in the Church are in some sense in Christ and sanctified by him as I quoted those Texts Jo. 15.2 2 Pet. 2.1 Heb 10.29 c. From whence I argue that those who are in a Church-state in Covenant or visible communion so that thereby they are said to be in Christ redeemed and sanctified are to bee admitted accordingly to the seal and badge thereof unlesse such as the Scripture gives ground to except But all Church-members are in Covenant Deut. 29.1.10 11. visible Saints c. and the Scripture allows no bar to any unlesse unintelligent or excommunicate Ergo. Unto this seeing it concerns the maine Mr. D. gives us two answers 1 Then Infants againe may be admitted this is fourteen times 2 In short He is confident against it A very masterful argument which confidence yet without proofe whosoever trusts to shal finde but as a broken tooth and foot out of joynt And here I desire the Reader to take notice when he still comes to this point which is the foundation whether it be sufficient satisfaction only to vilisie me and slight it off For as for this passage with which he hath filled so many sheets about children it is good for nothing unlesse they had happily been in parchment and then it would have served well to make them Drums and sounded prettily by the emptinesse Page 122. How grosse is that assertion that there is an historical visible faith that gives an out ward Church right unto the Elements Answ Nay rather how cleare and firme a truth doth it appear by the former Argument That faith which serves to enter a man in external Covenant and engage him to the termes thereof wil serve to admit him to the Sacraments but a faith onely accepting the true God in opposition to all other Religions doth serve for that appears by the Covenanting of the whole body of Israel Deut 29.10 12. Ergo All Professors or Church-members that have but a common general historical or visible faith for any of these termes serve me I say are in Covenant but the Covenant is the foundation of the Sacraments Ergo neither will the right understanding hereof doe any hurt to the Church I hope so long as we presse neverthelesse a solid saving faith to interest them in the effectual benefits of them both His Exceptions are 1 Then the Excommunicate have a right for they have stilan historical faith Answ How vaine is this who knowes not the state of the question supposes us within the Church 2 Some excommunicate may also have a true saving faith See how fairly instead of opposing me he checks himselfe I pray marke his strength in both because neither an historical nor saving faith gives a man a right that is excommunicate and thereby made no Church-member therefore they cannot give him a right when hee is not excommunicate and is a Church-member 3 As historical faith gives not a right to Christ but faith of adhesion so a visible faith of adhesion gives right to Christ sacramental Answ 1 I might returne to him Why may not some excommunicate persons have such a visible faith of adhesion as an historical saving one But. 2 An historical faith is suo genere a true faith as the Eunuchs I beleeve that Christ is the Sonne of God Act. 8.37.3 An historical saith which was barely so and not saving gave Simon Magus admission unto Baptisme Act. 8.13 and here Adultis eadem ratio holds firme 4 Faith of adhesion I take to be an assent with application and that is special faith which I question whether it may be termed visible as distinguished from saving 5 It is sufficient to mee that a faith which generally assents to the truth of the Covenant and engages to it and yet falls short of justifying entitles to the Sacraments for otherwise we shal quite confound the worke of the Minister and the Spirit the symbolical and effectual Seal and then no man can be admitted at all without presumption 6 When the Papists prove that historical faith justifies because it sufficed unto Baptisme Act. 8.37 Some of our able Divines answer It is true Profession of faith gives interest to Baptisme yet it is not sufficient to Justification Dr. Slater on Rom. 3.22 There is a manifest difference between a title to the Sacraments and interest in the saving benefits A general faith gives title to one a special to the other Regeneration is like David that enjoyes Michal when Profession like Phaltiel comes along behinde weeping to Bahurim A general faith hath some union with Christ as a special a saving union Profession like Orphah may kisse Naomi when a saving faith like Ruth cleaves unto her Sect. 4 THe fourth Objection is The Seal is set to a Blanke if all be admitted My answer was from consideration of what is sealed It is generally said the Sacrament is the seale of faith wherein lyes the difficulty I say onely it is a Seale of the Covenant The Gospel is the writing the Sacrament as the seale to that writing the Writing is true and the Seal true whosoever is admitted I must confesse there is so much confusion in this businesse especially in Mr. D. who is usually most assertive when least advised that it will be in vaine to dispute Andabatarum more with termes blindfolded These termes then sealing to a blanke sealing to our faith and sealing the Covenant I judge are ambiguous when we differ onely in termes we may reconcile in our meaning but where we differ in our matter one of us must be reformed First then Sealing to a blank may relate to the thing or person when I say there is no sealing to a blank I mean as the thing sealed for it is not the unbelief of man can make the Covenant of God of no effect Now when here he takes a blanke as relating to persons he sayes nothing and is presently answered we hold none are visible blanks within the Church but when he refers it to the thing as I do here arises our difference Secondly Sealing of faith or to faith we either meane as the thing sealed or the condition required to the exhibition thereof When I say the Sacrament is not a seal of faith I mean it still as the thing sealed to wit on Gods part A Seal is an Appendix to writing the Sacrament is not an Appendix to faith but to the Gospel Now againe If he meane here by this expression It is a seale to our faith onely that faith is the condition upon which alone Christ and his benefits are conveyed it is what none doubteth and for words we contend not But when he sayes It is the seale of Faith referring it as I doe to the thing sealed our controversie here must continue and there is but one thing to looke into to wit the sense wherein or grounds whereon he thus holds it which I shall satisfie after I have laid downe these other distinctions likewise about sealing the Covenant as necessary
enter Covenant With all their heart and all their soul in some places So there is a general profession of Christ that salvation only is in his name which every Christian may professe truly though he be no true professor It is a great weaknesse of some that think for fear of hypocrisie an unregenerate man may not do his duty Hypocrisy is either opposed to truth which is dissembling such an action that is evill propter fieri must be avoyded or to sincerity and such an action that is evill only through accident of the doer while in the substance it be good for all his evill disposition the thing still must be done A Christians profession a pledge wherof is this Sacrament may be hypocrisie in one sense but not in the other My fourth proof was from the Parable of the Feast Lu. 14. Mat. 22. which I judge has more force in it than some think though lesse than others Mr. Drake here is in a streight if he allow it applicable to this Supper it is clear against him The Servants bring in All both good and Bad. If he will not allow it he doth not only go against the stream of Divines and that not solidly but wrests out of their own hands their main argument from the exclusion of him that had not the wedding garment which being the act of the Lord is not well applied neither The truth is the Feast does not signifie particularly the Supper but it is as true it does it in general as other Ordinances The Feast is Jesus Christ set out in his Ordinances and outward privileges unto which there is a free accesse and interesse of