of the Covenant may be considered as in esse already wrought in us or in fieri as to be done or performed of us The Receiver seals not necessarily to the condition in esse but in fieri obliging himself for the future to believe and obey c. Answ 1. True the Sacrament may bring relief to a doubting soul who hath indeed truth of grace but doubts of it But what relief can it bring to