The second part answeered.

PAssing his premonitory Preface, I come directly to his Objections & Answers. The Doctrine of free admission will take away the use of the keyes, excommunicate Excommunication, and leave us no Disci­pline in the Church.

Obj. 1 This Objection I conceive Mr. H. might have spared, there being no great strength in it against free admission, in his sense, which admits not excommuni­cated persons.

Yet withall I must tell him, that his satisfaction of the objection is unsatisfa­ctory, and not we, but himself will be found guilty of false surmises about Ex­communication and Suspension.

[Page 105]And here I value not what the Obje­ction surmises, since Mr. H. may frame it as he please, and so make it surmise what he will: but if thereby he intends to in­sinuate, that we look at Church Discipline as lying solely in Suspension, I must tell him, he acts not the part of a fair respon­dent. 1. Therefore for negative Suspen­sion (which is a bare non-admission) we account it no part of Church Discipline, no more then himself doth the non ad­mission of Infants or mad folk. 2. For positive Suspension (whereby 1. Persons upon triall found unworthy by the El­dership. 2. Persons who obstinately re­fuse triall, yet will obtrude themselves upon the Sacrament, are by vote of the Eldership denied participation) this we say is an act of Church Discipline, and a lesser degree of Excommunication, whereof I conceive there is a threefold degree, 1. From private communion, 2 Thess. 3.14. 2. Not onely from private but also from Sacramentall Communion, 1. Cor. 5.11. Eating there being extended to Sacramentall eating as well as dome­sticall eating; as is cleared by the Anti­quaerist in his Vindication or Answer to Suspension suspended, to which therefore [Page 106]I refer. 3. From Church membership, Mat. 18.17, 18. & 1 Cor. 5.5.

Yet withall I adde, this positive sus­spension is not issued out against any, unless by their obstinacy they force the Eldership to it. For 1. if a person upon triall be found ignorant, the Eldership doth not presently proceed to Suspensi­on, but intreat him to forbear a Sacra­ment or two, till he have attained to some competency of knowledge, in or­der whereunto they give him direction, and offer him their assistance. If for all this he thrust himself upon the Sacra­ment, they desire him to forbear, and tell him they dare not admit him till more capable. And lastly, if all this will not serve, they are forced to issue out a Vote of Suspension, which yet I believe is very rare, since too many sus­pend themselves by keeping away because they will not be tried. 2. If a person be found scandalous, they admonish him being before them, if he profess repen­tance, and be willing to give satisfaction, they dare not refuse him: otherwise they proceed with him as with the former after conviction. And if the sin and scan­dall be great, and aggravated by obstina­cy, [Page 107]they proceed not onely to Suspension, but also to dismembership. Having given this account of out judgement and pra­ctice, let us weigh Mr. H. his judgement about Church Censures.

Pag. 31. He saith, They are punishments upon scandalous persons (after a legall conviction) whereby they are debarred from Christian society in generall.

Answ. 1. In this description he sur­mises amiss, by omitting one main end of Church Censures, namely the amend­ment of the party censured, 1 Cor. 5.5.

2. In restrayning them onely to scan­dalous persons as to practice, which are extendible to any wilfull sinner; and if persons wilfully ignorant be not wilfull sinners, I know not who are, 2 Pet. 3.5.

3. In debarring persons censured of all Christian society in generall. And here I challenge Master Humphrey and all the world to shew me any one place in Scrip­ture, which requires that persons excom­municated should not be present at any publick Ordinance. I grant, that by Excommunication they are made as Hea­then and Publicanes, and are in status quo no Church members, Matth. 18.17. but I see no place that proves persons out of [Page 108]the Church may not be present at any publick Ordinance. I am sure 1 Corinth. 14.24, favours the contrary. He is there­fore much mistaken about us, who neither shut the Church doores nor the Chancell doores against any person censured, but admit them to be present at all Ordinan­ces; nor do we believe their presence will leaven any, since spirituall defilement is not contracted by presence, but by connivance or imitation, &c. And there­fore if any gratifie profane persons, it must be they who exclude from all Or­dinances, not we who admit them to be present at all Ordinances, though we restrain them from actuall receiving, and that upon very weighty reasons, yet withall let me tell Mr. Humphrey that he is mistaken in saying, pag. 32. That profane persons never care to come to the Sacrament. Did he never hear of poor ignorant and profane creatures, that must needs come and eat their Maker at Easter especially? or is he onely a stranger in Israel, and knows not these things? May not igno­rant and profane ones desire the Sacra­ment partly out of custome and fashion, partly because they apprehend its a dis­grace for them to be turned away, and [Page 109]for many such triviall grounds?

For his second snrmise, pag. 32. That Suspension is instituted onely in reference to the Ordinances, to keep them pure and holy, if the Sacrament especially would he de­fied otherwise to the Receivers.

Answ. 1. We think the Ordinances are defiled onely to those who use them sinfully. 2. That persons are defiled not by presence with unworthy Receivers, but by partaking in their sins. 3. That they partake in the sins of unworthy Re­ceivers, who do not their duty to reform them, or to keep them from receiving in case they will not be reformed.

Its therefore false which he asserts, pag. 32. That Church Censures concern not those who are admitted to the Ordinances, but are used in reference onely to offenders, &c.

For 1. It concerns all Church members in their places to look to it, that Church Censures be duly executed. 2. Their very execution doth much concern Church members, by fear to keep then from those inordinate courses which bring Church Censures upon others. And its considerable how he contradicts himself in the close of this paragraph, when he makes [...] & [Page 110] [...] to be the ends of Church Censures. And I appeal to all the world, whether admonition (which better ren­ders the sense of the first Greek word) satisfying the Congregation, and warning or example, concern more of the Con­gregation but the parties offending?

His third pretended surmise is, That we conceive there is a most neer essentiall relation between this Excommunication and the Communion, as if it were a part of it, at least some necessary antecedent, as if the Sacrament could not be administred with­out it.

Answ. 1. The Objection it self pro­pounded pag. 30. and elevated to the height of Mr. Humphrey his design, in­fers no such mad consequence. For grant­ing it were a truth, that free admission did takeaway the use of the Keyes, &c. how doth it follow from thence, that there is an essentiall relation between Excommunication and the Communion? or (which is more gross) that Excommu­nication is a part of the Communion? Do not essentialiter relata put or take away each other? but doth the taking away of Excommunication take away the Communion? what is this, but to [Page 111]conclude that the admitting of all sorts to the Communion takes away the Com­munion? So belike there is a Communion which all partake of, and yet there is no Communion because all partake of it. Is not this excellent Logick? The Sun shines which all men see, and yet it doth not shine because all men see it. Its therefore both a false inference and an absurd fal­sity in it self, that there is an essentiall relation between Excommunication and the Coram union, since the Communion may be without Excommunication, and Excommunication without the Commu­nion. (I speak as to matter of fact, not as to jus or fas, for I believe all Ordi­dinances should be maintained in the Church, yet withall that the absence of one Ordinance doth not null another.) There is indeed a neer relation between the Communion and Excommunication in point of duty, since we must not separate those things which God hath joyned (God having commanded all his Ordinances to be used) but not in point of being or existence, since they depend not so one upon the other, that all must needs be abolished if one be universally neglected.

[Page 112]The latter surmise framed by Mr. H. is farre more absurd, as if either we or the objection by him propounded made Excommunication a part of the Communi­on. What is this but a contradiction in terminis, to make keeping from the Sa­crament a part of the Sacrament, or keeping from receiving a part of recei­ving! From such receiving we shall sus­pend no unworthy person. We wish Mr. Humphrey much good with such contra­dictions, but desire him not to pin them upon our sleeve. 2. How follows it from the Objection that Excommunication is a part of Communion? The Argument must stand thus, If free admission to the Communion excommunicate Excommu­nication, then Excommunication is a part of the Communion; but free admis­sion doth so. Ergo. Do not the Antece­dent and the Consequent here hang to­gether like ropes of sand? Is it not rather true, that if free admission to the Com­munion excommunicate Excommunica­tion, then Excommunication is no part of the Communion? Is it not against nature for one part to excommunicate another?

His distinction between acts of Disci­pline [Page 113]and acts of Worship makes little for his purpose. We grant them indeed to be distinct things; yet withall we adde, that acts of Discipline are no bars to acts of Worship, excepting onely actuall receiving in the Sacrament; (If he please to call that an act of Worship) I must therefore pass his following dis­course pag. 33. & 34. as wholly imperti­nent, and tell him, that the friends of Suspension are more both for Discipline and Worship then he is. 1. Because we are for all the parts and degrees of Disci­pline, he is onely for some of them. 2. We exclude no excommunicated per­son from any part of publick Worship but only from actuall receiving; Contra, he excludes all excommunicate persons from all publick acts of Worship, pag. 31.

2 Object. The most of men are wholly unfit, and not capable of this Ordinance, as wanting both the preparatory and execu­tory part, &c. therefore no free admission hither.

Answ. I commend Mr. H. who will be sure to choose Adversaries weak enough: He may well say there is mani­fest weakness in this Argument. But he doth ill to right against our weakest Ar­guments, [Page 114]and then triumph as if we had no stronger.

We have shewed formerly, That fit­ness or unfitness absolutely considered is no rule for the Churches admission or suspension, but either of these as visible. We say not, that all who are unfit must be kept from the Sacrament, but onely all who are visibly unfit. 2. That for the discerning of those who are visibly un­fit, the Church must proceed by a rule to finde them out. 3. That triall by examination of persons, and witness if need be, is a Scripture and approved rule. 4. That all are bound to submit either to publick or private triall, as God offers occasion for either, when it may be for Gods glory and their own or others edi­fication, yea though it should tend to their outward prejudice, 1 Pet. 3.15. 5. That being discovered to be unfit, they ought to repent and study to be fit, but not to thrust themselves against light and conviction upon the Sacrament, When God saies, Let a man so cat, 1 Cor. 11.28. how dares any man say, Let him eat though not so? 6. If notwithstand­ing persons visibly unfit will thrust them­selves upon the Sacrament, its the Chur­ches [Page 115]duty not to let them eat and drink judgement to themselves, by murdering the Lord of glory, unless Mr. H. be of Cains Religion, that Church Officers are not their brethrens keepers, Genes. 4.9. Neither let him object, That then they may as well keep him from hearing, &c. for in part it hath, and (God willing) shall be more fully shewed, that there is a wide difference between hearing and receiving.

Now let's hear what Mr. H. hath to say against this Objection of his own fra­ming.

And first I thank him that pag 35. he laies down, That the Church can but look upon an outward capacity. He might have added (since contrariorum eadem est ratio) That the Church may also look upon and judge of outward incapacity, but see and judge of it they cannot without evidence and triall; therefore 3. They may enquire after persons capable or uncapable. 4. Since triall is in vain without execution, therefore they ought to admit all persons outwardly capable, and suspend all persons outwardly inca­pable; otherwise how shall they suspend (negatively at least) Infants, distracted [Page 116]and excommunicated persons?

As to his three Answers, I answer briefly, 1. A naturall man must hear, pray, &c. though he cannot do them rightly, because these are converting Ordinances, so is not the Lords Supper, I mean as to actuall receiving; he may therefore hear, &c. but not receive. I wonder a wise man should mistake a moun­tain for a feather.

