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
admitted Lu. 14 29 how came the unthankfull Guests to be excluded by the Lords own command who yet had farre better excuses to keep from the Sacrament then many of our Professors have Luke 14. 18 20. 4. If this be meant particularly of the Lords Supper then let me ask Mr. H. whether some worldly occasions may not justly excuse our absence and whether all are judged there unworthy who are sometimes kept from the Lords Supper by their worldly occasions The weightiest occasions cannot excuse any from the Marriage Feast But I think Mr. H. will not deny but some worldly occasions may excuse a man from the Sacrament as is evident by analogy Numb 9.10 More might be added to shew the weakness of his plea from these parables But whereas he addes pag. 10. Now who is that faithfull steward that gives the houshold their portion of meat in due season but these that are thus doing that is who admit all comers as himself there interprets What a gross sensless and profane interpretation is this For 1. What an easie matter is it to be a faithfull steward if this faithfulness lie in admitting all pell mell to the Sacrament 2. Will it not follow by this rule that the profanest Ministers who are most for free admission are the most faithfull stewards 3. That the most pious and conscientious Ministers who dare not give this bread of children to dogs are therefore unfaithfull stewards Lord whither will not a selfish opinion lead a man Whereas he there addes That Iohn Baptist admitted all comers to Baptisme yea even those whom he calls vipers Answ 1. He saies but proves not that Iohn did baptize all comers 2. Matth. 3.6 It s noted that they who were baptized confessed their sins and so made publick profession of their repentance Let our people do that privately before the Eldership which these did publickly before all the world or if they please let them do it publickly before all the world as the former did and see if we refute them to the Sacrament Should we require confession of sins in every Receiver before admission to the Lords Supper we should be branded with a witness as pleaders for Auricular confession We onely desire a profession of their faith before receiving which though weak yet if true in the judgement of charity we dare not refuse such And because we are sure there can be no faith without knowledge therefore as we our selves have been tried by others and that willingly we think it our duty to try the faith and knowledge of all under our charge and if we finde any grosly ignorant as we dare not at present admit them so we are willing to take pains with them by instruction to fit them for the Sacrament in future Whether this be more pleasing to God or the admission of all hand over head I appeal to the Readers judgement and to Mr. Humphrey his conserence Whereas for further confirmation he adds Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti Answ I mean Catechumeni I deny it if taken in the latitude For 1. Heathen may be admitted to baptisme but not to the Lords Supper by his own grant 2. Taking this Maxime for granted what follows but that as persons to be baptized must profess faith and repentance Mat. 3.6 Act. 8.37 so must they also before receiving which makes much for our purpose and against Mr. Humphrey His last proof is drawn from Act. 10.28 upon which instance he concludes with a rhetoricall Doxology pag. 11. I thank God I have learned this same lesson with a satisfied conscience to esteem no man unclean but all unless excommunicated free in the use of Gods Ordinances Answ 1. That God who had taught Peter to count no man unclean taught Paul to count some men unclean yea persons within the Church and not excommunicated Tit. 1.15 16. 2. Let Mr. Humphrey shew me the force of this consequence Peter was commanded to converse with a godly man though levitically unclean as not being circumcised and a proselyte which uncleanness after the death of Christ was taken away Ergo Paul ought to converse with a profane Christian that is morally unclean How sutable this is to Scripture see 1 Cor. 5.11 Further Peter is commanded to preach the Word to Heathen that were comers on and ready to receive it ergo Paul may administer the Sacrament to all ignorant and wicked Christians that reject Christ and his Word I wish he would play the Logician more and the Rhetorician less in matters of this nature lest he be found in the number of those Rom. 16.18 who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple 3. Consider how he contradicts himself as well as the truth pag. 3. he excluded Infants and distracted persons here his charity is so large as to exclude none but excommunicated persons 4. That by excluding excommunicated persons from the Word preached he runs into an uncharitable and dangerous errour hath been formerly proved which I will not here repeat Much more might be added had I leasure to follow him in his wild-goose-chace I think he may well be accounted a Master of Arts at wresting the Scripture and whether he hath writ more words or errours seems to me a disputable point For a further flourish in the same Page he heaps up Texts of Scripture that hold forth the offers of free grace to all which make as much for free admission to the seal of this Sacrament as an offer of pardon to all rebels proves that even those rebels must have their pardons sealed who stand out against their Prince as well as those that come in and submit upon pardon offered Let Mr. Humphrey and all the world know that we desire to keep none from the seal who will please to make it