the Good and Bad within the Church so that for the main we have our full weight that the Servants whose office it is to be the Dispencers of the mysteries have not any power for discrimination of the guests in their admitting them to the Feast and therefore unlesse they can prove it by some warrant otherwhere are not to judge of the worthinesse and unworthinesse of their Church-members as to the offer of Christ in this Supper It is true If men be scandalous they are lyable to censure but who does not see this upon another account I mean of discipline to satisfie the Church amend them and warn others But if you do it upon this ground of setting up a discriminating Ordinance I must speak my Conscience I think it not according to the mind of the Lord of the Feast Again As for the unintelligent as Infants and the like who does not see that the Feast is still free but they are uncapable they make no excuse but God does excuse them and so they cann't be compelled But if you set up Visible worthinesse for a rule of Admission you assume a power of discriminating the guests You may call it your zeal your care and piety yet is it a power as well as a burden even over Gods Ordinance and differs as much from our Ministerial instruction Catechism and admonition as a separating the vile from the precious by the word of Gods mouth and the doing it without untill you prove it And now for his four particulars p. 30 31. First He distinguishes between the feast which is Christ and the dishes wherein he is served which are the Ordinances This is something ingenuous but whereas he applies this that a man may be invited to a feast and yet not to the dish in the feast it is very fine if we should serve him as the plain man did his Son that pretended he could prove two eggs to be three by his Logick Well says he I will take the one and your Mother the other and now do you prove the third and take it for your self Let us have the dishes and what will become of Mr. Drakes feast Thus hungry and hardly bestead does he passe through it Secondly He urges Then should Heathen be admitted Ans And so they may if they come in in an orderly way 1 Cor. 14.40 they must first have a right by Church-membership and then being once within the Church they are alike admitted to all privileges Thirdly He addes How were the unthankfull guests also excluded Luke 14 and answers himself Because they would not come Fourthly He tels us Wordly businesse somtimes may detain a man from the Sacrament Numb 9.10 Ans Who doubts it and yet the feast not neglected if the businesse be indispensible But as for the strength of his reason here it is as good as the Fathers that would have his Child excused to his Master for not comming to School because he was dead In the way For my quoting that Text Lu. 12.42 with 1 Cor. 4.1 2. Acts 20.28 Mr. Drake need not have given me such ill words I make no interpretation of them but that it is the Ministers duty duly to dispence the Ordinances which if he does do they do not touch him but may convince those that think it their conscience wholly to omit it and this I hope may turn the edge of his rebuke For my part I do not think my self fit to be compared with Mr. Drake or the least of the godly but with the greatest sinners and bow down my practice at the feet of Gods mercy Forgive O Lord my failings for they are even more than the hairs of my head Yet do I think that both those that exclude all and they that exclude any who are neither Vn-intelligent or Excommunicate come short in the importance of these Scriptures My fifth proof was from Iohns Free-baptism even of those he calls Vipers Mat. 13. upon that ground Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti See Mar. 1.5 And they of Iudea went out and were All baptized of him that is All that went out to him for Baptism were admitted and yet Mr. Drake as he is wont answers me thus overly He says but proves not that Iohn baptized all commers p. 32. he should say He does not prove it but only brings Scripture for it This axiome which I think I had of Pemble he denies p. 33. 1. Because Heathen may be admitted to Baptism Ans I had thought when men had been converted to the faith once they had been Christians 2. Because it makes for him seeing there was an outward confession at Baptism Ans Who would think it he should fly for shelter to this Sanctuary even while he pollutes it You must take the meaning thus There is Eadem ratio but not in omnibus It holds in the main that the same faith which will admit one of age to be Baptized will also admit him to this Sacrament and that is an Historical faith only in profession yet as for making that confession though it he needfull at Baptism in admitting them to be Church Members as we are willing to know whom we enter into our society seeing we have Scripture for it yet not at this Supper where we have none for when men are Church-members already their
very coming is their profession My sixt proof was Act. 2.41 42 46. Which Text he leaves out you may conceive it has silenced him For while we find thousands admitted thus freely and equally not omitting his phrase of Pell-mel in their breaking bread I say even wholy alike as in doctrin and prayer we dare not fall down to that Sacramental Rule upon tryal he would set up if it be once held as necessary and divine though we acknowledge the prudence and piety of others seeing it has not one word to speak or the least argument left it concerning this Scripture that it should open the mouth or move the wing or peep against it My seventh text was Act. 10.28 which I say I apply only as to the expression Yet does he pursue it with four pitifull exceptions p. 34 35. For the first whereof it is untrue St. Paul says not Tit. 1.15 the unbeliever is unclean to us but all things are unclean to him For the second I shall satisfie after I have proposed this question in answer to his two other Whether do you think him more pierceing in the third to find only the unintelligent left out or ingenuous in the fourth to speak so eloquently when he has done I have heard of one that would undertake ye to confute all Bellarmine in two words Mentiris Bellarmine by Mr. Drakes language and confidence he may be the man And now for the force of these words I told you in the beginning we must distinguish of passages unto their right parties there is a sort of weak Christians that think they shall be defiled if they Communicate in our mixt Churches this text may be full and solid for them though it reaches not others Mr. Drake should be more tender than to debilitate their supports Dear souls I have seen some of your tears and let this dry them up for you you are not to account them common and unclean that receive with you If your selves be clean all are clean to you The soul many times that is not taken with a reason may by an expression A man may be common and unclean three ways 1. Levitically and this is abrogate 2. Morally and this defiles a mans self and not another 3. Faederally as appears in 1 Cor. 7.14 Now while persons are Faederally clean as all Church members are being separated by external Covenant to Christ from the World we need not doubt but they may be communicated withall without any pollution Indeed Mr. Drake says heer such and such are Morally unclean but what then It is not Moral cleannesse but Faederal cleannesse is the ground of our admission and a man is not Faederally unclean till excommunicated He objects wicked Christians reject Christ p. 35. and answers himself with me p. 84. Though they transgresse they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do and are Church Members till excommunicated And these were my Scriptures to establish us in this sweet truth that leads us unto peace and though he has done his endeavour to hinder you of the benefit of them yet for all his opposition there is not so much as the girdle of their loyns loosed or latchet of their shooes broken For the cloze herof I gatherd up some Texts Io. 6.37 Rev. 22.17 c. that do set forth the most free offers of Jesus Christ which though Mr. Drake makes but light of p. 36. do pathetically enter the spirits of