2. Its true, every man must do what he can: but many things are naturally possible which are morally impossible; and thus I cannot do that which I may not, that is impossible which is unlawfull. Let him prove that actuall receiving is a debt on the part of a naturall man, or that to admit a person visibly unworthy is a debt on the Churches part, and we shall be far enough from hindering any in the payment of their debts either to God or man.

3. In his last Answer, though he have borrowed a good distinction from Master Pemble, yet he shuffles wofully in the application of it. In a legall sense no man is either worthy, or receives wor­thily; in an Evangelicall sense no man receives worthily, but he is a worthy [Page 117]Receiver, But I ask Mr. H. whether he dares apply either branch of this distin­ction to all whom he admits so freely? To come to his own words, Do all that he admits. 1. Labour their best to pre­pare their hearts. 2. Judge and humble themselves really before God. 3. Come to Christ heavy laden. 4. Look at them­selves as dogs, and yet importune Christ for the crums of mercy? I say then he hath the worthiest Congregation in the world. 2. All his Communicants are not onely worthy, bun eminently godly. But now to retort. How easie were it to evince the contrary against most whom he would have admitted. For 1. How many ignorant ones are therein our Con­gregations, that scarce know their right hands from their left in matters of Reli­gion. 2. How many profane ones, swea­rers, drunkards, &c. 3. How many out­wardly pious, who upon triall might easily be uncased, to live in some known sin. Each of these fearing (and that not without cause) to be uncased before the Eldership, no wonder they are so averse to triall, lest their sheeps cloathing should be pull'd off, and themselves dis­covered to be ignorant, profane, or hypo­criticall, [Page 118]criticall, far enough from the foremen­tioned graces of humility, repentance, and faith. If he object that such persons should be excommunicated, I answer, 1. Whoever deserve Excommunication, do much more deserve Suspension; and it seems then, that the Presbyterians of­fend rather in being too favourable then too rigid. 2. We deny not, but in case of obstinacy or foul scandall, dismembring may follow Suspension, the greater Ex­communication the lesser. 3. I hope Mr. Humphrey is more charitable then to profess that all ignorant persons should be excommunicated. I am sure we are so charitable, as by Suspension to put them upon endeavours after knowledge, that they may be fitted for, and so comfortably admitted to the Sacrament, Which his free admission is not like to do; but ra­ther to harden and flatter them in their ignorance.

He notes well, pag. 37. That on the unworthy receivers part, the Ordinance is taken in vain, against the third Command­ment. But whereas he adds, not so on the admitters part.

Ans. The admitters having regularly the power of the Keyes, if they admit [Page 119]persons visibly unworthy, are accessary to their guilt; as any one is an accessary in Gods account, who prevents not the sin of his neighbour when he hath power to do it.

3 Object. Holy things to holy men.

An. I may say of this as of the former, There is little strength in it. Yet withall, Mr. H. his Answer falls short, and is too too feeble likewise. For 1. All outward holy things are not to be administred to all outwardly holy persons, since Infants and distracted persons (if Christians) are outwardly (yea divers of them inwardly) holy, yet by Mr. H. his vote are not ca­pable of the Sacrament. 2. Some things outwardly holy may be administred to persons not so much as outwardly holy by profession, Mat. 28.19. & 1 Cor. 14.24. 3. What is bare profession if contradi­cted by profaness? That which cannot secure a man from Excommunication, but rather makes him capable of it, much less can secure him against Suspension, an inferiour Censure. But such is bare pro­fession if accompanied with profaness. 4. Many persons excommunicated do still profess, and so are outwardly holy, yet these Mr. H. will have excluded from [Page 120]all Ordinances. From all which I con­clude, 1. That M. H. his Answer may vye with the Objection for weaknesse. 2. That M. H. here as well as other where contra­dicts himself, in saying that the same per­son at the same time must be admitted to all the Ordinances, and yet he must be ad­mitted to none of the Ordinances; to all the Ordinances as a professor, to none of the Ordinances as excommunicated; a cruel assertion and a flat contradiction.

For the Reply pag. 38, & 39. Do we not hereby make our selves one with the wicked with whom we joyn and so have communion with Belial? His answer is good, That joyning with a wicked mans person is not having communion with Belial, but accom­panying of him in his evil wayes.

But our difference here with M. H. is not so much about joyning with the wicked, as accompanying of him in his evil wayes: It being first his sin to re­ceive unworthily; Secondly, The peoples sin who know him to be unworthy and do not inform the Church: Thirdly, The Churches fault if they study not the dis­covery of persons unworthy, or admit them to the Sacrament when visibly un­worthy: Nor is presence with the wicked [Page 121]at Ordinances, but fostering of them in their sins, communion with Belial, which I wish too many do not fall into by this free admission, pleaded for with more strength of affection then power of con­viction.

We easily agree with him, That wicked persons in the Church, are in some sense in Christ and sanctified by him: But if this be enough for admission to the Lords Sup­per, then why doth himself shut the Chan­cel door (as he other where calls it) against Infants arid mad men, who are as much if not more in Christ, and as much if not more sanctified then the former, and against whom himself dares not shut the Church door. Therefore say I, if M. H. be really for free admission, let him ex­cluded none out of the Chancel that are within die Church. For the places of Scripture that he quotes page 40. I am confident the Orthodox interpreta­tion of them, will never open the Chancel to grosly ignorant or prophane Church-members; the latter of which are so far from having right to be admitted into the Chancel, that they deserve to be shut out of the Church.

To close up this third Objection: How [Page 122]grosse is that assertion pag. 41. That there is an historicall visible faith, that gives an outward Church-right unto the Elements.

For then first excommunicated persons have a right to the Elements, who though cast out for their prophanenesse, have still an historicall faith, since excommunica­tion doth not deprive you of their histo­ricall faith, yet cuts them off 1. from visi­ble Church-membership, 2. from visible Christ-membership.

2. Saving faith it self doth not alwayes give a right to the Elements (it being pos­sible that a godly man for some foul scandall may be excommunicated) much lesse then doth visible historicall faith, when contradicted especially by customa­ry prophanesse.

3. As historicall faith gives not a right to Christ (for that the devils have, Iames 2.19.) but the faith of adhesion seated in the will not in the understanding, so not visible historicall faith, but visible faith of adhesion gives a Church-right to Christ sacramentall, and should any man pro­fesse historicall faith but protest against faith of adhesion, I appeal to M. H. his conscience, whether he durst admit such a wretch to the Sacrament. For my own [Page 123]part,, should any person professe, I be­leeve Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, the only Saviour and Mediator between God and man, but I will not rest upon him for righteousnesse and salvation; let this man be never so pious outwardly, I should sooner admit a common adulterer, &c. then him.

Objection 4. page 41. The Seal is set to a blank if be admitted.

An. 1. For understanding this Obje­ction the better, we must know, that what the Philosopher said in generall, that Ani­ma est rasa tabula, is too true of all men since the fall in order unto saving grace. They are Tabulae, as capable of the Spi­rits writing; they are rasae tabulae, which notes 1. They are naturally destitute of this writing. 2. This writing was rased out by Adams fall, and thus all men naturally are blanks, in order to the writing of the new Covenant in their hearts: The simili­tude you have 2 Cor. 3.3. Heb. 8.10.

2. This Blank is either visible or invi­sible. To God all blanks are visible, and he may use his liberty to set his seal where he pleases, by commanding to baptise all Infants of beleeving parents, &c. and to admit to the Lords Supper all visible [Page 124]Saints that are Church-members.

The Question is then, Whether man may apply the Seals to visible blanks. It's clear he may not; for then Heathen them­selves before instruction and profession, as also their Infants might be baptised. I assume, But there are visible blanks in the Church as well as in the world, namely persons that are as notoriously ignorant and profane as Heathen, and who if they had not been baptised in their infancy, should not be now admitted to baptism, without evidence first given of their knowledge and piety. Therefore say I, seeing (according to M. H. his own rule) Adultis eadem est ratio utrius (que) Sacramen­ti, they who at present would be unca­pable of baptisme had they not been bap­tised, are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper though baptised in their infancy. The Objection thus stated we conceive to be good: Lets see now what M. H. hath to object against it. I shall at present passe his first distinction as waved yet by him­self.

Page 41, and 42. He conceive it's a gene­rall mistake, that people take the Sacrament to be a Seal to their faith, and if there be m true faith, that it is set (they think) to a blanks.

[Page 125] Answ. 1. Sacramentall seals (as others) relate either to parties or to things. 1. To parties, namely the Covenanters on both parts, God and the creature in Covenant; from God to the creature they seal the Covenant of grace, from the creature to God they seal dutifulnesse and thankful­nesse. Here we say, the Church cannot ap­ply the seals of the Covenant to any who are visibly out of the Covenant; but in our Congregations there are many gros­ly ignorant and prophane persons visibly out of the Covenant. You will say, they are visibly in the Covenant as Church­members and professors though at large; True, but their visible profession is not e­quivalent to their visible ignorance and prophanenesse, no more then profession of honesty is to open cheating: as a chea­ter uncased loses the repute and priviled­ges of an honest man, so an hypocrite uncased forfeits the priviledges of his pro­fession, and the Church both may and ought to take the forfeiture, till the breach made upon his profession be re­paired by a new profession of his repen­tance and promise of reformation, yea and visible reformation too, so far as it can be had: and certainty, if such a person may [Page 126]be denied all publike Ordinances (in M. H. his judgement) much more may he be de­nied one Ordinance. He that deserves the greater penalty, much more deserves the lesse.

Secondly, To come neerer to his Answer: Sacramentall Seals relate to things as well as to persons: And thus as Seals, 1. They confirm the Covenant. 2. They confirm the faith of the worthy receiver. 3. They confirm judgement to the unworthy re­ceiver. To apply the distinction: 1. All sorts may be present to see the Covenant sealed. 2. None but persons Evangelically worthy may partake, these only having faith to be confirmed. 3. None visibly un­worthy may by the Church be admitted to partake, as being visibly without faith, either in the habit or actings thereof; which last I note in reference to godly persons who sometimes may be justly either suspended or excommunicated. 4. Supposing they may be admitted on the Ministers part where the power of the Keyes is imperfect, yet to clear his own soul the Minister is to deal plainly with every unworthy receiver, and let him know that he will but betray and murther Christ, as our Saviour did to Iudas (sup­posing [Page 127]he did receive,) and that the Sa­crament which confirms other mens faith, will confirm his unbelief and seal judge­ment unto him. To summe up all: That which confirms or ratifies is tropically a Seal; but the Sacrament doth confirm faith and ratifie the Covenant to faith, Ergo, Its both a seal of faith, and a seal to faith; & contra, where there is no faith to confirm, as to that particular it must needs seal to a blank, as sealing to a blank is a known expression to note the appli­cation of a seal to a paper that hath no writings, and where nothing is writ there nothing can be confirmed.

2. That the Sacrament seals Christs bloud in particular for pardon to the re­ceivers by vertue of its primitive institu­tion, is evident by comparing Matth. 26.28. with Luk. 22.20. The latter place saith, This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you: the former place sheweth for what end, namely for remission of sins. The language then of the Sacrament given to every receiver is; the body and bloud of Christ is thine for the remission of thy sins, and how dares any Minister say or seal this to a person known to be grosly ignorant or profane?

[Page 128]Pag. 42. God doth not attest our faith, but the truth of his own promises, but the Sacraments are Seals properly of the Cove­nant.