out to us that but in the judgement of charity they have a right to the thing signified Which may serve to take away that wonder of his How we can have the conscience to turn them away from the signes and means of grace in this Ordinance to whom the Gospel offers Christ freely Answ 1. With what conscience can he exclude Infants distracted and excommunicated persons to whom the Gospel offers Christ as freely as to any yea each of which may have the things signified and yet be denied the signe 2. Not generall offers of Christ but our actuall receiving of him visibly is the rule of admission to the Sacrament But how many persons do visibly reject Christ at least by consequence Tit. 1.16 and they who visibly reject the thing signified may justly be debarred the sign till they manifest their repentance Thus much for his proofs from Scripture Let us now proceed to his reasons and see whether he be better at argument then at quotation His first Argument is The Sacraments are verbum visibile a visible Gospel c. therefore the same latitude must be granted to them both meaning the Word preached
conspire to admit unworthy ones out of by-respects as they likewise may do of the Minister But all this doth not countenance the admission of any who may be regularly suspended no more then of him who is to be excommunicated but is not through corruption of the Eldership For his fourth Consideration Pag. 26. we grant the Gospel is the Gospel of peace c. yet it s as true that whereever it comes it occasions war not of its own nature but by means of humane corruption Mat. 10.34 35. and that by means of separation which it makes whereever it comes And is it any wonder then that the seals of this Gospel by making separation make also division Where the promises are not applicable so much as visibly there sure the seals of those promises are not applicable the deniall whereof yet must needs vex hypocrites who by this means are pried into and uncased as a soul-searching Ministry doth and no wonder then if the devil of contention be conjured up and Gods Jeremies who separate the precious from the vile be men of contention to the whole Earth Cain will be angry if Abel finde better acceptance then himself and hypocrites who care least for reall goodness yet are very ambitious of all the priviledges of piety and proclaim war against such as deny them though never so justly as the Pharisees did against our Saviour but I pray who deserve blame for this contention Gods faithfull Ministers or hypocrites themselves who by visible unworthiness deprive themselves of those priviledges and yet malign Christs Stewards who dare not be so lavish and prodigall of their Masters provisions as these persons would have them What therefore he adds by way of rhetoricall amplification is frivolous as to his purpose since none are Saints but such sinners and none to be approved for Saints by the Church but such as acknowledge themselves great sinners But the question is Whether such as think themselves righteous though easily convinceable of gross ignorance or wickedness as the Pharisees are to be admitted to this Sacrament amongst humbled and repenting sinners His provision inserred in his third Edition pag. 17. will stand him in little stead since his very stating the question overthrows his great Diana of free Admission For 1. He will have free Admission and yet himself rails about the Communion Table from Infants distracted persons c. He that cries out of Suspension yet takes upon himself to suspend a world of persons far more worthy then or not so unworthy as many he presumes to admit Shall the Lords Supper be free for blasphemers murderers c. and not free for Infants distracted persons c. 2. If he can prove it is against Scripture-order and decency to admit to the Lords Supper a person visibly worthy though unbaptized I will easily prove its more against order and decency to admit to the Lords Supper a person visibly unworthy though baptized Had Constantine the great and Julian the Apostate been contemporary I should rather have admitted the former to receive when unbaptized then the latter though baptized 3. Whatever Mr. H. insinuates in the close of his Provision we are as much both for Order and for the Ordinances as himself and could not the Ordinances be had without disorder we had rather dispence with Order then part with the Ordinances The difference then between us is this We plead for and blessed be God injoy the Lords Supper with order and decency Mr. H. pleads for it and injoyes it with disorder and confusion whatever he pretends in his Provision to the contrary His second Argument he draws from the nature of the visible Church which he defines or describes to be a number of such as make profession of Jesus Christ and so are Saints by calling whatever they are in truth The essentiall marks whereof whereby it subsists as visible is the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments Now unless men will be so bold as to divest our mixed Congregations and so consequently all England formerly of the name of the visible Church they cannot take from us one of its essentiall notes in the free use of this Ordinance Answ 1. His description is liable enough to exception since a visible Church strictly is not a bare number of Professors but of such as combine for Church ends The Church is a Corporation and not members as so make a body but as united either by virtuall or actuall consent c. and that either in their distinct Societies which we call Parishes or particular Congregations or in their Representees and Officers delegated for the