others that have but a little embraced this sweet notion that the Lord Jesus is proportionably gracious in his external privileges to a Christian profession as he is in his internal saving benefits to the sincerity of Christianity Heer he says three things the one is With what Conscence can I keep off Infants This is now four times The other two are the same which in their naked sense comes to this Though Christ be offered freely yet it must be to such only as we judge truly receive him The truth is the word and the Sacraments are but the same publick instrument delivered as a sealed writing for the use of the Church and are equal privileges if I may call the same equal to all the Members of it I do even pity mortality to see what a few words a few enfoldings can hide Truth from us what sense is in this Jesus Christ is to be freely shewed forth to bring men home effectually to him and yet must the Receivers make out their right unto the Minister before we dare offer or conditionally apply him to them I do humbly conceive heer is the false notion that perplexes the many We that are Ministers they think are sent by our Prince Jesus to our Flocks as Rebels to offer grace and salvation if they come in and truly accept him we are to seal their pardons if they do not make this visibly appear we may not apply the seal without being guilty of the blood of Christ Now this is a very ill apprehension which we shall rectifie as we go forwards for we must not make the notion of sealing so dreadfull and bring so much blood upon our souls I think this is true indeed in reference to the heathen whom we need not fear to judge visible Rebels and they must come in and professe Jesus Christ in opposition to all other Religions before we can seal the Word to them The Word is no sealed Word even outwardly but to the Church and when they are made Members once it is then sealed we seal them an equal right to all Ordinances and Privileges and whatsoever is exernal we confer to them But being received into the Church and professors already we cannot compel any tryal of them more unlesse by way of Catechism and instruction wherein yet there is no man too old to learn Lu. 14. but it must be as to the truth of their profession or effectual sincerity which for to do where no scandal calls them in question it is to go about to judge mens hearts and to enter into the seat of God and make our selves dispensers not of the mysteries only but of the grace while we take a power to judge of mens worthinesse and according to visibility seal them their pardons This is a businesse of sad consequence to give occasion and some hold-fast to those Anti-christian Scandals are cast on our Ministry by them that would undo us I must confesse I belive it was only the zeal and piety of good men that made them thus to rise up against ignorance and sin without intending to enter upon Gods Throne but if we have erred and must be laid down it may be in the dust I hope we shall acknowledge his hand and if he shall return our Captivity from the Rivers of Confusion where we have sate down and wept we will remember again our Ierusalem and when thou hast restored us our Harps now hanging on the Willows we will sing of thy goodnesse in the wonted songs of thy Syon Sect. 6 HAving
their own conceit many self-Justiciaries c. Ans Of all men I think that such as these had need most of conviction but I find not the Scripture sends out any spiritual Hue and Cry to make search for them if it did I will not for any thing say who are the men but sure some Ministers upon certain marks might begin with their own Elders nay I think upon the main known mark of I thank God I am not like other men if you see Mr. D. p. 90. some Elders might take up their own Minister upon suspition P. 39. All may be present at the administration as at Preaching and Baptism but that All ought Actually to partake will lead thousands into utter darkenesse Ans Not to mention his unhandsom language where the sense is so dreadfull I answer 1. If a man swear by the Temple it is nothing but the gold of the Temple makes him guilty If a man partake of the whole administration besides it is nothing for all his unworthinesse but if he actually receive he becomes a debtor Which is greater the bare eating and drinking or the whole sacred institution and consecration that sanctifies the action 2. It is not his instance of Baptism will wash off this superstition wherein this good man has taken a deadly conceit for there are no actions here to be repeated the weaknesse is clear as its own water But I argue if a man is bound at this Ordinance to make inward application together with the Word of what is represented though the outward sign is forbidden as to be twice used How shall we deny both the inward and outward application also in the Supper where both are commanded The truth is the very sealing the Covenant applies wrath to every impenitent and life to every one that has true faith whether we should see it only or receive it And if it be not eating commends us unto God I do not stand upon this outward receiving as any thing considerable in comparison of the reverential application of the Covenant in a right use of it according to our condition 3. For admission of all intelligent Church-members I am free but as for their own comming I have spoken more tenderly than his speeches Yet will I confesse my present inclination is thus I hold A man must examine himself I place much on this and so receive according to his estate God commands John to destroy Ahab Iohn his disposition is evil in it and does but commit murder which God will punish Hos 1.4 yet neverthelesse must the thing be done and as commanded it is both approved as good and rewarded 2 Kings 10.30 Christ Iesus says to his Church Doe this Mr. Drake says If an unregenerate member does it he shall I must say only he may become guilty of Christs blood in the action Neverthelesse it is not his disposition being not right that can nullifie Gods precept but that he must both examine himself and so eat 4. Whereas then He thinks my opinion will lead many thousands to Hell I am humbly afraid that his will do it I do professedly charge every soul that they look well into their conscience what they embrace and the Lord be their direction For my part I am thinking when Iesus Christ shall call us both to account at the great day he will say to me Why have you brought in all unto my feast I shall say Lord even as thou hast commanded Thou hast said Do this Drink ye all of it and I must not mistrust the goodnesse of thy word and thy gracious efficacy to go along with it I durst not for my life make void thy blessed command And what then if he shall say to Mr. D. And why have you contrary to my expresse words taught your own Commandement for the precept of God that it is an unregenerate mans duty to abstain When I said Doe this you have said Doe it not unlesse you be sure you can also so do it whereby you have strengthned the Carelesse hardned the impenitent and afflicted tender Consciences laying waste this Ordinance of mine in many places whereas one ought still to be done and not leave the other undone Let me seriously forewarn this pious man that while he has laid that text Ez. 13.22 so heavy on my soul that he provide himself to answer unto it P. 40.41 He brings in my Simile but takes hold of it by the left handle We must not think as we are Ministers set over Christs flock we are sent to them as Externally Rebels that they must come in and professe before us to be admitted to those privileges which they have a right to already as well as we No the main point of the Simile lies here that the Instrument of peace committed to us is a sealed Instrument the word of reconciliation is a sealed word to all the Church Every member has an equal right to the Seal as the writing and we cannot pluck off or put on our Lords seal at our pleasure It is a weak conceit that we are sent to our Members as it were with their pardons unsealed to try whether they truly submit and according to our judgement to seal them We must conceive our Seal is set by Christ himself to his own