Answ. 1. I know none so simple as to assert that God doth in terminis My mea­ning is, the Sacrament doth not say in ex­pres terms thou Roger beleevest, no more then the word doth, but only by conse­quence. attest our faith in the Sacrament, as M. H. seems to insinuate; the Sacrament doth not so attest but suppose and require faith, and then seals the Covenant to faith. 2. In vain doth it seal the Covenant, if to no persons: A Covenant cannot be but with some body, and if it be sealed it must be sealed to those with whom it is made: therefore the Covenant being sealed in the Sacrament, it must be sealed to some body, and sealed regularly it cannot be to those who visibly reject it: but grosly ignorant and prophane persons uncased, do visibly reject the Covenant of grace, Ergo, the Covenant of grace cannot re­gularly be applied to them by the Seals. 3. If the Sacraments are seals properly of the Covenant, why may not Infants and distracted persons partake of them, who have a more visible right to it then grosly ignorant and prophane persons have? 4. As the Sacraments are seals of the Co­venant, so they may be applied to the [Page 129]Covenant before all, but the Covenant may not by them be applied or sealed to any but to persons visibly worthy. Its well therefore in the same page he cor­rects himself, and grants the Sacraments may be seals of our faith consecutivè, be­cause they confirm and strengthen faith: But he shuffles in saying, They are not for­maliter, and in a true and proper sense seales unto any thing but the Covenant. In a pro­per sense a seal is an artificiall thing fit to make a visible representation or impres­sion and confirmation. This the Sacra­ment is not properly but figuratively to the Covenant it self, namely as it hath the office of a seal, which is to represent and confirm, and this it doth to faith as well as to the Covenant: For 1. As it represents the Covenant, it must needs represent faith as an especiall branch promised in the Covenant. 2. As it confirms the Co­venant, so it confirms faith gradually of­fered and promised in it, and thereby also confirms faith inherent in the worthy re­ceiver, as a Bond sealed unto me confirms my belief that the particulars sealed unto shall be performed, and if this be not to seal in a formal and proper sense (theolo­gically) I know not what is. And thus [Page 130]increase of faith and all other graces are sealed by the Sacrament to the worthy receiver, but neither the beginnings nor increase of faith are sealed to the unwor­thy receiver.

Nor will his instance of Circumcision, pag. 43. help him as to the point in hand, since Circumcision was applied to none but visible Saints, either by Covenant, election, or by actuall profession, not con­tradicted by living in scandalous sins, or notorious ignorance of the Covenant of grace, which is the rule we walk by in ad­mission or non-admission.

And as little advantage will his cause gain by his illustration (here again repea­ted) drawn from a Proclamation sealed and offered to rebels that refuse it. True, the similitude holds in some particulars: 1. The Covenant of grace is proclaimed by the Minister. 2. The truth of it is seal­ed by the Sacrament. 3. The benefits of it offered to all, and therefore we deny not but all sorts may be present at the Ordi­nance, as all rebels whether obstinate or submissive may be present at the Procla­mation and sealing of a Pardon. But what is offering a sealed Pardon in generall and conditionally, to the particular applica­tion [Page 131]and sealing of the same Pardon to singular persons? Or how can a Com­missioner without breach of his trust, as­sure (either by word of mouth or seal.) pardon to a Traytor that visibly stands out against his Prince? In like manner at the Sacrament, not only the Elements do represent and seal the Covenant of grace as to its truth in generall, but some of the Sacramentall actions (as giving and recei­ving) do particularly apply it to every re­ceiver: And how dares any Minister, ha­ving regular power to deny it, by word and seal apply the Covenant of grace to any person that visibly rejects it? To il­lustrate this by the initiall Sacrament; Baptism when ever administred, seals the Covenant of grace as well as the Lords Supper; but only to the person baptized doth it make particular application of the Covenant, and therefore cannot be ap­plied to any unbaptized person that is vi­sibly out of the Covenant, be he born of Heathen or of Christian Parents: But all who are visibly in the state of nature are visibly out of the Covenant, and such are grosly ignorant, and scandalous per­sons willfully persisting in both. Since therefore both Sacraments seal one and [Page 132]the same Covenant, he who should not be admitted to the first were he unbaptized, must not pari ratione be admitted to the second though baptized.

Page. 44. Rep. by M. H. But is it not al­surd for a man to set his seal where there hath been no agreement and transactions be­fore, &c. M. H. grants it's absurd on the receivers part; but as for the Minister or Church who offer it as a seal on Gods part, there is a true seal to a true copy, and no­thing out of order.

Answ. There's nothing out of order if the Minister proceed not to delivery of the writing and seal to those who visibly refuse the Covenant offered. But should M. H. or any else deliver a purchase sealed to a person who refused the bargain, let himself be Judge whether it were not an act both disorderly and imprudent: And as disorderly is it to deliver unto any per­son bond and seal for the promised Land who visibly prefers Aegypt and Babylon before it. God will not Ministers should deliver precious pearls to such swine.

What he addes Pag. 45. is also weak, in which respect he doth well to cover the nakednesse of it with a blinde and misty parenthesis. His words are these: As they [Page 133]are Gods seals, for the same reason they cannot be seals of faith, because God seals not ima­ginably to our part of the Covenant which is faith.

Answ. 1. Both the assertion it self and its reason are false. For

First, Are they not Gods seals, 1. As relating to Gods Covenant. 2. As insti­tuted by God himself to ratifie his Co­venant.

Secondly, Is not faith it self and eve­ry saving grace promised in the New Co­venant? unlesse M. H. will professedly turn Pelagian, and make faith only the birth of mans free-will.

Thirdly, If the Covenant be Gods, if the seal be Gods, and faith promised in it be Gods also, is it not apparent that Gods seal must needs be faiths seal also? Not a seal from faith authoritatively as from God, but a seal of faith as a branch of the Covenant promised, and as a seal to faith actually laying hold on the Covenant. If the Covenant of grace undertake not for our part of the Covenant, we are in a worse condition now under the Covenant of grace then we were under the Cove­nant of works, since then Adam had perfection of grace to back free-will; but [Page 134]in fallen man free-will either hath no grace inherent, or but weak grace to act it, and impossible were it for any either to convert or persevere, unlesse God under-took both for the infusion and supporting of grace.

Object. If faith and grace be a part of the Co­venant that is sealed by the Sacrament, then the best way were free admission, that the Covenant, and so faith it self may be sealed to all.

Answ. Not so: For 1. Though the Covenant offer grace to all conditionally, yet it pro­miseth not grace absolutely to any but the elect and persons effectually called: to the first it promiseth initiall grace, to the latter it promiseth progresse and perse­verance in grace. Now the seal can secure no more then what is in the writing: but saving grace is not absolutely promised to all, in the Covenant, ergò it cannot be seal­ed to all in the Sacrament. The offer of grace indeed is sealed to all present whe­ther they receive it or no; but the pro­mise of grace can be sealed to none but the Legatees of the new Covenant, and such are only persons elected or effectu­ally called, understand me here as to the spirituall and saving branches of the Co­venant: [Page 135]and that is done on Gods part e­very Sacrament.

Secondly, As for the Church and the Minister, who cannot judge infallibly who are elected and effectually called, they must proceed by the rule of visibili­ty, sealing the promises by the Sacrament, to them and them only who upon just triall tempered with charity appear to be visible Legatees. And as Christ himself re­spects not good words and outward pro­fession when contradicted by our carriage, Matth. 7.21, 22, 23. no more must the Church when mens carriage doth visibly contradict their profession.

Thirdly, The Lords Supper being a Sa­crament of nourishment, seals not proper­ly initiall, but progressive grace; nor can the Church apply it for conversion but edification: and how are they capable of edification in grace who are destitute of all grace, or of visible edification who are destitute of visible grace?

Fourthly, In the Lords Supper, not on­ly sanctification but also the comforts of the Covenant are sealed to the receivers, but how can the comforts of holinesse be sealed to unholy persons, or by the Mini­ster applied to those who are visibly un­holy, Ezek. 13.19, 21.

[Page 136]Pag. 46. He speaks clearly and truly, That an unregenerate man cannot receive the Sacrament as a seal of his faith. For how can faith be sealed to where it is not? But what follows immediately, Yet the Church can give it as a seal of the Cove­nant, is either ambiguous or false;Gal. 3.1. am­biguous if he take giving for giving out or holding forth, for thus Christ may be given to all, whether they receive or no; but this is nothing to his purpose, and proves onely that all may be present, but not that all may receive. Its false if understood of the delivery of the Ele­ments to all persons who may be present. 1. In Mr. Humphrey his sense, who cannot Scripturally or rationally exclude either Infants, distracted or excommunicated persons from presence, yet will not ad­mit them actually to receive. 2. Its false in our sense, who can admit either igno­rant or scandalous persons to be present, but neither of them to receive.

His illustration ibid. drawn from the Word preached, makes against him if rightly stated. True, there may be true preaching , though the hearers apply not the Word by faith. But can there be true preaching, where the Minister applies [Page 137]the Word wrong, binding where he should loose, and loosing where he should binde with the Key of Doctrine? No more doth that Minister do his duty, who in the Lords Supper looses where he should binde, and seals comfort to him who is not a visible Saint.

Whereas in the close of pag. 46. he would make us believe there is not one tittle of Scripture to prove the Sacraments to he mans seals,

Answ. 1. He speaks darkly and ambi­guously, as if he would make us believe they were not mans seales because they are Gods seales; by which Logick he might as well prove the Sabbath were not mans because it is Gods, and the Gospel were not mans because it is Gods, yea that nothing were mans because all things were Gods, as if humane propriety contradicted Divine Supremacy.

2. If he mean the Sacraments are not mans seals by institution, That is true, but nothing to his purpose. The broad seal is not mine by institution, yet I may truly say the broad seal is mine, when I have a patent or pardon sealed by it.

3. Doth not the finall cause give as true propriety as the efficient, nay usually [Page 138]more? A seal, a suit, an house, &c. is more his for whom it is made, then his that makes it. God indeed hath a double propriety in the Sacrament, as made both by him and for him, namely to seal his Covenant, &c. but it being made for man also, man hath a true propriety in it, as he for whom either a seal or a meal is made, hath in both. Its ridiculous therefore he would seem at least to assert, The Sacraments are not mans seals, and yet grant pag. 47. They are mans seals in use. Doth he not know that a Sacra­ment extra usum hath no being, and so is neither Gods seal nor mans seal? and that in use it is both Gods seal and mans seal, a seal from God to man, and from man to God?

The Covenant indeed stands sealed by God to ail conditionally, but will that acquit the Church in delivering the signs to all, as Mr. H. would have it pag. 47. Then why may not even Heathen or excom­municated persons receive, to whom the Covenant is offered and sealed conditi­onally?

Again, That the tenour of the Gospel is sealed absolutely by the Sacrament, but not our interest in it, as he notes in the same [Page 139]page, is true in the first branch, but false in the second, since not onely the tenour of the Covenant is sealed absolutely to the worthy Receiver, but also his interest in it. 2. To those who are visibly worthy, the Minister seals their visible interest; which visible interest, because some in the Church have not, therefore the Mi­nister cannot seal it to them by giving them the Elements, but by consecration and application of the Sacrament to others before their eyes, doth seal even to the standers by the tenour of the Go­spel in the Lords Supper, as well as in Baptisme. In both Sacraments the offer of grace is sealed to all, yea even to Hea­then &c. but reall interest is sealed only to reall Saints and worthy Receivers, as visible interest to visible Saints.