publick concernment of particular Churches either in a Classis Province Nation divers Nations or the whole world whence arise Classicall Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall Assemblies c. But supposing this to be his meaning though not so clearly expressed 2. I ask him in the next place Whether all Professors or Saints by calling are eo nomine to be admitted to the Lords Supper if so then why doth he shut out children and distracted persons who are as truly Saints by calling and professors as others It s apparent then that outward profession is not the ultimate reason of admission unless accompanied with sutable knowledge and conversation at least visibly and that gross ignorance appearing or a scandalous conversation do so far contradict Mr. H. his outside profession as to make that person for present visibly unworthy 3. Taking it for granted that the Word and Sacraments are notes of a true visible Church how doth it follow that ours are not true Churches unless every particular member may partake of the Lords Supper How many children and servants were in the daies of the Prelates kept from the Lords Supper till they could give some tolerable account of their faith and of the nature and use of the Sacrament yet never was such a mad inference as this drawn from it that therefore the Church of England was not a true visible Church And certainly if the deniall of some Church priviledge though unjustly were enough to un-Church a people I scarce know where there is any one true visible Church in all the world 4. Therefore let all the world take notice of the too too gross fallacy of this Argument The Word and Sacraments are notes of a true visible Church Ergo Without free admission we have no true visible Church May not any ordinary capacity easily discern there are four tearms in this Syllogisme The Syllogisme should run thus The Word and Sacraments are essentiall notes of a true visible Church Ergo without the Word and Sacraments there is no true visible Church But that Mr. H. saw well enough would conclude nothing against us who blessed be God have both Word and Sacraments and therefore in stead thereof against the known rules of Logick he shuffles in free Admission into the conclusion which was not at all in the premises A clear evidence he is more
righteousnesse and salvation let this man be never so pious outwardly I should sooner admit a common adulterer c. then him Objection 4. page 41. The Seal is set to a blank if be admitted An. 1. For understanding this Objection the better we must know that what the Philosopher said in generall that Anima est rasa tabula is too true of all men since the fall in order unto saving grace They are Tabulae as capable of the Spirits writing they are rasae tabulae which notes 1. They are naturally destitute of this writing 2. This writing was rased out by Adams fall and thus all men naturally are blanks in order to the writing of the new Covenant in their hearts The similitude you have 2 Cor. 3.3 Heb. 8.10 2. This Blank is either visible or invisible To God all blanks are visible and he may use his liberty to set his seal where he pleases by commanding to baptise all Infants of beleeving parents c. and to admit to the Lords Supper all visible Saints that are Church-members The Question is then Whether man may apply the Seals to visible blanks It 's clear he may not for then Heathen themselves before instruction and profession as also their Infants might be baptised I assume But there are visible blanks in the Church as well as in the world namely persons that are as notoriously ignorant and profane as Heathen and who if they had not been baptised in their infancy should not be now admitted to baptism without evidence first given of their knowledge and piety Therefore say I seeing according to M. H. his own rule Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti they who at present would be uncapable of baptisme had they not been baptised are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper though baptised in their infancy The Objection thus stated we conceive to be good Le ts see now what M. H. hath to object against it I shall at present passe his first distinction as waved yet by himself Page 41 and 42. He conceive it 's a generall mistake that people take the Sacrament to be a Seal to their faith and if there be m true faith that it is set they think to a blanks Answ 1. Sacramentall seals as others relate either to parties or to things 1. To parties namely the Covenanters on both parts God and the creature in Covenant from God to the creature they seal the Covenant of grace from the creature to God they seal dutifulnesse and thankfulnesse Here we say the Church cannot apply the seals of the Covenant to any who are visibly out of the Covenant but in our Congregations there are many grosly ignorant and prophane persons visibly out of the Covenant You will say they are visibly in the Covenant as Church-members and professors though at large True but their visible profession is not equivalent to their visible ignorance and prophanenesse no more then profession of honesty is to open cheating as a cheater uncased loses the repute and priviledges of an honest man so an hypocrite uncased forfeits the priviledges of his profession and the Church both may and ought to take the forfeiture till the breach made upon his profession be repaired by a new profession of his repentance and promise of reformation yea and visible reformation too so far as it can be had and certainty if such a person may be denied all publike Ordinances in M. H. his judgement