Proclamation and we have no other than what belongs to the whole Church But if we look any further than Church-membership we enter the office of the inward Minister and take a power of medling with the inward sealing which does not belong to us It is the want of discerning between these inward and outward things has mislead Mr. D. who has not yet considered how the Covenant is a sealed Covenant to all that are but Christs external people and that this Seal is a standing seal both Covenant and Seal make up one publick instrument for the use of the Church We may see this in Circumcision from whence we borrow the notion of a seal Gen. 17. I will establish my Covenant between are and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations Every man child among you shall be circumcised Here you see how it is a standing seal set to the Covenant and both established with the whole seed so that by this one act as it were of publick delivery Every Church-member that was then any one of Abrahams seed had a right to the seal without any more plea as other publick privileges for ever after in their generations Now whereas he puts the case that some who come to the Sacrament are but Rebels and how shall we seal unto them I answer we cannot judge of the hearts of any that they are inward Rebels and we may not judge that they are outwardly so when they outwardly come in unlesse we haue something to allege against them to prove their Rebellion and then if it be such as deserves it they may be Excommunicated but while they are Church Members we cannot deny them their common privileges But
for his expressions Of their seeming to submit yet carrying Daggers and Poyson about them to murder their Prince and therefore they must be searched c. Besides the vanity of the words I must tell him 1. There is no Scripture that warrants his pretended tryal of Church Members about their coming to the Sacrament that is flat 2 Much lesse that he may take a power of search as to the truth of grace which is an entring on Gods Throne and the Spirits work 3 This is clean contrary to Christs example who set up no Sacramental tryal for Iudas at least for any thing we can find of it But alas that is nothing to Mr. Drake he has found out a way to turn this off with a wet finger p. 9. 90. Which if you confer with this passage he tels us That they who are the Servants by all means must needs try examine and keep men away for fear of some secret Treason unto Christ in coming hither but Jesus Christ the Lord himself must not have power to make tryal of or suspend Iudas that really intends to murder him because the Presbytery was not setled To p. 44. I answer Godly Parents and Maesters instruction of their Children and Servants unto the Lords Supper may be good as the Ministers Catechizing them without this ill language he heer gives me I would willingly allow a man some Salt in his discourse but his is brinish there are some ingredients to be in ones Inck besides Gall. To that question what Christ sealed to Iudas p. 46 47 48. without regard to the rest which is amisse I judge he speaks well herein The word and the seal both go together and assure particular mercy or judgment to the Receivers as they are worthy and unworthy that is according to the Covenant-tenour and their own condition This is good though his comparison of the bitter water following this and that the Sacrament can never do good to any but such as are good already seems to me such a slander of that precious Ordinance I would not be guilty of for all Mr. Drake is worth But I pray consider this really whatsoever Christ does in his Ministry must be a gracious act and be capable of gracious ends so that this action must be in its own nature a means to have done him good if he had made a good use of it and t is accidental to the thing he did it not Yet did Christ in this actual estate of his Mr. Drake says truly seal to him judgement you must conceive it as to his own part in Receiving for the Minister seals no interest but conditionally Now the truth is as the Word is a sweet savour to God and a means of salvation in his threatnings as well as its promises because it does but still declare the Covenant whereof they are parts of it so is the Sacrament while it seals judgement or while it seals life seeing it does but seal the Covenant equally in both Here then I humbly conceive still submitting my self unto mercy lies the main upon the Receivers to examine their hearts and so to come in their addresses to Christ that they rightly apply the Covenant unto themselves according to their condition Always carrying in mind these two things First That thou put far enough asunder the blessed work of sealing the Covenant though it denounces thy judgement unlesse thou repentest for it does it no otherwise and that cursed sin of thy abuse hereof if thou dost not lay it to heart in eating damnation Secondly That what the Word denounces and Sacrament seals they conveigh not Really but only Relatively for they are not Physical but Moral instruments which Mr. Drake did not think of in his bitter comparison so that while they assure thee of damnation they do thee no hurt if thou make a good use of them for thy conviction but if otherwise as all means else they serve but to encrease it You may happily say this notion is strange but is it not true and as for the ingredients what every one yield who will deny the Sacrament is a visible word Does not the word say he that believes not and repents is damned that is is in a present state of death Must not every one lay this estate of his to heart Does not the seal assure the same thing only with the Word Is not our Receiving the application of what is sealed And is not the application or setting home the right part of the Covenant on a mans soul the very businesse by the grace of God of his conviction and conversion What then remains but that man have the information and God the glory He repeats often Where the word is not applicable neither the Sacrament This is his strength and I cloze with him and urge But if every man is to apply the Word and while he is impenitent he is to lay to heart the threatnings and wrath of God as the only way to mollifie and work him to repentance then it is clear the seal may be applyed so likewise The Seal and the Word he speaks fully must go together If you offer to say it seals not this part of the Covenant but only the promise and grace then you take away all danger as it is sealing to the most unworthy and make our admission more free though if any dare say it seals not the whole Covenant you may as well believe it is no seal at all P. 51. He has Infants up again which is now five times but for his words Shall the Supper be free for Blaspemers Murderers c. which who doubts but may be excommunicated if not put to death and his undertaking to prove his rule of visibility to the Sacrament to be as orderly as Baptism it is like himself to say all day and prove at night For his answers to my 4 Considerations I reply as briefly To the first An historical faith suffices unto Baptism Acts 8.13 To the second Acceptance is either in sincerity which we cannot search or outward only and visible and that for Church-members is their receiving As for any other the Scriptures he pleads as abundant enough are none at all but if ill words will do it he has authority enough To the third where are many things I say 1. Though conviction is not enough to convert without grace what then Is it not a means therefore with it 2. His implicated errors are his own for conviction of the truth of the Covenant does come directly by sealing it and conviction of the general offer by the applying it to every single person I think some nicety between offering and applying which as to the Minister is the same troubles the man But3 Conviction that Christ is mine in particular as to a faith of particular evidence as he expresses it comes not at all by the Sacrament Because 1. The Sacrament seals nothing but the Word which speaks not particularly I believe,2 What is common