Grant the Word speaks not particularly of any mans single interest by name▪ yet it doth by signes, and whosoever findes those signes in himself, hath as true an interest in the Covenant, as if he were mentioned in it by name. The Scripture faith not particularly of Mr. H. that he shall rise at the day of judgement, yet I hope Mr. H. doubts not of his resurre­ction in particular: nor doth the Scrip­ture [Page 140]say Mr. H. shall be saved, yet if Mr. H. have saving faith, it doth as particu­larly assure him of salvation, as if he were mentioned by name, &c. Now the seals run parallel with the Covenant, and assure conditionall salvation to all, visible salvation to visible Saints, reall salvation to reall Saints, to the first by the outward administration, to the second by visible application, to the third by reall and spi­rituall application.

Whereas therefore page 48. Mr. H. pleaseth himself with this Embryon of his own brain, which being formerly conceived by a piercing and godly man converted his opinion, as he saies.

And, if I mistake not, this piercing godly man is far from Mr. H. his judgment of free admissi­on. Ans. 1. I hope that godly person (if so) was converted before Mr. Humphrey his Embryon was hatched. 2. I see little of conversion or piety in admitting all pell mell to the Sacrament. 3. I wish his con­version by entertainment of this opinion, be not like that of the Galatians. Its a common errour in these loose times, to mistake perversion for conversion: Such conversion calls for repentance, which I wish to this godly man.

For further confirmation, pag. 48. he propounds the tenour of the Covenant [Page 141]in a syllogism, thus, He that believes shall be saved; adde, I believe, Ergo, I shall be sa­ved. Then he denies that the Sacrament seals either the minor or the conclusion.

Answ. The Sacrament seals what the Covenant of grace promises, but the Covenant of grace promises (and not on­ly offers) salvation to particular persons, Rom. 10.9. That if thou shalt confess, &c. thou shalt be saved. This is evident by the promise of salvation to believers in gene­rall, Mark. 16.16. John 3.16. What is promised to a whole kinde, is promised to every particular of that kinde. Let Mr. H. tell me how the Sacrament seals the offer of grace to him in particular, and I will tell him how it may also seal the promise of grace or salvation to him or any else in particular. Where is it said in Scripture, I offer to thee John Hum­phrey Minister of Froome, &c. grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; will Mr. H. yet deny the offer of grace is made as particularly to him, as if he had been named in Scripture? Or where is it said, Thou John Humphrey shalt not commit adultery, &c. yet doth not that command reach him as particularly as if he were named? He that saies, Omnis homo est [Page 142]animal rationale, doth he not as truly say that Mr. H. is Animal rationale, as if he had mentioned him by name? In like manner, when the Scripture saies, All that believe shall be saved, doth it not say, that Mr. H. believing shall be saved? If therefore Mr. H. de facto do believe, it promises salvation as particularly to him as if he were mentioned by name; or that I believing shall be saved, as if my name were in the promise. Where the condition is performed, there the promise is absolute; but when I believe, the condition is performed, Ergo, the promise, That I shall be saved, is absolute. This premised, I resume, What the Co­venant promiseth, that the Sacrament seals. The Covenant promises that I shall be saved in particular, Ergo, the Sacra­ment seals that I shall be saved in parti­cular: But this is the conclusion which Mr. H. denied to be sealed by the Sacra­ment.

Next for the minor of his syllogisme namely, That I believe, I shall prove against him, that this is also sealed in the Sacrament, not to all Receivers, but to all worthy Receivers, thus, as formerly, What the Covenant ensures, that the Sa­crament [Page 143]seals; the Covenant assures me that I believe; Ergo, the Sacrament seals to me that I believe. The minor, which onely is questionable, I prove thus: That which gives to me clear evidence that I believe, that assures me I believe. The Covenant gives me clear evidence that I believe; Ergo. The minor is good, because the Covenant affords infallible signes and evidences of faith in what heart so­ever it is; and so of faith in my heart particularly, or in any other heart what­soever. As therefore by the properties of a man, I may know my self to be a man, so by the properties of faith held forth in the Covenant, I may know my self to have faith. That Gospel which saies, He who receives Christ for righteousness, &c. believes, the same Gospel saies, That I receiving Christ for righteousness do be­lieve, and so by consequence it faith absolutely, that I believe. But what the Covenant affirms, that the Sacrament seals or ratifies; namely, that I believe in particular. And this is the minor which Mr. H. denies to be sealed by the Sacra­ment.

For clearer explication, consider that the minor or assumption of the Syllogism [Page 144]of assurance depends partly upon faith, and partly upon sense or experience; upon faith, that the evidence is right in actu signato, and not a false evidence; upon sense or experience, in actu exercito, that this right evidence is in me. For as a false evidence in me, so a right evidence without me, are both equally null and invalid as to assurance. For example, Would I know my faith is right, and thereby come to assurance that I am in the state of grace? I must look into the Word by a direct act of my understand­ing for a true and undoubted evidence of faith, and into mine own heart by a reflex act, whether that true evidence of saving faith be indeed in me. As in the Syllogisme of assurance about my parti­cular resurrection at the day of judge­ment, the major, That all men shall rise, is in tearms in Scripture: the minor, That I John or Roger am a man, is not expresly in Scripture, but depends partly upon faith, as to the essentiall notes of a man recorded in Scripture, partly upon sense, I finding by a reflex act, that those essen­tiall signes of humanity are in me; from both which the conclusion flows necessa­rily, that I in particular shall rise at the [Page 145]day of judgement. And indeed, had not a conclusion drawn partly from faith and partly from sense been firm, Christs ap­paritions had not been a solid argument to confirm the resurrection, which yet he proves partly by Scripture out of Mo­ses, the Prophets and Psalmes; partly by sense and experience, Luk. 24 39, 46. and though it be possible in some cases sense may be deceived, yet a man in his right wits may easily know that hic & nunc sense is not deceived: And were not this true, no man could possibly be convinced of his estate, or that he is a sinner, or that his life is frail and short, or that faith and repentance is his duty, or any other Divine truth that concerns himself in particular, since its no where said in Scripture, Thou Roger art a sinner, thy life in particular is frail and short, faith and repentance is thy duty; but all these in Scripture are expressed onely in gene­rall tearms. Yet I hope its as true de fide that faith and repentance is my duty, as if the Scripture should say, Thou Roger must believe and repent, &c. The major then in the Syllogisme of assurance is in tearms de fide. The minor also (as to the truth of the evidence) is expresly de fide, [Page 146]but as to the inbeing of the evidence, it depends upon sense and experience; the conclusion is de fide by necessary conse­quence, though not in express tearms. Now whatsoever is de fide, that is sealed in the Sacrament; so are all three Propo­sitions in the Syllogisme (though the minor is partly of faith and partly of sense) therefore all three Propositions of the Syllogisme of assurance are sealed by the Sacrament; contrary to Mr. H. his Assertion. And since the minor in the Syllogisme of assurance (namely, that I believe) is the conclusion in the pros-Syllogisme, it follows necessarily, that this Proposition (I believe) is de fide by consequence, though not de fide in tearms.

Object. The Sacrament supposeth as­surance, and therefore doth not work assurance; It supposeth I believe and re­pent (which therefore must be made out by previous examination) doth not evi­dence that I believe and repent, and therefore doth not seal the minor or as­sumption in the Syllogisme of assurance.

Answ. 1. As the Sacrament works grace, so it works assurance of grace, and as it is a means of grace, so it is a [Page 147]means of assurance. Now the Sacrament (as received) is not a means of initiall but of progressive grace, doth not beget grace at first by regeneration, but increase and strengthen grace by nourishment and confirmation, partly by acting grace, and partly by holding forth, applying, and sealing the promises of the Covenant to every worthy Receiver. What there­fore the Word doth audibly (in order to confirmation) that the Sacrament doth visibly; what the Word applies generally, that the Sacrament applies particularly; what the Word applies by one sense, that the Sacrament applies by all our senses, and therefore must needs be a more po­werfull means of assurance then the Word. The Word indeed is the instru­mentall cause of initiall grace, and ordi­narily of initiall assurance: but the Sa­crament may be sometimes the means of initiall assurance, and ordinarily is the means and instrument of progressive as­surance. My meaning is, that whosoever comes to the Sacrament rightly prepared, having both truth of grace and the evi­dence of grace, this man or woman shall go away from the Sacrament with more degrees of grace, and clearer evidence of [Page 148]grace; and he or she that comes to the Lords Supper with the worthiness of per­son, and of preparation, though haply he may want evidence, yet may go away from the Sacrament triumphing in the assurance of Gods love. He that comes to the Sacrament with the Prophets fear, I am undone, &c. may go away from it with this assurance, Thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged, Isa. 6.5, 7. As I at the Sacrament assure God of my obe­dience, so God at the Sacrament assures me of his love; and if I be reall in my assurance as to uprightness, God is as reall in his assurance as to my comfort, Psal. 18.25. God in an especiall manner in the Sacrament delights to shew himself upright with the upright; and then if ever leads his Spouse into the wine cellar or ban­quetting house, and spreads his banner of love over her, Cant. 2.4. When she is sick of love, then he staies her with flagons, and comforts her with apples; His left hand is under her head, and his right hand doth im­brace her. Then in an especiall manner he kisseth her with the kisses of his mouth, Cant. 1.1. and though Judas did, Jesus will never give a treacherous kiss.

The major himself grants is sealed in [Page 149]the Sacrament, the minor and conclusion we have proved to be sealed in the Sa­crament. Whereby it appears that the whole Syllogisme of assurance is sealed by the Sacrament to the worthy Recei­ver, but onely the major Proposition to persons really unworthy. Withall, here­by it is evident, that the Sacrament is not onely Gods seal, but also the seal of faith and of the beleever, whatever Mr. H. pretends to the contrary. And so I pass to the fifth Objection, pag. 49.

Object. 5. The Covenant belongs not to all, therefore the Seals neither.

Mr. H. answers, The Covenant belongs to all conditionally, according to the tenour of the Gospel, that whosoever believes shall be saved.

Answ. So the Sacrament belongs to all conditionally, but onely to worthy Re­ceivers absolutely. Pag. 50. he saves me a labour, and answers himself in these words, If you will resolve to accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour, to forsake sin, &c. lo here is the seal of God on his part, &c. Here indeed he shews, That as the Co­venant, so the Sacrament belongs to all conditionally. But what if most do not, will not accept of Christ, &c. (which is [Page 150] de facto the case of grosly ignorant and profane persons) will Mr. H. invite these also to receive the Seals together with the former?

Hear him in his own words, pag. 51. To speak sincerely, if we should propose two men, one that is not in Covenant with Christ, and one that is, this Sacrament doth more ingenuously belong unto the first, &c. If this be not a rare and new Light, I know not what is. Now you have the man painted by himself in his own colours. Come ye drunkards, whoremasters, mur­derers, and all the rabble of hell, here is sincere and comfortable Doctrine for you indeed, The Sacrament doth more inge­nuously belong to you then to any that are in covenant with Christ. I but Mr. H. means this, in case they now resolve to enter into Covenant with Christ, ibid. Absurd, and a contradiction in adjecto, as if he who in truth resolves to enter into Cove­nant with Christ, were not at that very instant in covenant with Christ. He would say, if he could hit it, The Sacrament belongs more properly to weak then to strong beleevers: but by an ill gloss he corrupts the Text, and instead of a weak beleever renders one out of Covenant, [Page 151]and for a strong beleever, one in Cove­nant. We grant, the duty of the Covenant belongs to all, but not the promise of the Covenant till its duty be performed. In like manner, preparation belongs to all, but not actuall receiving till that duty be performed. All are not bid to eat abso­lutely, but so to eat, 1 Cor. 11.28.