much more may he be denied one Ordinance He that deserves the greater penalty much more deserves the lesse Secondly To come neerer to his Answer Sacramentall Seals relate to things as well as to persons And thus as Seals 1. They confirm the Covenant 2. They confirm the faith of the worthy receiver 3. They confirm judgement to the unworthy receiver To apply the distinction 1. All sorts may be present to see the Covenant sealed 2. None but persons Evangelically worthy may partake these only having faith to be confirmed 3. None visibly unworthy may by the Church be admitted to partake as being visibly without faith either in the habit or actings thereof which last I note in reference to godly persons who sometimes may be justly either suspended or excommunicated 4. Supposing they may be admitted on the Ministers part where the power of the Keyes is imperfect yet to clear his own soul the Minister is to deal plainly with every unworthy receiver and let him know that he will but betray and murther Christ as our Saviour did to Iudas supposing he did receive and that the Sacrament which confirms other mens faith will confirm his unbelief and seal judgement unto him To summe up all That which confirms or ratifies is tropically a Seal but the Sacrament doth confirm faith and ratifie the Covenant to faith Ergo It s both a seal of faith and a seal to faith contra where there is no faith to confirm as to that particular it must needs seal to a blank as sealing to a blank is a known expression to note the application of a seal to a paper that hath no writings and where nothing is writ there nothing can be confirmed 2. That the Sacrament seals Christs bloud in particular for pardon to the receivers by vertue of its primitive institution is evident by comparing Matth. 26.28 with Luk. 22.20 The latter place saith This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you the former place sheweth for what end namely for remission of sins The language then of the Sacrament given to every receiver is the body and bloud of Christ is thine for the remission of thy sins and how dares any Minister say or seal this to a person known to be grosly ignorant or profane Pag. 42. God doth not attest our faith but the truth of his own promises but the Sacraments are Seals properly of the Covenant Answ 1. I know none so simple as to assert that God doth in terminis * My meaning is the Sacrament doth not say in expres terms thou Roger beleevest no more then the word doth but only by consequence attest our faith in the Sacrament as M. H. seems to insinuate the Sacrament doth not so attest but suppose and require faith and then seals the Covenant to faith 2. In vain doth it seal the Covenant if to no persons A Covenant cannot be but with some body and if it be sealed it must be sealed to those with whom it is made therefore the Covenant being sealed in the Sacrament it must be sealed to some body and sealed regularly it cannot be to those who visibly reject it but grosly ignorant and prophane persons uncased do visibly reject the Covenant of grace Ergo the Covenant of grace cannot regularly be applied to them by the Seals 3. If the Sacraments are seals properly of the Covenant why may not Infants and distracted persons partake of them who have a more visible right to it then grosly ignorant and
prophane persons have 4. As the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant so they may be applied to the Covenant before all but the Covenant may not by them be applied or sealed to any but to persons visibly worthy It s well therefore in the same page he corrects himself and grants the Sacraments may be seals of our faith consecutivè because they confirm and strengthen faith But he shuffles in saying They are not formaliter and in a true and proper sense seales unto any thing but the Covenant In a proper sense a seal is an artificiall thing fit to make a visible representation or impression and confirmation This the Sacrament is not properly but figuratively to the Covenant it self namely as it hath the office of a seal which is to represent and confirm and this it doth to faith as well as to the Covenant For 1. As it represents the Covenant it must needs represent faith as an especiall branch promised in the Covenant 2. As it confirms the Covenant so it confirms faith gradually offered and promised in it and thereby also confirms faith inherent in the worthy receiver as a Bond sealed unto me confirms my belief that the particulars sealed unto shall be performed and if this be not to seal in a formal and proper sense theologically I know not what is And thus increase of faith and all other graces are sealed by the Sacrament to the worthy receiver but neither the beginnings nor increase of faith are sealed to the unworthy receiver Nor will his instance of Circumcision pag. 43. help him as to the point in hand since Circumcision was applied to none but visible Saints either by Covenant election or by actuall profession not contradicted by living in scandalous sins or notorious ignorance of the Covenant of grace which is the rule we walk by in admission or non-admission And as little advantage will his cause gain by his illustration here again repeated drawn from a Proclamation sealed and offered to rebels that refuse it True the similitude holds in some particulars 1. The Covenant of grace is proclaimed by the Minister 2. The truth of it is sealed by the Sacrament 3. The benefits of it offered to all and therefore we deny not but all sorts may be present at the Ordinance as all rebels whether obstinate or submissive may be present