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
there avouches an Vniversall right to every Ordinance they being duties of worship which is of universall command for proof he quotes Isa 66.23 Answ If all be bound to come without exception then why doth himself exclude children and distracted persons Secondly All Christians have a mediate but only prepared Christians an immediate right to the Sacrament as all Israel had a mediate but only purified persons an immediate right to the Passeover Numb 9.10 Thirdly All are obliged to every part of worship but 1. Not at all times since affirmative precepts binde not ad semper 2. Not in all cases as an unconverted person is not bound to praise God for his conversion c. which he hath not To apply the distinction The time of every Sacrament is not a fit season for every person whether it be by his own default or by divine providence 2. In case of present incapacity receiving though an act of worship is not sinfully omitted unlesse that omission be joyned with contempt of the Ordinance His quotation is rather a prediction then a command and supposing it be both yet it must be understood with the forementioned limitations Fourthly In a strict sense Actual receiving is not an act of worship no more then preaching consecrating and distributing the Elements is And if it be not properly an act of worship then his argument falls of it self or if it be in a large sense as the other acts forementioned yet by them its apparent that all persons are not obliged to all acts of worship since only Ministers may preach baptize consecrate and give the Elements which yet in some respect are acts of worship What he adds in the same Paragraph about a poor souls doubting of his right to the Sacrament yet resolved to give up himself to Christ makes little for his purpose the Question is Whether any not resolving to give up himself to Christ ought to receive and whether upon his visible refusall to give up himself to Christ the Minister is bound to give unto him the symbole of Christ Object 6 The Sacrament is not a converting but a confirming Ordinance Ergo. Answ This indeed is one of our grand arguments against free admission and if it be not Cannon-proof our cause must needs be in a great deal of hazard it concerns us therefore to make it good against all M. H. his battery Now for overthrow of this Argument he pretends that our Divines look at Baptisme as converting the Lords Supper as edifying pag. 53. The former he willingly assents to c. The Question is not what some Divines hold but what they should hold For our parts we beleeve no Sacrament understand it as received is a means of Regeneration but only of confirmation and edification and supposing Baptisme be called the Laver of Regeneration Titus 3.5 which yet the place proves not it s only so by way of signification and obsignation not by way of causality In regeneration and conversion the Word is writ in our hearts but can any man either Scripturally or rationally make the seal the cause of the writing Is it not evident that Baptisme doth not cause but presuppose conversion Acts 2.42 yea and profession too in adult is Acts 8.37 and is called by Divines the Seal of Initiation not as it initiates us into a state of saving grace but into the body of the visible Church and as it may seal the truth and benefit of Regeneration to persons converted but not work Regeneration where it is wanting Passing therefore his flourish of denomination à parte eminentiori let us see how he proves the Sacrament to be converting His main Argument is Pag. 55. Because the Sacrament is a visible word holding forth Christ and the Covenant to the sight as the Gospel doth to the hearing And pag. 56. The Sacrament shews forth Christs death 1 Cor. 11.20 Therefore as it doth so it is undoubtedly converting Answ Doth not M. H. know that at the Sacrament there is a mixture of severall Ordinances as prayer preaching or opening the words of institution amp c. And that those may be effectuall means of conversion we deny not upon which account we judge it fitting that whoever will may be present at the Lords Supper as well as at Baptisme But the great Question is Whether actuall receiving be a converting Ordinance And here we challenge the challenger to give any one instance of a person converted by receiving the Lords Supper or to make proof that the act of receiving doth convert The Sacrament indeed is food to nourish but where is it called an immortall seed to beget any to Christ For his glosse page 56. There is in the Sacrament a Take for conversion and an Eat for nourishment It is gratis dictum and would make against the conversion of the Apostles who were commanded to take as well as to eat yet I hope they were not in an unconverted condition 2. Taking and eating do both imply and call for acts of faith but the act of faith must needs presuppose the habit of faith and so conversion He that sayes Take eat supposes a man hath an hand to receive and a mouth to feed on which no uncoverted person hath Object Why may not the command of taking Christ in the Sacrament be an instrument of Conversion as well as the same command is in the word preached Acts 16.31 Answ Because we have neither promise nor president of blessing the command of taking in the Sacrament as we have of blessing the word preached in order to conversion The Word is both seed and food not so the Sacrament which indeed may be food or physick but not a seed of regeneration nor is any where so called in Scripture And to attribute that to an Ordinance which God hath not put in it or to expect that from an Ordinance which God hath not promised to it is will worship an humane invention and a breach of the second Commandment I dare appeal to M. Humphry his conscience upon this account Suppose an unconverted person comes to the Sacrament in his pride and presumption stouts it still against Christ laid before him as crucified in and before the consecration of the Elements by the Ministers explication and exhortation what evidence doth the Scripture give that this man shall be converted by that one word Take uttered by the Minister at the delivery of the Elements I doubt not of Gods power but we must look to his revealed will The Papists say Hoc est corpus meum converts the Elements M. H. sayes Accipite converts the receiver we desire a clear proof of both before we can give credit to either But suppose the word Take as a short and virtual Sermon might convert yet what thinks he of that person who stands out against that word also can he be converted by actuall receiving Then that rule of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.29 cannot be universally true He that cats unworthily eats judgement to