In the same page by distinguishing the Covenant from its benefit, he seems to make a distinction without a difference, as if the benefit of the Covenant were not an essentiall part of the Covenant. Haply by Covenant he means the duty or condi­tion of the Covenant which indeed is of epidemical concernment: yet because in the same place he speaks of a free tender and offer; that crosses this construction, and seems to carry it, that by Covenant there, must be meant the benefit of the Cove­nant which is tendred conditionally to all; but then what sense can be made of his distinction, The benefit of the Covenant belongs not to any out of Christ, but the Covenant it self belongs to all, that is, the benefit of the Covenant (as his sense car­ries it) belongs to all? Is not here a con­tradiction in terminis? The benefit of the Covenant belongs not to any out of Christ, [Page 152]yet the benefit of the Covenant belongs to all. If it belongs to all, how doth it not be­long to any out of Christ? contrà, if it be­longs to none out of Christ, how doth it belong to all? But no wonder he falls into self-contradiction, who will venture to contradict the truth.

Rep. He would say Sacra­ment.But what right doth this give him to the Covenant? Pag. 52. M. H. distingui­sheth of a right of Obligation and a right of Priviledge; and as to the former he there avouches an Ʋniversall 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 [Page 153]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: [Page 154]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; its only so by way of signification and obsigna­tion, not by way of causality. In regene­ration [Page 155]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 [Page 156]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 [Page 157]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 [Page 158]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 himself, &c. for he that is converted by actuall receiving doth not eat judgement but mercy. 2. Suppose a man should be converted by that short exhortation, take, since that may be done by presence at the Sacrament without actuall receiving, how will it follow that all must receive because some may be converted by the exhorta­tion to receive; any more then that all must be assured of their salvation, because some are comforted by the exhortation to assurance, which is not immediatly the du­ty, nor at all the priviledge of unconver­ted persons in statu quo.

Page 66. For further proof, He supposes a morall unregenerate man doth his best to prepare himself: thence he infers, Do [Page 159]we think now, to such a man the Ordinance is necessarily fruitlesse, &c. then God help us. Shall not his examination, prayers, &c. con­duce more to convert him then the bare preaching of a Sermon, especially considering the Word doth but precede and is a part of the Sacrament, Accedit verbum ad Ele­mentum, &c.

Answ. 1. No naturall man ever doth his best to prepare himself. 2. Notwithstan­ding all his preparatory acts he hath still the unworthinesse of person, he coming (as is supposed) unconverted to the Sacra­ment. 3. Therefore he comes to the feast without the wedding garment, and whe­ther conversion or confusion be the por­tion of such a guest let the text judge, sup­posing (as M. H. would have it) the mar­riage feast be the Lords Supper. We be­lieve no Ordinance is the feast, but rather the dish wherein the feast is served. 4. I wonder M. H. should attribute more to a few dead acts of a naturall man, then to the Word preached which is the great Ordinance set apart for the conversion of souls, Acts 26.16, 18. Rom. 10.14, 17. as if he designed to advance nature and free­will above grace. 5. Because he adds, I but the word accompanies the Sacrament, what [Page 150]followes thence but that any one may be present to hear and see, but only worthy communicants are to receive? and unlesse he can make out that actuall receiving of the Elements is a converting Ordinance,Actuall receiving is neither a word, nor an act of God, but meerly an act of the crea­ture, and an out­ward act too, and therefore hath not a cōverting power in it. all he pleads from the antecedaneous acts will not conclude his free admission, since the fruit of the visible and audible word, or of Christs death declared may be at­tained by presence at the Sacrament though a person do not actually receive. I would not here be mistaken as if I plea­ded for a Sacrament without receivers, which is a contradiction in adjecto, but I see no warrant in the word why the whole Congregation should not stay at the ad­ministration of the Lords Supper (and that with much profit) as well as at the admi­nistration of Baptism, though all do not partake: nor can I look at their ancient Ite, missa est, as a divine precept, but as an hu­mane tradition.

For his instance pag. 57. Of a poor hum­bled soul hoping to meet Christ at the Sacra­ment, &c.

I answer: 1. If his humiliation and hope be right, he is a worthy receiver and already converted, and so not a fit in­stance or medium to prove M. H. his con­clusion. [Page 161]If his hope and humiliation be not right, then he is in the condition of the former, and by his hypocrisie drawes fur­ther guilt upon himself.

2. This poor soul if rightly humbled, hungers after Christ, rouls upon him and adheres to him, which are proper acts of saving and justifying faith, though he can­not rise up to faith of evidence; nor can any man avoid despair unlesse he lean up­on Christ or somewhat else. All which clearly prove this person to be converted, and that therfore the Sacrament is to him only a means of edification and comfort.

His third instance pag. 58. of the Disci­ples of Emaus, is to as little purpose as the two former; unlesse he can prove 1. That then they were in the state of nature. 2. That that breaking of bread was the Sa­crament, Luk. 24.30. 3. That they were converted by that breaking of bread: Di­ctates so absurd, that the very naming of them may be a sufficient confutation.

Although a man may be converted at, Rep. Pag. 58. it is not by the Sacrament, it is occasional­ly, but not intentionally a converting Or­dinance.

Here (before I proceed any further) I must tell M. H. he frames an Objection [Page 162]for us very unhandsomely. A converting Ordinance occasionally, not intentional­ly, little better then a contradiction, the very notion of an Ordinance implying di­vine ordination or appointment of any thing by his revealed will as a means of conversion, edification, comfort and be­nefit to the creature; and how this can be properly called a not intentionally con­verting Ordinance, is to me a paradox. Let him prove actuall receiving to be a converting Ordinance, and we shall not doubt but it is so intentionally.

To the Reply M. H. answers, That it being granted, the matter is upon the point yeelded, partly because none are expresly for­bidden to come, and partly because all occa­sions must be taken for our salvation.

Answ. 1. The cause is not yeelded un­lesse it be proved, that actuall receiving is a converting Ordinance, since the end of conversion may be attained by presence at the Sacrament without receiving, but the danger of eating and drinking unwor­thily cannot be incurred without recei­ving, 1. Cor. 11.27, 29. which yet hath no influence in order to conversion. By pre­sence much benefit may be gained with­out danger of unworthy receiving, by re­ceiving [Page 163]much guilt may be contracted without hopes of benefit to the unconver­ted.

Secondly, If receiving be a converting Ordinance, how dares M. H. exclude either Children, distracted or excommunicated persons from it, especially since these have most need of it, and those are best taught by sense who have not so free an exercise of reason? Yea why should Heathen be de­nied the Lords Supper more then the word preached, if it be a converting Or­dinance? Are not they also bound to use all means and take all occasions of con­version, to use M. H. his own words?

But if all hath been said will not take with us, M. H. at last hath found out a way, wholly to root out this subtilty which he thinks the spirit of errour hath insinuated into the hearts of many godly men, by three things he hath more to say, &c.

Answ. By the way observe this mans presumption and censoriousnesse; 1. In charging so many godly persons to be a­cted with a spirit of errour in this parti­cular. 2. In his confident undertaking wholly to root it out by what he hath to say, which though mountains in his own conceit, yet when they come to be scan­ned, [Page 164]we hope by Gods assistance to make appear they scarce deserve the name of molehills; and with a sling and stone of Gods making, fear not to incounter with this great and vaunting Goliah, who by big words bids defiance to 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 [Page 165]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 its 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 its 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 [Page 166]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 [Page 167]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 [Page 168]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. Its 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 [Page 169]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. Its 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 [Page 170]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, that presence, not participation is requi­site.

3. His Simile is very lame; nor doth it follow, that because we may give A­qua vitae to a dying man, therefore we may give Calix vitae to a dead man, since a dying man hath life to be preserved, not so a dead man.

In the close of his Reply, in his third Edition he adds three pages by way of explication, pag. 69. which I must take a little pains to scan and sift.

And 1. He makes confirmation of the Covenant a primary end, confirmation of our faith a secuodary end of the Lords Supper.

Answ. I wish Mr. H. did not shew himself as little skill'd in Morality as in Logick. Let him tell me seriously (for no doubt, being Maister of Arts, he hath spent some time at the University in Eth­icks as well as in Logick) Is not the [Page 171]principall or last End the primary End? and subordinate Ends are not they se­condary Ends? If so, then the next question will be, Whether the confirma­tion of the Covenant be not subordinate to the confirmation of our faith? In plain tearms, Whether Gods end in confirming the Covenant by the Sacrament as a Seal, be not to confirm the faith of the wor­thy Receiver? If so, then the confirma­tion of the Covenant hath the notion of a means in order to the confirmation of faith as an End. Now let Mr. H. him­self judge whether confirmation of faith be not a primary End, and confirmation of the Covenant a secondary End, quite contrary to his former Assertion?

In his following words he would very fain (by compliance and some concessi­ons) court us into his own opinion, that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance though but eventually; Which, saies he, pag.71. Will serve to blunt the strength of the Objection.

Answ. He must pardon us if we can­not grant him that, till he can bring us better ground from Scripture and reason then yet we can see. 2. Grant the pre­vious actions of prayer, explication, and [Page 172]exhortation, may be converting (upon which we yeeld an universall presence at the whole Ordinance) yet unless Mr. H. can prove, that actuall receiving doth convert, our Argument (drawn from the non-converting power of the Sacra­ment) is not blunted.

2, Whereas in the same Page he adds, When I say its a means of converting some, I take it in its full administration, requi­ring duties before, in, and after receiving.

An. Then belike conversion depends more upon our preparation, celebration, and after carriages, then upon the Sacra­ment as an Instrument. Here is a plain faulter; for a converting Ordinance (when God pleases) will convert, come the subject never so unprepared, yea with never so malicious an heart: And though preparation be necessary for all, necessi­tate praecepti, yet it is not necessary for conversion to any, necessitate medii, wit­ness divers who when they came malici­ously to catch the Minister, have them­selves been caught and converted.

Its more absurd which he adds, That the Sacrament is a means of conversion, by the help of after duty. For besides that, hence its apparent, this Receiver was not [Page 173]converted at the Sacrament, and so did but eat and drink judgement to himself. Will it not by this rule follow, that even unworthy receiving it self, is a means of conversion, since by after duty a man may be brought to a sight of his great sin, and thereby may be humbled and converted? May not any sin by this Do­ctrine be a means of conversion, or (in Mr. H. his phrase) a converting Ordi­nance, since by after carriage a man may be brought to a sight and sense of his sin, and so converted? We say, unworthy receiving, and so other sins may be occa­sions, but net means of conversion. God can make an antidote of poyson, but he is mad who upon that account will ven­ture to drink poyson.

In the same Page he adds, Then I hold that we who are baptized into the Church, and are bred up to a generall faith (such as it is) not without its fruits; and so have a right unto the Ordinance, coming as pre­paredly as we can, and bewayling our un­preparedness, may finde grace in the sight of God, even to the bestowing of a speciall justifying faith for our inward effectuall conversion in the use of it. The main har­vest in this field of Boaz belongs to his own [Page 174]reapers, yet I would afford some gleanings for poor Ruth the Moabitess, and suffer many a doubtfull, penitently inclined, yet unregenerate soul, to come up even to the sheaves, hoping my fellow labourers will not grudge at it, though I have let fall some handfulls too on purpose for them.