to it Thirdly then There are 3 things I humbly think are to be distinguished concerning the Covenant 1 The condition thereof on mans part 2 The benefits on Gods part 3 The tenour which consists or results our of both The word Sealing accordingly is used I thinke sometimes for to binde or engage sometimes to confirme or ratifie and sometimes to convey or exhibit which are offices of a Seal with others and do not a little puzzle our conceptions Now when we say the Sacrament seals the Covenant as sealing is taken for confirming assuring or ratifying which is the properest sense thereof it is most genuinely applied to the tenour of it As it is understood for conveying or exhibiting it is proper to the benefits As it is used to engage or oblige it is most large and may be applied to the condition with the distinction if we allow it as mans seal and not otherwise for as it is Gods Seal in none of these senses it seals the condition God engages not hereby to give man Faith if he did every Receiver should have it what he seals to he performes Now then to come to our difference the ground on which the Sacrament is held a Seal of Faith or to our Faith which termes I shall not distinguish for him is usually this because it confirmes our Faith that which confirmes or ratifies say they is metaphorically a Seal so is the Sacrament to our Faith For satisfaction 1 I distinguish A thing may be confirmed or ratisied either Formalitèr properly and formally or Consequutivè by consequence onely and improperly in the event It is not enough to make a thing a Seal that it confirms any way in the event but that it formally confirmes and ratifies Now the Sacrament confirmes and ratifies the Covenant properly and formally as a seal set to a writing ratifies the tenor and purport of it but it confirmes faith improperly and consequently onely to wit it encreases it as other Ordinances doe in the exercise thereof all habits being strengthned by their acts which you see is improper and eventual to sealing Whatsoever God doth properly ratifie by way of Seale he attests the truth thereof but he doth not attest the truth of our faith by the Sacrament Ergo the Sacrament is not the seale of Faith Mr. Drakes answer to this in Marg. p. 128. that he doth it by consequence will not serve for I argue That which is common to the hypocrite with the beleever cannot attest the truth of a mans faith signifie or ascertaine him that he hath grace by any consequence that is good But the Sacrament is common to both Ergo. 2 I humbly judge The Sacraments are not Seals because they confirme our faith which is the errour but they confirme our faith because they are Seales As to use Mr. Drakes instance When a bond sealed unto me confirmes my beliefe that the particulars sealed shall be performed The Seal to the Bond is not a Seal because it confirmes me but I am confirmed by it because it is a seale and this is onely an effect it hath on me for the Seal would be the same and writing too though I were incredulous It is derogatory I thinke to say the Sacrament is onely a metaphorical seal or tropically a seal which they are forced to say that make it a seal of Faith from the consequent effect of confirming faith inherent in the worthy receiver whereas indeed it is a very proper formal seal to the Covenant and thus the text Rom. 4.11 speaks plaine for us circumcision is not said to be a seale of faith or that a man hath faith for righteousnesse but the Seale of the righteousness of faith which in Genesis is phrased The token of the Covenant If confirming or strengthning a mans faith were enough to denominate it a seale 1 Then Acts of grace should be the best seales 2 Then should all other Ordinances be feals too 3 Then Baptisme should be no seal to infants 4 And then shall both the Sacraments cease to be Seals when any are admitted that have not true Faith 3 Let us consider what faith is confirmed Every act supposes its object such as is the object such must be the act the object the Sacrament seals is no other but what is in the word for Mr. D. and I here still agree that these go together The word speaks onely in general whosoever beleeves shall be saved this general necessarily includes its particular so that the faith which is directly and immediately confirmed is my assent to his truth that if I beleeve I shall have Christ or be justified and saved Onely whereas a true historicall assent and particular faith of evidence are not divided though distinguished in the regenerate but are one habit men may not much scruple to say the one is confirmed instead of the other Yet as to this Point where the whole stresse is laid upon it it is to be considered and wee are to know that if a man would come to be assured of his faith that it is saving it must arise from his own examination and experience and it cannot be confirmed to him any otherwise And as for those further degrees of assurance if grounded he attains at the Sacrament they are not conveyed to him by obsignation there is some danger and weaknesse to think so but are acquired through Gods Spirit by exercise of his heart at that time in the sight of his experiences and meditation the great businesse he hath to do here no otherwise then at other Ordinances which do all agere onely virtute suoe significationis or by morall operation I shall end this with a plaine consideration a Seale so confirmes a Bond as it was not confirmed before but there is no Faith of particular evidence that Christ is mine can be confirmed by the Sacrament I say ratione obsignationis but what is confirmed to me already by my experience and therefore it is a mean thing to count it onely tropically a seale to confirme faith when it is a seale formally to confirm the Covenant Another reason Mr. D. hath more peculiar and affected Faith is a part of the Covenant and the Covenant being sealed Faith is sealed For the discussing this we all know there is mans part of the Covenant and Gods mans part is the Condition which God does not seale to if he did my businesse were at an end for then all were to come hither for it Gods part is the Promise wherein he engages to give us the benefits upon this Condition Now as Faith is our Condition it is manifest it cannot be part of the Covenant which God seal whereof onely we speak And Mr. D. is at such a losse p. 134. For how shall faith be promised in the Covenant when men cannot be in Covenant effectually without Faith that is how can Faith be promised upon condition we doe beleeve Let us distinguish then 1 There is the absolute or conditionall
begotten by the Sacrament but the Word onely that instructs us about it 2 That God hath not appointed it for this use but contrarily commanded that every man shall be first initiated in the Church by Baptisme before he communicates No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof And here is answered those two Objections page 163. which shew you how low Mr. D. is brought If the Sacrament can convert how dare Mr. H. exclude Infants which is eighteen times and heathens I answer because it converts by a joynt vertue of the word and discernment which children have not and because the unbaptised which is the case of heathen are forbid to eat thereof Exod. 12.48 1 Cor. 14.40 And now at last if you will bring the point even with the same in Baptisme of Infants and doe nothing but urge upon me for an expresse text where this Sacrament is ordained to this end to convert any I will demand of you first an expresse Text where it is instituted for Edification which yet by cleer argument you may shew and when you have produced that I will manifestly shew you 1 That this Edification refers to the visible body Saints by calling or the whole Church 2 That there are many unregenerate members among them and then I demand how it can be appointed to edifie members if it be not a means of begetting grace in some as encreasing it in others As for the terme this word Edification it is cleerly common to the visible Church 1 Cor. 14. Insomuch that when an unbeleever comes in amongst them vers 23. All things are said yet to be done unto edifying vers 27. What Minister doth not pray ordinarily for his whole people that they may be edified Church-censures are for