at the Proclamation and sealing of a Pardon But what is offering a sealed Pardon in generall and conditionally to the particular application and sealing of the same Pardon to singular persons Or how can a Commissioner without breach of his trust assure either by word of mouth or seal pardon to a Traytor that visibly stands out against his Prince In like manner at the Sacrament not only the Elements do represent and seal the Covenant of grace as to its truth in generall but some of the Sacramentall actions as giving and receiving do particularly apply it to every receiver And how dares any Minister having regular power to deny it by word and seal apply the Covenant of grace to any person that visibly rejects it To illustrate this by the initiall Sacrament Baptism when ever administred seals the Covenant of grace as well as the Lords Supper but only to the person baptized doth it make particular application of the Covenant and therefore cannot be applied to any unbaptized person that is visibly out of the Covenant be he born of Heathen or of Christian Parents But all who are visibly in the state of nature are visibly out of the Covenant and such are grosly ignorant and scandalous persons willfully persisting in both Since therefore both Sacraments seal one and the same Covenant he who should not be admitted to the first were he unbaptized must not pari ratione be admitted to the second though baptized Page 44. Rep. by M. H. But is it not alsurd for a man to set his seal where there hath been no agreement and transactions before c. M. H. grants it's absurd on the receivers part but as for the Minister or Church who offer it as a seal on Gods part there is a true seal to a true copy and nothing out of order Answ There 's nothing out of order if the Minister proceed not to delivery of the writing and seal to those who visibly refuse the Covenant offered But should M. H. or any else deliver a purchase sealed to a person who refused the bargain let himself be Judge whether it were not an act both disorderly and imprudent And as disorderly is it to deliver unto any person bond and seal for the promised Land who visibly prefers Aegypt and Babylon before it God will not Ministers should deliver precious pearls to such swine What he addes Pag. 45. is also weak in which respect he doth well to cover the nakednesse of it with a blinde and misty parenthesis His words are these As they are Gods seals for the same reason they cannot be seals of faith because God seals not imaginably to our part of the Covenant which is faith Answ 1. Both the assertion it self and its reason are false For First Are they not Gods seals 1. As relating to Gods Covenant 2. As instituted by God himself to ratifie his Covenant Secondly Is not faith it self and every saving grace promised in the New Covenant unlesse M. H. will professedly turn Pelagian and make faith only the birth of mans free-will Thirdly If the Covenant be Gods if the seal be Gods and faith promised in it be Gods also is it not apparent that Gods seal must needs be faiths seal also Not a seal from faith authoritatively as from God but a seal of faith as a branch of the Covenant promised and as a seal to faith actually laying hold on the Covenant If the Covenant of grace undertake not for our part of the Covenant we are in a worse condition now under the Covenant of grace then we were under the Covenant of works since then Adam had perfection of grace to back free-will but in fallen man free-will either hath no grace inherent or but weak grace to act it and impossible were it for any either to convert or persevere unlesse God under-took both for the infusion and supporting of grace Object If faith and grace be a part of the Covenant that is sealed by the Sacrament then the best way were free admission that the Covenant and so faith it self may be sealed to all Answ Not so For 1. Though the Covenant offer grace to all conditionally yet it promiseth not grace absolutely to any but the elect and persons effectually called to the first it promiseth initiall grace to the latter it promiseth progresse and perseverance in grace Now the seal can secure no more then what is in the writing but saving grace is not absolutely promised to all in the Covenant ergò it cannot be sealed to all in the Sacrament The offer of grace indeed is sealed to all present whether they receive it or
the whole hoast of Gods Israel His first grand Argument pag. 59. is this That the Sacraments and all Ordinances are primarily and properly means of grace and but in a remote sense means of conversion or confirmation for this grace we receive in the use of them converts some and strengthens others and this grace received in the Sacrament works in the unregenerate for their conversion Answ Is not here prime stuff worthy of a Doctor in Cathedrâ but to answer distinctly I must first premise that here he speaks not of relative but absolute not of externall but internall or inherent grace for otherwise the Ordinances are means of justification and adoption as well as of holinesse of which last yet he must be understood This premised I answer 1. That if the Ordinances be primarily means of grace they must needs be primarily means of conversion and confirmation since primary conversion is nothing else but grace at first infused and primary confirmation is degrees of the same grace superadded For further cleering whereof and that all the world may see how M. H. instead of informing would blinde and baffle the incautelous or injudicious Reader we must understand there is a two-fold conversion one primary when God