Answ. Its a novell expression to say we are baptized into the Church; we reade of baptizing into Christ, but not in Scripture of baptizing into the Church; is it not as absurd, Baptizari in Ecclesiam, as Credere in Ecclesiam?

2. How many are not so much as bred up to a generall faith, but are as ignorant as the very Indians, that never heard of Christ?

3. What fruits have many bred up to a generall faith, unless it be open pro­faness, scoffing at Religion and Duties both publick and private: Shall not these (against his generall Assertion) be exclu­ded by Mr. Humphrey his own present verdict?

4. What naturall man ever did his ut­most to come preparedly? and therefore by Mr. H. his own principle held forth to this Paragraph, 1. Ought not to receive. And 2. Cannot be converted by recei­ving. [Page 175]3. His allusion to the case of Ruth, is 1. Absurd. 2. Impertinent. Absurd, in that he saies, The main harvest in this field of Boaz belongs to his own reapers. This in the Letter is false, since the har­vest belonged not to the reapers, but to Boaz himself; it belonged no more to the reapers, then to the oxen or asses that carried it away to Boaz his barn, nay haply not so much. 2. Its imperti­nent, as misapplied, he comparing unre­generate persons to Ruth the Moabitess, and yet forgetting himself, he tells us, these unregenerate persons are penitently inclined. His meaning seems to be, They are Heathen as unregenerate, and yet Christians as Professors and penitently in­clined.

Ans. Such Ruths we shall not grudge if he let some handfuls fall unto them. We undertake not to judge of mens hearts whether they be regenerate or not, but proceed by the rule of visibility, and shall willingly admit persons peni­tently inclined; but are withall satisfied, that persons grosly ignorant or scanda­lous are not in statu quo penitently incli­ned, and therefore by Mr. H. his own principles, are not to be admitted as re­ceivers [Page 176]of the Lords Supper, though they may be present, and that with great ad­vantage, at the whole Ordinance.

Object. 7. Judas received not the Lords Supper, &c.

To evade the force of this Objection, Mr. H. in two leaves takes some pains, though to small purpose, to prove that Judas received. His ground is, Because Judas was present at the Lords Supper, and Christ bid all present to receive. Com­pare Luk. 22.21. Matth. 27.27. & Mark 14.23. where its said, They all drank of the Sacramentall Cup.

Answ. 1. Its the judgement of divers learned, that Judas did not receive. 2. Grant him present at the Sacrament, it follows not thence, that he did receive. 3. Christ bidding all to receive must be limited onely to those all for whom he shed his blood for remission of sins, as is evident in the words that accompany the tender of the Cup. Compare Mat. 26.28. and Luke 22.20. But Christs blood was nor shed for Judas for the remission of sins, ergo, the Sacrament was not tende­red to him▪ 4. It seems probable that Christ excluded Judas in particular in those words Luke 22.21. But behold, the [Page 177]hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the table. As if he should have said, What hast thou (who art a Traytor) to do to receive among my faithfull Disci­ples? 5. Supposing be did receive, 1. Christ acted (in admitting him) as a particular Minister, who alone cannot exclude any. 2. Before and at receiving he told him home his sin and danger, which I believe Mr. H. doth not to every Judas that re­ceives at his Sacrament. Judas his instance then will not favour Mr. H. his free Ad­mission.

Object. 8. Unworthy Receivers are guilty of Christ blood, and eat their own damnation; therefore we must not allow free admission.

To this Mr. H. answers, That it cannot concern the admitters and joyners, &c.

Answ. It concerns the admitters, if any partake who are visibly unworthy, and the joyners if they know them to be unworthy, and do not complain; the rule being, that a man must receive [...], but not absolutely, 1 Cor. 11.28.

Whereas p. 68. he adds, Every one is to examine himself, if he do not, he receives his own damnation, not ours, who do our duty, &c. [...], 1 Corinth. 11.29. (not [...].)

[Page 178] Answ. 1. Every main is to examine himself, and so to eat; but where is it said absolutely, Let every man eat? We must minde him of [...], ver. 28. as well as he mindes us of [...], ver. 29.

2. The Apostles words are not to be understood restrictively and exclusively, as if self examination excluded Church examination, or as if self prejudice ex­cluded prejudice to my neighbour; as is evident by comparing Rom. 14.12. where giving an account to God, excludes not giving an account to man, for then chil­dren and servants might refuse to give any account to their parents or masters.

3. Though it be haply an improper expression to say, I eat judgement to an­other, yet undoubtedly another mans unworthy receiving may be charged upon me, when I have power to prevent it and do not. I think (as perfect as Mr. H. is) both himself and the best of Gods people had need pray every day, Lord forgive me my other mens sins; especially State and Church Officers.

4. Its as absurd in reason and Divi­nity, by an affirmative to exclude a ne­gative, as it is by a negative to exclude an affirmative: to say, I must examine [Page 179]my self, therefore another must not exa­mine me; or to say, Another must exa­mine me, therefore I must not examine my self: or to say, I eat judgement to my self, therefore not to another, as to say, I eat judgement to another, there­fore not to my self. Most sins and duties are reciprocall; and as guilt, so duty is usually relative as well as personall.

Rep. But you will say, If a man drink poyson, shall not I be guilty of his blood, un­less I hinder him &c.

To this Mr. H. answers, 1. Not, unless I have a quum possum. 2. He wonders any should compare the Sacrament to a cup of poyson, seeing it is in its own nature a cup of blessing. 3. That it is more then we can know or ought to judge, that it proves death to any. 4. That as the Word may be preached to all (though often it prove the savour of death) so the Sacrament may be administred unto all, leaving the issue to God, &c. This for the admitters part, pag. 68.70.

Answ. 1. His quum possit must be un­derstood either of a naturall or a morall ability. I believe that whoever hath a naturall, hath at the same time a morall ability to hinder his brother from mur­dering himself by poyson. In plain Eng­lish, [Page 180]whoever can, ought to hinder his brother from drinking of poyson. Cains Religion may be indeed, Am I my brothers keeper? but Christs Religion is, He that saves not life, destroyes it. I must preserve my neighbours life by all lawfull means; but undoubtedly its a lawfull means by violence to hinder my neighbour from self murder.

2. His wonder deserves to be wonder­ed at. If one mans corporall food be another mans poyson (though in it self wholsome, as Cheese, &c.) why may not one mans spirituall food be another mans poyson? Nay, the same food is at one time good nourishment, at another time poyson to the same man, namely flesh, &c. in a strong feaver. The same Word is a favour of life and a savour of death, and why not the same Sacrament, and what is a deadly savour but poyson? Christ is a precious corner stone to some, a stone of stumbling to others; and if Christ per­sonall be so, why not Christ Sacramen­tall?

3. If I may know and judge when the Word is poyson to any, why not as well, yea better, when the Sacrament is poy­son? I may know the Word is so by its [Page 181]effects or consequents: I may know the Sacrament is so, both by its causes and effects; as if a grosly ignorant or profane person come to receive, and if after re­ceiving I see a man as bad or worse then formerly.

4. As the Word may be preached be­fore all, so the Sacrament may be admi­nistred before all, but as the Word is not applied by all, nor divers parts of it ap­plicable to all, so neither ought the Sa­crament to be applied to all by actuall receiving. If any man will give his neigh­bour poyson, and leave the issue to God, the Magistrate may more justly give him an halter, and leave the issue to God.

Next Mr. H. proceeds to the Receivers part, and tels us, pag. 70. That a double duty is required of him, 1. A principall, Do this. 2. An accessory, Let a man exa­mine himself. We are bound to come. and to come worthily. If a man fails in the one, and is not sufficiently prepared, I dare not say that he must keep (I am sure it will not excuse him) from the other, &c.

Answ. 1. Let the Reader note how absurdly Mr. H. makes receiving to be the principall duty, and actuall worthi­ness but accessory. What carnall Divinity [Page 182]is this, to make the matter and carkass of a duty the principall, and the spirit of a duty accessory; the form of godliness the principall and the power of godli­ness the accessory? Is not this principall Divinity, and very pleasing to some of Mr. H. his principall Receivers?

2. His doubtfull, expression about co­ming, though unprepared, evidences his hesitancy about that particular, and not without just cause. True, he that is bound to come, is bound to come wor­thily; but not, contra, he that is bound to come worthily, is bound to come ab­solutely, no more then he that was bound to come circumcised and pure to the Passeover, was bound to come abso­lutesy. Every Jew was bound to be cir­cumcised, pure, and so to come to the Passeover; but had he neglected Circum­cision and Purification, he was not to eat the Passeover at that time. In like man­ner, every Christian is bound to be, 1. Habitually worthy. 2. Actually wor­thy. 3. And so to receive, 1 Cor. 11.28. yet is not bound to receive, but rather to abstain if he want either of the for­mer. The Apostle doth not say, Let a man eat absolutely; but so let him eat.

[Page 183]3. Sinfull unpreparedness will not ex­cuse a man from guilt, but unprepared­ness either sinfull or lawfull, will excuse him from receiving. A negative unpre­paredness will excuse children and those who have urgent and just occasions that hinder them from receiving; not so pri­vative unpreparedness. He that travelled of purpose to avoid the Passeover, sin­ned; not so he who had just and neces­sary occasions to travell, Numb. 9.10, 13. But be unpreparedness negative or priva­tive, that man at present ought not to receive, though he sin in bringing a sin­full necessity of abstinence upon himself. None are threatned simply for not recei­ving, but all are threatned in case they receive unworthily.

For further explication and confirma­tion, Mr. H. propounds three Quaeries.

Qu. Whether the very eating and drinking of an unworthy Receiver be dam­nation? He means, Whether it deserve damnation? He answers, by distinguishing between the act of receiving, which is good, and the unworthiness, which makes the sin onely; and concludes, That his abstinence from, is a greater sin then his unworthy receiving of the Sacrament, &c. pag. 71.

[Page 184] Answ. 1. Receiving is alwaies a sin in him that is unworthy, 1. Because he cannot but receive unworthily, but that act which cannot be abstracted from sin­full pravity in dominion, is necessarily sin. 2. Because he is threatned, but God threatens for nothing but sin. Eating is not in it self a sin, yet for a common per­son to eat the sin-offering, was a sin: So receiving simply is no sin, but an unwor­thy person cannot receive without sin. There is no sinfull act in the world, but notionally you may abstract sinfulness from it, but really you cannot when it comes to be acted; no more can you from an unworthy persons receiving, which is sinfull, 1. In the manner. 2. As prohi­bited to such a person in statu quo. He is bound indeed to get worthiness, and then to receive: but he is not bound to receive till he be Evangelically worthy. As a naturall man ought first to get grace and then assurance, but not to study assu­rance without grace.

2. Abstinence from the Sacrament ari­ses out of contempt, or from a grounded evidence and consciousness of Evange­licall unworthiness. The former is more sinfull then bare receiving; the latter is [Page 185]warrantable, yea commendable, 1. If it humble the man, though but legally. 2. If it put him upon care and diligence to prepare for the next Sacrament.

2. Qu. pag. 72. His second Quaere is, Whether receiving the Sacrament unwor­thily is otherwise damnable then praying and hearing unworthily?