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
skill'd in Sophistry then in Logick and can better deceive then convince If on the other hand he will make free admission to the Lords Supper an essentiall mark of a true visible Church let him see how he is confuted by the practice of our Church under the Prelates in which many were kept from the Lords Supper that were neither children fools nor excommunicated and that without any prejudice to the essence of our Churches as was before instanced Yea the very Rubrick before the Communion in the Book of Common-Prayer shews the fondness of this opinion the Curate being there authorized to suspend scandalous and malicious persons without I hope any prejudice to the true being of our Churches Yea the very Exhortation in the Communion commands such to bewail their sins and not to come lest after the taking of the Sacrament the Devil entred into them as he did into Judas Now were it a duty for all to come then were it a sin to forbid any to come Object If yet he will object This practice of ours if it be not against the nature and essence yet it s against the wellbeing of a true visible Church when the members thereof or any of them are denied their just priviledges Answ 1. True if the Lords Supper were a priviledge due to all Members but this is the thing to be proved on Mr. Humphrey his part and in the proof whereof though his great Diana he falls so exceeding short 2. The well being of a Church consists much in its Government and Discipline of which not one word from Mr. H. in his notes of a true visible Church Good Government lies in the Geometricall not Arithmeticall administration of priviledges and Censures the lowest of which last Admonition and highest Excommunication we have clear enough in the Scripture but because Suspension and the like are not in tearms mentioned in Scripture therefore Mr. H. will have it wholly expunged as if because a man will not be gained by words there were no other way but presently to knock him on the head Certainly he that puts the extreames cannot deny the middle from one extream to another And as he who hath power of life and death hath much more power to mulct imprison c. so the Church who hath power to excommunicate hath much more power to suspend as being an inferiour Censure and but the way to that highest Will Mr. H. deny that the well-being of a Church lies much in its purity and this in the knowledge and conversation of the Members and whether our way or his conduce more to this let all the world judge Let Mr. H. tell me ingenuously whether he would have all grosly ignorant persons excommunicated I hope he is more charitable and thinks they rather need instruction And is not this previous triall before the Eldership used of purpose that ignorant persons might be put upon enquiry after knowledge as ever they value the priviledge of Sacramentall communion Nor is the proper end of it exclusion from but preparation of all sorts for the Sacrament for which in few months by Gods grace we dare undertake to fit the meanest if they will be ruled by us Contra if Mr. H. his free Admission obtain universally without check see if in a few years a Chaos of darkness and ignorance do not overspread the face of this glorious Church But I see I must contract For his confirmation of this argument from the parable of the field c. which he stiles an invincible support pag. 17. Alas poor man how feeble must he needs be when his best strength is but weakness If the Tares and Wheat must be separated till the day of judgement then I pray what will become of Excommunication It s apparent by the parable 1. That the Tares were sowen by the carelesness of the Servants or other Church members Matth. 13.25 2. That the prohibition to take them away was not absolute but onely with a caution or proviso verse 29. And in truth so tender is the Lord of the Wheat that he had rather many Tares should stand then one ear of Corn should be pluckt up Where therefore there is danger of wronging the wheat better let the tares stand not so if we can separate them without prejudice to yea with advantage of the wheat And therefore a bare suspition is not enough to keep any from the Sacrament but by gross ignorance or scandall it must appear he is a tare and not wheat before he can be suspended judicially For as for negative suspension before triall that is not properly a Church Censure no more then the non-admitting of Infants or distracted persons but onely a prudentiall forbearing to administer the Lords Supper to a person till he have been approved as visibly worthy which yet may issue out into a formall Suspension if any shall wilfully obtrude without triall or upon triall shall be found visibly unworthy and yet will not be perswaded to forbear till better prepared For his instance of Christs converse with Publicanes and sinners it makes much for us and against himself Such Publicanes and sinners who are not ashamed publickly to profess their repentance and high respects to Christ shall be very welcome to us as the worthiest receivers but the question is Whether blinde and scandalous Pharisees ought to be admitted with these Publicanes and sinners For his grand instance of Judas it hath been already answered Onely I cannot but stand amazed at his high flown confidence and censoriousness pag. 19. The evidence of which fact he means of Christs admitting Judas to receive the Lords Supper has ever appeared so fully to the Church that this alone has been ground sufficient to deduce their right of free admission and what need more indeed be urged but that men when they are willing not to see will let their hand put over their eyes be enough to blinde them Answ 1. Sundry famous Lights in the Church beleeved this long before Mr. H. either preached or wrote and yet thought it not ground enough for free admission But haply Mr. H. is so charitable as to judge not onely the reformed Churches but also the whole Church of England ever since the dawning of Reformation after the Marian persecution to this day to have wilfully put their hands over their eyes and knowingly to have sinned against their consciences We may well bear this sharp censure with the more comfort and patience considering we suffer with so good company 2. See you not how the vizard of humility falls off and both his breath and pen savour rankly of pride in this unchristian censure Were we as bad as Mr. H. would make us we had undoubtedly made a great progress in the high way to the sin against the holy Ghost and deserved our selves not onely to be suspended but also to be excommunicated In the mean time I must be bold to tell Mr. H. that he who takes upon himself to be so free an
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