converts and changes the heart by creating grace therein and so making it a new and soft heart Ezek. 36.26 turning the Wolf into a Lamb c. The other secondary when by vertue of grace inherent assisted by grace externall we turn our selves from sin to God Ezek. 18.31 32. Now since there is no inherent grace but it s formally and not only efficiently converting or confirming its impossible initiall grace should be wrought but conversion which is a change of principles must needs be wrought immediatly also and it s as impossible degrees of grace should be superadded but thereby formally confirmation must be wrought Is not the change from death to life greater then from a principle of life to an act of life Now the first infusion of grace is a change from death to life and is solely Gods act wherein the creature is meerly passive 2 Cor. 4.6 as the dark Chaos was to the light Gen. 1.2 3. And this is Gods converting of us or habituall conversion Our converting of our selves which is M. Humphry his sole conversion is nothing but a reflecting of the beam upon the Sonne of righteousnesse and in a manner nothing to the former work of divine conversion this we call actuall conversion as habituall sanctification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actuall sanctification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His assertion then is false That the Ordinances are remotely means of conversion for if the Ordinances be primarily means of converting grace they must needs be primarily means of conversion since grace infused is primary conversion but grace acting is secondary conversion The same I might say of confirmation also in proportion Secondly It cannot be proved that actuall receiving is either primarily or secondarily a means of converting grace and therefore will certainly prejudice but cannot benefit an unconverted person Thirdly How absurd is the last clause This grace received in the Sacrament works in the unregenerate for their conversion For 1. How is he unregenerate who hath received grace which formally regenerates him 2. How can a man be regenerate and yet at the same instant unconverted yet if Mr. Humphrey his Doctrine be true this will follow since a man is regenerated by the habits of grace infused which not only in order of nature but also in order of time may precede the acts of grace it being not necessary that grace present should act immediately or at all times Now since Mr. H. his conversion is nothing but the acting of grace and the habit of grace infused may in time precede the act and there is no conversion before the act of grace doth it not hence necessarily follow that a man may be regenerated and yet at the same instant of time unconverted that is at the same time in a state of nature as unconverted and yet in a state of grace as regenerated But how absurd and dissonant is this to true Divinity His second grand Argument is drawn from a distinction of conversion which he makes double 1. Outward from Heathenism to the profession of Christianity He will not say the Sacrament is such a converting Ordinance 2. An effectuall conversion from profession to the truth of grace and thus the Sacrament as a visible Word doth convert instrumentally as well as the Word preached the Spirit being the principall cause of conversion in both Ordinances c. And in the close of pag. 60. he appeals to experience for the converting power of the Sacrament This is the substance of that Paragraph Answ It s sooner said then proved that the Sacrament hath converted any 2. Though it should be granted that some parts of it did convert what is M. H. his cause the better unless he prove that actuall receiving doth convert 3. That the Sacrament should convert onely to truth of grace and yet not convert to outward profession is as absurd as that the Word preached should convert only to outward profession and not to truth of grace Let Mr. H. shew me one Scripture 1. Why Heathen may not be present at the Sacrament as well as at the Word preached 2. Why the visible Word may not convert to the form as well as to the power of godliness why it should do the greater and not the lesser We expect not dictates but proof and Argument to convince us of this new Light In the third place he descants though to little purpose about the Sacraments converting not intentionally but occasionally c. To which we briefly answer That whatever other parts of the Sacrament may do yet actuall receiving converts neither occasionally nor intentionally and therefore unconverted persons ought not to receive because this Sacramentall action cannot benefit but prejudice them Rep. Unregenerate men are dead in sin and bread must not be given to dead men c. This Mr. H. makes to he a fancy 2. Opposes that if any bread could recover life that bread might be given to a dead man and such is the bread in the Sacrament c. 3. That if we may give Aqua vitae to dying men then we may give Calix vitae to dead Christians c. Answ 1. It s no wonder if strong fancies metamorphize what they please into a fancy 2. Sacramentall receiving in the Lords Supper notes a vitall act which a dead man cannot put forth and be the bread never so quickning upon Mr. H. his supposition if a dead man cannot receive it it will not quicken him as the best Physick will not cure if a living man will not or cannot receive it Taking and eating in the Sacrament note not a passive but an active receiving and therefore do not beget but presuppose life which life grant it may be wrought by other Sacramentall actions proves only
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