Answ. It is, and that 1. Because pray­ing and hearing are universall duties, I mean for all sorts, be they children, di­stracted, or excommunicated, or other­wise unworthy, so is not receiving in Mr. H. his own judgement. 2. Because praying and hearing are means of conver­sion, so is not actuall receiving. His su­perstructure upon the coutrary supposi­tion I omit, since that will tumble down of it self, the foundation failing.

3 Qu. His third Quaere, pag.74. is, Whether an unregenerate man conceiving himself not worthy, must never come to the Sacrament for fear of eating his damnati­on? The summe of his Answer is, That upon the same ground he must also abstain from hearing, since he cannot but hear sin­fully, and so provoke God, &c.

Answ. 1. Not so, unless it can be pro­ved the Sacrament is a converting Ordi­nance.

[Page 186]2. Grant some parts or acts at the Sa­crament may convert, this proves onely that all may and ought to be present, to see and hear Christ crucified; but it makes nothing for actuall receiving, which ever makes an unworthy person eat damnati­on, and therefore doth not convert him. He that hears unworthily may be conver­ted, not so he that receives unworthily, at that time.

3. In the close of this Quaere, He can put no medium between receiving unwor­thily, and an open refusing to receive. I shall therefore help him at a dead lift, and intreat so much charity of him, as to believe that all abstainers are not open refusers and tramplers upon the blood of Christ, no more then he who forbore the Passeover being in a journey, or unclean was. Yea some godly persons, but out of fear of unworthiness, dare not sometimes come; will he say these trample upon Christs blood? Why may not legall con­viction fright a naturall man, as well as a godly man from receiving? Sense of unworthiness may prevail upon a Demas as well as upon a Nathanael, and make him affraid of the signes as well as of the thing signified, yet neither of them at [Page 187]that time like swine trample upon the blood of the Covenant, but think it in­sinitely too good for them.

In his new Edition, pag. 85. he inserts three pages more for amplification of the eighth Objection. He takes upon him to answer a question of his own propound­ing. His Question is misty, and his An­swer is in part false. The summe of his Answer is, The alteration is made onely in us, the seal is the same, and what is sealed is the same.

Answ. Is not here an apparent falsity, as to the latter branch of the Answer, unless he will make salvation and damna­tion to be one and the same thing? If salvation be sealed to the worthy, dam­nation to the unworthy Receivers, then surely though the seal be the same, yet what is sealed is not the same thing. As (to use his own similitude) though the Sun be the same, yet the sunshine and the shadow, or light and darkness are not the same, but privative contraries. But no wonder if loose principles produce such loose conclusions.

Rep. But suppose a poor soul doubts of his faith, does this bring any relief to him uncertain of the Condition?

[Page 188]Answ. Methinks it doth; the condition of the Covenant may be considered as in esse, already wrought in us, or in fieri, as to be done or performed of us. The Receiver seals not necessarily to the condition in esse, but in fieri obliging himself for the future to believe and obey, &c.

Answ. 1. True, the Sacrament may bring relief to a doubting soul, who hath indeed truth of grace, but doubts of it. But what relief can it bring to one that doubts groundedly, and hath no grace at all? 1. It cannot convert him (understand me still of actuall receiving) as hath been formerly shewed. 2. It cannot confirm him, unless it be in sin, by sealing judge­ment to him. For can he be confirmed in grace who hath no grace at all?

2. Where he saies, The Receiver seals not necessarily to the condition in esse, but in fieri, I answer, He seals as neces­sarily (in point of duty) to the condition in esse or de praesenti, as in fieri or de futuro, and that man who ingages not to believe at present, plaies the hypocrite in inga­ging to believe hereafter. It is not with elicit as with imperate acts; in the for­mer, he that truly wills them, doth in part perform them, whence Divines [Page 189]make a true desire of faith one degree of faith, and he that in truth desires and resolves to beleeve hereafter, may as well act that resolution now, since faith it self as well as the resolution of faith is an act of the will. And this M. H. would speak in those words, Page 86. If he resolve now for the time to come without procrastination to walk according to the Covenant. Is not faith the first step of this walk ? He that resolves in truth to beleeve, cannot but de­sire to beleeve, and the true desire of faith, is both Scripturally and by the con­sent of Divines one degree of faith.

Thirdly, By the very act of receiving, he seals to faith in esse or de praesenti in point of profession; the very language of his receiving the Elements is, I receive Christ signified and offered to me in parti­cular by them; and therefore he that re­ceives the Elements and doth not act faith at the same instant, he playes the hypocrite wofully, mocks God and Christ, and as the mockers of Christ were guilty of his death, so is every unworthy receiver.

Pag. 86. He proceeds. The faith therefore that is absolutely requisite to a beleever is not assurance, but consists, I take it, of these two things only, 1. An historicall assent to [Page 190]the Gospel, &c. 2. A resolution to submit to the Government of Christ, &c. Let a man then but believe his Creed, and resolve to go on in no known sin, that is the main, &c. pag. 87.

Answ. 1. I easily grant assurance is not absolutely requisite as a means, but only in point of duty (namely that every one is bound to labour after it,) and in order un­to our benè esse or comfort. 2. Against e­very Sacrament a Christian is bound in an especiall manner by soul-searching exami­nation, to make out his evidence; and if he have truth of grace and take pains to search, he will by Gods grace finde so much truth in himself, as may bring him to some assent about his good estate, though usually this assent be much assaulted and weakned with doubting, for removing whereof the Sacrament is an especiall help. But 3. Whereas M. H. professeth to know no other kindes or ingredients of saving or justifying faith, but only an hi­storicall assent and a good purpose or re­solution. 1. I must tell him he is very defe­ctive on the one hand as omitting the spe­ciall act of justifying faith, namely adhe­rence or leaning upon Christ for justify­cation and salvation, which is an act of the [Page 191]will, not of the understanding; nor will his historicall faith for kinde go beyond the faith of hypocrites, yea of devils, Iam. 2.19. and will aggravate a mans damnation if the faith of adherence follow not upon it. 2. I must also tell him he is as excessive on the other in mistaking a good resolu­tion for a constitutive part of faith, which is either an antecedent or a consequent and effect of faith, antecedent if it be a Le­gall, consequent if an evangelicall resolu­tion. I wish M. H. would study fundamen­talls better, before he come to be so criti­call about superstructures.

By his following discourse pag. 89. its apparent he speaks very confusedly about the spirituall estate of a Christian. For 1. He supposeth a man hath not saving grace, and yet that at the same time he is willing to accept of Christ, to leave sin and yeeld to Christs termes, all which are most precious saving graces. Afterwards he compares these graces to a little gold mix­ed with much drosse in a lump of Ore, yet at last concludes God can make grace of these least beginnings, as if at present they were not grace till God does as it were transubstantiate them and turn our water into wine. By all which its apparent the [Page 192]man doth not sibi constare, and no wonder then if he bring his Reader into a laby­rinth.

Object. 9 The Ordinance is polluted if all be ad­mitted.Pag. 76. The summe of his Answer is, That the Ordinance is defiled only to the unworthy receiver, not to the admitters or joyners.

Answ. Though we place no great confidence in this Argument, nor believe the presence or actuall receiving of a wicked person doth simply defile either the Sacrament or the communicants (as had an unclean man eaten of the Passeover, supposing he neither touched any clean person, nor any part of the Passeover but that he ate, that Ordinance had been Levitically polluted only to himself) yet connivance both in the admitters and joyners contracts mo­rall pollution, as he that suffers another to sin (where he may and ought to hinder him, or at least do his endeavour in order thereunto) is partaker of his sin, Lev. 19.17. 1 Tim. 5.22.

His application of Mark. 7.15. and of Pe­ters vision to the Sacrament, is ridiculous, pag. 77. For do we hold that any either person or meat is Levitically unclean? Contra, dares he deny that any person, yea any meat may be morally unclean, name­ly [Page 193]as defiled with sin or occasions of sin, Tit. 1.15. That which enters into the mouth defiles not a man Levitically, but morally it may defile him, and that either by his intemperance or irreligious recei­ving of it, as eating the forbidden fruit de­filed our first parents; and he who when he may hinders not these sins, is himself defiled by sinfull tolleration.

We believe, as well as himself, pag. 79. That the unworthinesse of another should not make the true beleever separate from the Sacrament. Yet if I know another grosly ignorant or prophane, and do not either endeavour to reform or discover him, his unworthy receiving shall be set upon my score alone without any prejudice to the other communicants.

If it be a priviledge of the Gospel to have free Ordinances, and to account no man un­clean in the use of them, ib.

How dares M. H. set a spirituall rayl (as he calls it) about the communion Table, and thereby refine and spiritualize old supersti­tion (to use his own termes,) by keeping from the Sacrament Children and distra­cted persons, who have a better right to it then many prophane ones that his charity can admit, and yet in one breath accuse [Page 194]and condemn us for doing the like to that he allowes in himself? Shall persons nega­tively unworthy be suspended, and persons privatively, yea positively unworthy be admitted? Let him take heed there be not something of the Pharisee and hypocrite in his own heart (to apply his own coun­sell to himself,) 1. In censuring his bre­thren, 2. In doing the same thing for which he censures them.

Pag. 79. But are we not faulty and par­take of other mens sins, if we do not our best to have the leven purged out? and therefore we may not say, Am I my bro­thers keeper? Look they to it.

To this M. H. answers, 1. By way of concession, and that we must tell the Church too, supposing it is in a capacity to hear us. 2. By way of refutation in the same page: But I hope it will not follow that in the mean time we must not receive the Sacrament, &c. It is a plain fallacy (à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) to think our coming to the Sacrament with a wicked man is sin it self, or makes it the sin, or us more guilty of the sin, because we ought to have admo­nished them▪ and laboured their excommuni­cation. Shall omission of one duty excuse from another? Because the leaven is not purged [Page 195]out, must there be no lump. This was, I may humbly say, a too overly surprise of godly M. Burroughs.

Answ. 1. Would one think that M. H. at the same instant would be guilty of that fallacy wherewith he charges us, and with the cut-purse cry stop thief, that himself might the better escape in the croud? Do either our principles or profession cry down the Sacrament absolutely because we are against mixed Sacraments? Or are we against all mixed Sacraments, because we are against the mixed receiving of per­sons visibly unworthy with persons visi­bly worthy? Or do we teach that its simply a sin in one visibly worthy to receive with one or divers persons visibly unworthy?

Wherein then do we and M. H. differ?

Answ. 1. In that he thinks its the duty of all Church-members to receive, be they in what state they will, never so ignorant, wicked and abominable, yea and that vi­sibly too, excepting only Children, distra­cted and excommunicated persons. 2. In that he thinks it the Churches duty to ad­mit all the forementioned persons, waving only the exception.

Contra, We hold that no person really unworthy ought to receive. 2. That no [Page 196]person visibly unworthy ought to be ad­mitted, where there is a juridicall power in the Church to suspend them; which pow­er is de facto in the Presbyterian Churches, but lies not in any one Minister, or in the Congregation it self, but in the Presbytery of each Congregation, and that either so­litary or combined. The Eldership then sins not in admitting persons really un­worthy, provided they have evidence of their visible worthinesse: Particular per­sons sin not in communicating with per­sons visibly unworthy, but only in conni­ving at their visible unworthinesse, by neglecting either to admonish and re­prove you, and (if that will not do in order to their reformation) by neglecting to complain to the Eldership of them, that by the Churches dealing with them they may either be reformed or suspended, and (in case that will not do, and need so require) excommunicated. Let the Reader then take notice how guilty M. H. is of his own fallacy, in making the Reader beleeve we are against all Sacraments, or against all mixed Sacraments, because we judge that persons really unworthy ought not in sta­tu quo to receive, and persons visibly un­worthy should not by the Church be ad­mitted to receive.