Edification 2 Cor. 13.10 but I hope it is not the regenerate onely are censured We need look no further then Rom. 14.19 and 15.2 the word is so ordinary that what is done for our neighbours good is said to be for his edification Page 169. In that word fancy hee wrongs me For his sense it is answered A vital Ordinance can beget life Page 170. Mr. H. makes confirmation of the Covenant a primary end confirmation of our faith a secondary end of the Lords Supper I wish he did not shew himselfe as little skilled in morality as in Logick c. Answ One would verily thinke here that Mr. H. sure was in some great absurdity by this mans language but will you be pleased to turne to Mr. D. himselfe page 126. The Sacrament sayes he there relates to things and thus as seals first they confirm the Covenant Secondly they confirme faith I pray marke it And is it not worth your notice how much he is skilled in Logick Morality Physick and what not that can finde you out a distinction between my Primary and Secondary and his First and Second It is even pity so samous a man should forget all his learning here and exclaim thus at me for saying the same thing he doth nay the same thing the truth and others doe with us For let me helpe him out here There is the end of the Ordainer and the end of the Ordinance It may be true that the Churches Edification is primarily in the intention of the Ordainer but the primary end of the Ordinance must be that which goes into the Institution and the secondary that which flows from it Now the end that is thus expresse in the Institution is for to be a memorial of Christs death or the Covenant by his death and so outwardly to seale solemnize or confirm the Covenant and then the confirming a mans faith as begetting it in others is plainly a consequent effect result or concomitant thereof By this one passage well considered you may have a guesse at the man As for his following exceptions from page 171. to the end of the Objection where he carps at me for putting in the whole duty of the receiver both before and after as well as In receiving and what practical Divine doth not tell us of awakening the vertue of the Sacrament by after-meditations page 172 173. And for that phrase Baptized into the Church which I take to be a good explanation of being baptized into Christ page 174. And for those termes of a general faith Doing a mans beft c they are not worth any farther notice So likewise where he snarles at my allusion page 175. in that word belongs The harvest belongs not to the Reapers but to Boaz himselfe And that other penitently inclined which yet I purposely picked out instead of penitent c. what pitiful poore things are they as if he envied me barely an expression even as Leah cast a blear eye upon Rachet onely because she was beloved and accepted Waving therefore these letts I shall proceed to gather together my Arguments to prove the Sacrament and actual receiving which is the thing only he opposes a means of the unregenerates edification and consequently his effectual conversion And they amount to twelve besides the chiefe of my last booke as it is verbum visibile with others the Reader may finde out himself 1 It is the duty of every intelligent member to frequent the Sacrament but officium est propter beneficium Ergo Mr. D. here indeed doth most sadly and without ground argue that the Sacrament cannot doe an unregenerate man good but certaine hurt therefore it is not his duty The weaknesse whereof is manifest because 1 It is not mans benefit but Gods precept is the ground of duty 2 A thing is not good and our duty and therefore God wills it but God wills it and therefore it is good and our duty But wee argue I take it firmly against him It is his duty the duty I have proved good in my fifth Reason and eighth Objection and therefore it can doe him good for all the Commands of God are good and it is but an heavy thing to bring up such an evill report upon the good land of the Sacrament This is the case If the Sacrament can do an unregenerate member no good then must such be either bound necessarily to eat and drinke their owne damnation or else the Sacrament is not their duty The former Mr. D. must renounce and for the latter if he can give me but one Text I will yeeld to hâ—m if he cannot let the pious consider whither they must come to deny this point for therefore have I set this Reason formost and that is through mans impotency to make void Gods Authority 2 All Gods Ordinances within the Church are means of grace whether first or second to be get or encrease it as God hath declared that hee wil meet with those that wait on him in his wayes that come to his house that seek his face and thâ— like Ergo You must produce some Text where converting grace is denyed peculiarly to this means or you wrong it If any say this is a negative which ought not to be proved
common Faith as it makes a man a Professor it makes him partaker of the Ordinances and his waiting thereupon or meeting at the Word and Sacraments is his very profession signified and his badge that he is one of the visible Church so that you must either say that every unregenerate man must leave off his profession and become no Christian or the scruple is removed for the truth is that Faith he hath in the doctrine of Christ so far as it is undissembled and makes him a Christian in opposition to all other Religions will bear him up in the profession and make it his duty for to come which in the manner ought to be done and the matter not left undone 2 The case is the same in all Ordinances while a Christian comes to the Word that is a signified profession that he will obey the mind of God when it is revealed now unlesse hee heartily resolves to practice what he hears it is a like mocking God and playing the hypocrite if I may use his words Psa 50.16 17. Jer. 43.2 5 20. Likewise in Prayer there is a vertuall engagement of us to endeavor the grace we pray for Nay herein is the most expresse hypocrisie for how can an unregenerate man say Thy Kingdome of grace come when he doth not sincerely desire grace which yet he ought to pray and sincerely desire too if he did truly desire it he were regenerate for a desire of true grace as Mr. D. sayes is true grace Yet doe I think Mr. D. doth not exclude any of his unregenerate Members from the Word and Prayer 3 This argument then is strong to enforce men to the manner when they doe the matter but not to leave off the matter because they faile in the manner It is of force to presse men to bring up their hearts and lives to their engagements but not to forbear those engagements they are bound to as Professors 4 Though a professor be unregenerate he does 0 truly beleeve Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the alone Saviour of the World in opposition to all other Religions and thereof this is a true profession and that suffices to the Sacraments precisely considered though not complexly as to the entire benefits of the Covenant 5 So far as a man is in Christ or a member of his Church Christ is given to him and received of him with a true distinction of priviledge from the world 6 He engages himselfe or is engaged hereby to submit to the termes of Jesus Christ as he is bound to do which if he do not perform it is the issue makes it a lie and him an hypocrite Psa 78.35 with 37. but the obligation it selfe and that sincerely is his duty 7 There is the nature and substance of this Ordinance and the divers uses to be made of it The very nature and substance consists in a Commemoration of Christ An unregenerate man is capable of this substance and so it becomes his duty which cannot bee made voyd by the mal-performance for no consequence can annihilate Gods Precept Neither doth my incapacity of satisfying all the ends and uses of an Ordinance as before exempt me from those I can for then neither could children be capable of Baptisme not Christ of Circumcision 8 As the Minister doth tender and apply Jesus Christ conditionally to all according to the termes of the Covenant so may he receive him to wit as looking for salvation from him upon performance of the condition and condemnation if he continues in unbeliefe without repentance as the case in penal obligations this being the means both to perswade and fright him to it And then 9 The full and safest answer to this will be by a serious practise Let us examine our selves and humbling our soules in the sight of our unworthiness acknowledge our deserts and apply the due sense of our just condemnation according to our present estate together with the offer of mercy upon our amendment and this takes off the hypocrisie for if my actual receiving be a Lye to wit as it is a visible profession it must be so either before God or before men It is not a Lye before men for I hold it a means of conversion and profess not my self converted already but come onely as a Church-member and It is not a Lye before God I mean so far as any unregenerate mans service can bee without it for I condemne my selfe and apply that part of the Covenant which is due to mee as I ought with the offer of grace to bring mee home to him Page 190. I easily grant assurance is not absolutely requisite as a means to receiving Answ Upon this true concession I argue against him in the maine If it be necessarily pre-required that a man be regenerate before he receives then must assurance be absolutely requisite as a means But seeing assurance is not necessary as a means therefore it is not necessarily pre-required that a man be regenerate and this becomes a means of conversion The former I prove That which a man cannot be perswaded in his conscience is lawful to doe it is sin if it bee done Rom. 4.23 But a man that holds it absolutely unlawful for an unregenerate man to eat and is not certaine that he himselfe is regenerate cannot be assured in his conscience that he ought to eat And hee that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not with faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sinne This is the misery is brought upon us while men deny the Sacrament to be a means of conversion Page Ibid. and 191. Whereas I press upon the Receiver to resolve against every knowne sin for the present and to accept of Christ which is his duty as well as to come He excepts at me as not speaking consonantly to my self and the nature of faith For the former I do beleeve we know so little of the nature of spirits our own souls actings thereof and so infinitly less the workings of Gods Spirit that I dare not confine my selfe herein I doe not doubt but there may be many good resolutions and some supernatural motions on the hearts of men which prove abortions when the like desires cherished in the use of the means by Gods grace become effectual It is therefore my Doctrine that a Christian should still endeavour to blow up every spark desire or good motion he finds in him We do not know how the seeds or first impressions of grace differ in any and discover them onely by the rooting and continuance If common grace differ from special only gradually which for ought we know may bee the truth then we have a certain promise that in the use and exercise those degrees shall be increased which will make it saving Habenti dabitur If it dâ—ffers specifically which those terms of the immortall seed the new birth regeneration c. do incline me to beleeve yet have we a Peradventure in the use of
a former story and joyns it to another as a part of it to which if it be taken to belong it becomes a manifest falshood we will not abate one jot or tittle of the truth of St. Lukes Gospel P. 9. But suppose Iudas was present and received 1. The Apostles scarce ever suspected him though discovered Ans What then It is manifest by this that Christ and his Disciples did not judge it necessary to look into Iudas to find out whether he lived in any known sin They examine themselves and say Is it I Now how will Mr. Dake's trial that is a means to vex hypocrites as he words it by prying into others and uncasing them p. 49. 117. be sutable to this humble temper of the Disciples and practise of Christ 2. Iudas had not yet actually betrayed Christ and it is absurd to punish any for a future sin Ans Compare this with p. 102. where he tels us the rule he goes by and keeps men away he says to prevent scandal also the sin of the unworthy receiver who would else murder Christ c. Mark it Christ may not keep away Iudas because he had not actually betraid him but Mr. Drake must needs keep men away for fear they should betray him It is absurd to suspend any for a future sin and yet he suspends all to prevent the sinne they have not committed Nay this supposal only of a future sinne is the very ground of his Excommunication when he debars them nothing but actual receiving in any ordinance 3. Christ acting as a Minister It was not fit It would have been an ill president c. Ans I am sorry to see that prejudice and interest of opinion should ever raise men to this high degree of imagination That it was not fit for Jesus Christ the great Master of Discipline to take so much power over his Disciples as the Presbytery over their Congregations This is a sad passage to see what a fluce this man has opened to let in the streams of contempt come in upon them It is far otherwise with us seeing none are suspended but 1. such as suspend themselves by refusing due trial Ans I will ask him Suppose a religious man nay suppose twenty upon grounds of conscience or prudence will not submit to his Trial yet offer themselves at the Sacrament Dare he refuse to administer it to them and knows nothing else by them If I should do so seeing I am call'd to speak my conscience I should fear it were a sin Alas Sir Will you not let men serve God and save their Souls 2. Such as upon trial are found unworthy c. Ans But I pray have you any thing first to allege against them If you have not how will you bring them to trial If they come willingly and you find them unfit and so suspend them then you go about to punish them again for a future sin The truth is if you are really so tender in this busines you may repair to your people in that humble way of admonishing them with tears and from house to house Acts 20.20 I say not you are bound to this de jure that you necessarily sin else but de facto I think it might be done with more profit if that be all you intend and good will as unto them I would rather allow you twenty Elders to watch over and instruct men for the Sacrament than two only to turn away any from it P. 10. He argues Contra None of the Apostles were ignorant or scandalous therefore Iudas and their receiving cannot warrant any such others Ans This is not true for indeed we shall find both ignorance in the Apostles and scandal in Judas Here the Lion and the Calf are down together and a little Child may lead them For the disciples ignorance it is manifest The true saving knowledge of remission of sin lies in Christs resurrection Ro. 4.25 1 Cor. 15.17 but they were so wholly ignorant even of this grand point that they knew not the Scripture that he must rise again Io. 20.9 Nay what think you if they understood not the point of his death neither Judge impartially what knowledge could they have at and of this ordinance if they conceiv'd him not as crucified 1 Cor. 11.26 Now I pray compare Mark 9.31.32 Lu. 9.44.45 with Lu. 24.7 8. and it is said plainly They understood not the things Christ taught them about his death and remembred them not till he was risen Adde hereunto we find no mention of the Sacrament or forewarning of Christ before the institution so that whatsoever they did understand of the nature and use hereof it was only what the present words did afford them From whence we may resolve that though people are but little knowing even in some fundamentals and have but a rude implicit faith I mean the word orthodoxly and good affections they may be admitted to this Supper and I think moreover that our preparation Sermons and present Exhortations which should be about the main with our prayers and solemnity may clear our own souls in this pattern of Christ as to the sufficiency of their instruction for edification though where prudence directs to more if without bondage I humbly commend it For Iudas scandal be pleas'd to look in Mat. 26.2.14 15 16. Mar. 14. 