[Page 197]Secondly, Though omission of one du­ty do not properly excuse, yet it may make one uncapable of another, as a person im­pure neglecting to purifie himself, was at present uncapable of the Passeover, and by proportion a person either unable or neglecting to prepare himself, is uncapable at present of the Lords Supper. As for M. Burroughs surprise about this particular, I dare not undertake either to charge or vindicate him, till M. H. produce him spea­king for himself. Qui statuit aliquid parte inaudità alterà, aequum licèt statuerit, haud aequus fuerit.

Rep. 2 Are not all ignorant and scandalous persons, swine and doggs, to be rejected and kept from the pearls and holy things of the Sacrament?

M. H. in his Answer questions the termes of Doggs and swine as too harsh in the gene­rall, and thinks unfitnesse is not a just ground of exclusion, and that men are not to be dealt withall as Doggs till juridically censure. That scandalous persons are first to be ad­monished duely, and then (if obstinate) ex­communicated, and that not merely from the Sacrament, but from Christian communion in generall: yet withall he seems doubtfull about the degrees of excommunication, and [Page 198]leaves much to the Churches wifdom, &c. p. 8o, to 82.

Answ. 1. Wading the harsh expressions of Doggs and Swine, though warrantable enough by Scripture; its then enough for us that ignorant and scandalous persons are unfit for the Sacrament, and if M. H. exclude Children, amp;c. because unfit, why may not we exclude both ignorant and scandalous persons upon the same ac­count, since the one cannot, the other will not examine themselves; or if after a sort they examine, yet cannot approve them­selves, which is both the sense of the word and the end of examination; [...] but upon due search will finde the quite contrary, both being under the power of unbelief, or wanting the worthinesse of preparation, though the last may possibly have the worthinesse of person.

Secondly, Neither ignorant nor scan­dalous persons are juridically suspended before admonition and evidence given of their obstinacy.

Thirdly, While he pleads for excom­munication, he cannot be against suspend­sion which is an inferiour degree thereof.

Fourthly, That excommunication ex­cludes from all Ordinances, is gratis di­ctum [Page 199]as hath been before noted.

Obj. 10 The last Objection is from those seve­rall Texts that are alledged for a separa­tion from wicked persons, pag. 82.

Here M. M. grants we must separate from wicked men in their sins and in regard of common familiarity: but denies that any Scripture commands are separation from them in the Sacrament, unlesse in case of excommunication, &c.

Answ. 1. Suspension being a part of ex­communication, in granting separation in case of excommunication, he yields the cause.

Secondly, That Scripture which forbids us to eat with wicked persons, forbids us to receive with them, 1 Cor. 5.11. unlesse the Sacrament can be received without eating: nor is it enough to say that place speaks only of civil and private eating, since eating of the Sacrament is a signe of familiarity as well as eating at our own Tables; and where I can without sin avoid it, I may no more eat Sacramentally then civilly with a scandalous person. This Church Governours may prevent by dis­cipline, and private Christians by informa­tion, by which if they cannot keep away scandalous sinners, these last may comfort [Page 200]themselves in that they have discharged their duty, but ought hot to run away from Christ and his Ordinance because of the presence or partaking of wicked men which they cannot hinder. His instance of conjugall society will not help him, there being an expresse commandment for that in Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.13, 14. not so for mixed communion at the Sacrament with persons visibly unworthy, if it lye in my power to prevent it: And though I sin not simply in receiving with them to which private Christians may sometimes be ne­cessitated; yet I sin if I do not my endea­vour to prevent their receiving who or visibly unworthy and will not be refor­med by admonition.

And this may serve by way of answer to his Reply, pag. 85. whereby he ampli­fies the Objection: And whereas he adds, Now it is one thing to eat at home (an indif­ferent action) where I am left to my own ar­bitration; and another to eat at the Sacra­ment, which 1 am bound unto as a piece of Gods service.

Lanswer. 1. That as eating at the Sacra­ment is a duty, so naturall eating is a duty, which cannot be neglected without guilt of self-murther. 2. As when I can I [Page 201]ought to avoid eating at my own house with a scandalous person, so when I can (without sin) I ought to avoid eating at the Sacrament with a scandalous person. 3. As I ought not to avoid eating with a scandalous person to endanger my life or health, so I ought not with the hazard of my spirituall life and health to avoid Sa­cramentall eating with a scandalous per­son. 4. As when a scandalous person will obtrude himself to my table, I ought by all lawfull means to exclude him, so when the same person will obtrude him­self upon Gods table, I ought by the use of all lawfull means to keep him off, by which if I cannot prevail, I may without guilt eat with him both at my owntable and at the Lords table; and the fault shall lye upon upon him who had power to ex­clued him but would not.

That an excommunicated person is to be excluded in generall from all Christian communion, as M. H. would have it, pag. 85. is 1. False doctrine, 2. Bloudy and cruel do­ctrine, there being nothing in Scripture to warrant it, and much in the rule of cha­rity against it: grant an excommunicated person is dismembred and cast out of the Church, and that he is to be as an Hea­then [Page 202]and a Publican, you cannot deny him the liberties of one without, or of an Hea­then and a Publican; but a Publican might come to the Temple to pray, Luk. 18.10. and an Heathen might come to the Church to hear, 1 Cor. 14.24. Further, since excommunication it self is medici­cinall, why should it not be backt with publike and private exhortations, 1 Cor. 5.5. and 2 Cor. 2.6. and 2 Thes. 3.6, 14, 15. Can it be imagined that his banishment from, will do him more good then his pre­sence at publike Ordinances? And this is the more strong against M. M. who pag. 16. applies 2 Thes. 3.6, 14. to the case of excommunication; and if persons excom­municated must be admonished as Bre­thren, why should they be debarred of pre­sence at the Word preached, one great part whereof is admonition, especially of the unruly, 1 Thes. 5.14. Acts 20.31. Col. 1.28. And certainly if admonition in ge­nerall be an Ordinance, yet applicable to persons excommunicated, is it not then as clear as the Sunne, that excommunication doth not barre a person from all commu­nion or from all Ordinances? the contra­ry to which notwithstanding is one of M. H. his new Lights, p. 85.

[Page 203]But why should I shun an excommuni­cated person more in civil then in sacred society? Compare 1 Cor. 5.11. and 2 Thes. 3.13, 14.

Answ. 1. Because in most parts of sacred society there is not that mutuall familiari­ty which is so great a testimony of per­sonall respect; nay persons may often meet at Ordinances, and yet not so much as know one the other. 2. There is farre more necessity of sacred then of civill so­ciety, whether in way of duty or of means. Excommunicetion excuseth not from du­ty, though it make a person uncapable of some priviledges; nor can anothers excom­munication excommunicate me either from duty or priviledge. Gods children must present themselves before God though Satan himself come in among them, Iob 1.6. and 2.1.

As for those places, Ier. 15.19. and 1 Tim. 5.22. Though they reach not the case of the Sacrament immediatly and in termes, yet they come home to it in a di­rect and naturall consequence, since it concerns Ministers to separate the pre­cious from the vile practically as well as doctrinally, in the Sacrament as well as in other Ordinances: And certainly, they [Page 204]who have power to excommunicate from all Ordinances (as Mr. H. teaches) have much more power to excommunicate from some: and if partiall or graduall Excommunication be an offence, sure its an errour on the right hand; better of­fend in too much lenity then severity. They who have power to deprive of all priviledges, have power to deprive of some, and he that may cast a person out of the Church, may turn him out of the Chancell, as Mr. Humphrey elsewhere phrases it.

From arguing he falls to wishing, p. 86. Let us see whether he be better skill'd in in the Optative then in the Indicative Mood.

1. His first wish is for a Government established in the Church, the neerest in Christian prudence to the Word God.

An. Sir, Your desire is granted in some parts of the Nation; and had it not been in a great measure for the negligence of too many Ministers, and refractoriness of most people, the Government you wish for, might long ere this have been fettled all the Nation over.

2. His second wish is, That the duty of fraternall correption, inspection, and admo­nition, [Page 205]were better known and practised amongst us.

Answ. I can heartily say Amen to this wish also: and hope he will not be trou­bled that this wish is in part granted also; and in particular, that himself is in this discourse made an object of fraternall correption. He that values admonition, is in a fair way to be mended by admoni­tion.

3. His third wish is, That men would look more into their own consciences, and leave the judging of others spirits, hearts, and reynes, alone to the judgement seat of Christ.

Ans. An excellent wish; and had it been as well practised as wished by Mr. H. he would not have been so harsh a censu­rer of his brethren, as this Plea for free admission proves him.

4. His fourth wish is, That though there may be some judging by the fruits, That wise and religious men would be more cautious of countenancing these separations in the visible Church; seeing upon the same ground that you go to gather a Church out of his mixt Congregation, another will ga­ther a separation out of your Church, and so in infinitum, &c.

[Page 206] Answ. I see a good heart is better then a wise head. Could we wish better, and dispute less, how soon should we close in a good agreement? How happy had it been for England, if godly persons had not countenanced separation? But whe­ther Mr. H. his Doctrine or our practice have occasioned it, let the world judge. Had not sinfull mixtures brought us to a Chaos, this spirit of separation had not probably been hatcht in the hearts of Gods Nazarites. A prudent and pious separation had prevented these foolish and sinfull separation. The more Mr. H. and others turn Church-levellers, and lay all common, the more carefull had we need be of our propriety and inclo­sures. Weeds may be tolerated in a Wil­derness or Common, but are intolerable in Christs inclosed Garden, Cant. 4.12. at least weeds in this Garden cannot expect all the priviledges of good herbs. How justly may he at last be lookt at as a weed by our great Husbandman, who contrary to rule and office will cherish weeds in Paradise, where he is set by God to till it, and to keep it.

I have done with Mr. Humphrey, But must indeavour to satisfie one scruple be­fore [Page 207]I shake hands with my Reader.

Object. Do you think all are ignorant or scandalous, who refuse triall hefore the Eldership? If not, how can you deny them the Sacrament?

Answ. God forbid. Yet first, obstinate Refusers give too much occasion of sus­pition in one of the former kinds.

2. Whatever any may pretend against the Government, what is that to the giving an account of their faith or hope to any shall ask it, 1 Pet. 3.15. especially upon just grounds.

3. Do not they suspend themselves, who will keep from the Sacrament rather then submit to a duty so easie, righteous, edifying, and honourable?

4. Whatever may be done by way of extraordinary dispensation (where there is very good evidence of sufficient know­ledge and true piety) yet such consider not what a gap they open to shake, if not break, the whole frame of Government. Who will not pretend conscience to scape triall when such ill presidents shall stand upon record for rules? And whether some few truly godly persons or the whole Church should surfer, I leave it [Page 208]to their judgement who understand how much the whole is to be preferred before divers parts. Let us not study to please our selves, but seek those things which tend to peace and edifying. Yet if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custome, neither the Churches of God, 1 Cor. 11.16.

Deo gloria, Ecclesiae pax & Reformatio.