1 12. â—nd you find it apparent that Iudas made his bargain with the high Priests about betraying Christ two nights before the Passeover so that that line of his where he sayes Judas had not yet betrayed Christ any more than Peter had denyed him is a very untruth And as for the knowledge or divulging of it Christ himself did I think more than once reveal it But now if there had been any Examination requisite as Mr. Drake pretends about their visible worthinesse to search whether any of them liv'd in a known sin would not Christ have been as exact in doing his Ministerial duty as this Man Could not he have sent but two of his disciples unto the Priests to find him out and witnesse against him and might not Iohn and Peter who call themselves so serve for Elders And I pray now is it visible worthiness upon trial or visible membership that Christ went by in his admission You may even pity the lamentable case he here has brought himself that he has nothing to help it but confess T is true Judas had betrayed Christ in purpose and compact already but Christ charges him not with that but foresels his actual treachery that is Iudas indeed was actually a scandalous person but Christ did not charge it on him as as bar to his admission He did not that were enough therefore it is not necessary Yet farther I pray take notice of the words in Matt. 26.24 Lu. 22.22 and they are spoken in the present tense we must not yield a jot of the truth and purport of Christs words when Christ sayes One of you shall betray me and Verily the Son
of man is betrayed they are both true and about the same treachery Shall as to the apprehension and Is betrayed as to his fact past in his agreement which is said therefore while Christ will yield to it to be in effect done What is here wanting now but an opening this and proceeding against him and yet in the very nick he leaves it Is not our cause plain Besides what man will not judge that Iudas treason which Christ tels them of consisted in his contrivance bargain taking money and selling Christ as actually as his comming with the Officers into the garden So that it will be in vain to strive against the truth If Christs example herein be a sufficient rule for our walking we must be content and willingly embrace the humble peaceable way of Free-admission P. 11. He only repeats the question Whether Judas ought to be suspended for as for St. Peter he wrongs him much to joyn him with Iudas ones sinne being by design and already on foot the others un-imagined before and meerly out of present infirmity and he answers No. 1. Because his sinne was not committed Ans I say that is not true unlesse Iudas selling Christ be no sin with him 2 Because Christ could not be both witnesse Iudge and Executioner c. which we had before and again more fully p. 90. Christ as a Minister had no juridical power to turn him or any away c. Nor any it is bravely spoken you may read forwards and the sum is this The Lord Iesus could not turn away Iudas from the Sacrament because the Presbytery was not setled Selah He that at the great day shall be Iudge and Party and tels us Io. Though I bear witnesse of my self my witnesse is true that is is both Witnesse and Party may I hope be both Iudge and Witnesse without absurdity As for the question Whether he acted as a Minister or Mediator it is vain for he acted as both He could not institute an Ordinance for his Church but as he was Head and Mediator nor could he administer it but as a Minister the same numerical actions were both the institution and the administration So that let us but look these passages full in the face and fix wistly on them they are quite out of countenance and I shall need no more to put this man to a mild rebuke than the gracious words of our Saviour Christ The servant is not above his Master nor the disciple above his Lord It is enough that the servant be as his Master and the disciple as his Lord. As for Christs temporal refusing to condemn the Adulteresse it is impertinent as to this his Ecclesiastical command institution and example And for his administring only to Ministers in an upper room it proves we may so administers too if need be as his admitting Iudas proves we may admit of our Chruch-members but if he argues therefore we must do no otherwise here is a clear negative from an affirmative which is no consequence Whereas therfore he tels us in the issue State the case aright when he plainly states it wrong as to Iudas fact Mr. Humphreys has made a wide and wild inference and intreats him to take a more pertinent Text or else he shall scarce prove himself as he is stiled a Master of Arts. I do appeal to mens hearts whether as they are inclinable to Iudas receiving they find them not generally standing or wavering to this Free-admission I shall quote onely our learned Hammond Prac. Cat. mihi p. 334. where asking the question What we gather from this circumstance of Christs admitting Iudas answers That those that are Christian professors may be lawfully admitted though their hearts are full of Villanie They indeed he says are to repent before they come but it shall be no sin to the Minister or Communicants So that for the sufficiency of my ground you have not only pardoning such dulnesse the opinion of a Master of Arts but a Doctor of Divinity and if you look into Mr. Prynne that worthy Gentleman a bunch of Fathers They All drank of it Sect. 3 MY text or ground being cleared we come to the state or meaning of my question P. 12. For the managing his cause Mr. Humphrey premises That in the Church God hath set up his Ordinances of the Word and Sacrament Of these Ordinances some are capable and some uncapable Those that are uncapable are either so by nature as Infants and distracted persons or the Excommunicate and no others c. Before I passe for the fuller opening this I must desire you to consider these particulars 1. I say Within the Church in opposition to Heathen because it is Church-membership limited only with this capacity I hold that give our right to this Ordinance as other outward privileges The Sacraments may be considered Precise precisely in themselves and it is Church-membership I say or an external Covenant relation that suffices to the validity thereof or Complexè complexly with the intire fruits and benefits of the Covenant and so indeed there is no lesse than a justifying faith required for the obtaining of them Our question truly is not concerning what is necessary in order to other ends to the Receiver that he may be saved so final perseverance is necessary but what is necessarily antecedent to the external Sacrament And between these two A Covenant relation visible and truth of Grace which is invisible there is no middle thing in the Scripture enjoyn'd for the rule of our admission A visible member of the Church and a member of the visible Church are but the same 2. I explain those that are uncapable in the first sense in saying by nature and that can discern no meaning hereof as I have added which I do cleerly to distinguish Infants the distracted and natural fools from the barely ignorant of age who are capable to learn and having the present means of knowledge if it be not sufficient herein for their edifying it is meerly their own fault and upon their own account And there are two plain reasons for the distinguishing of these as to this Ordinance wherein the body of the Lord is to be discerned First Because this very discerning cannot be the duty of the former who are naturally uncapable it being an undeniable rule thus far Nemo tenetur ad impossibile And Secondly Because signes cannot work upon the un-intelligent which they wholly are to receive any Real effect by them It is otherwise with the latter for 1. It is their duty both to get knowledge and to come 2. They have an understanding capacity that they may be wronght upon by it and if they be not it is their sin These reasons I may tell Mr. Drake are so ordinary and solid that they will be as two gravel stones in the teeth of his arguments while he champs upon them 3. For the uncapable in the second sense which word is not so proper here but you may