THE BAR, against Free Admission to the Lords Supper, FIXED. OR, An Answer to Mr. Humphrey his rejoinder, or, Reply.  
By Roger Drake Minister of Peter's Cheap, London.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
This nourishment is with us called the Eucharist; of which none may partake, but he that 1 Believes our Doctrine to be true: 2 Is washed with the laver of Regeneration for the remission of sins: 3 Lives so as Christ hath commanded.  Justin: Martyr Apol. secundâ pro Christianis; sub finem. 1 Cor. 10. 21. 
Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and the table of devils.  
London, Printed for Philip Chetwind. 1656.   

THE PREFACE To the READER.  
IN dispute about verity to contest for victory, and in heat of debate to turn to extremes, is a fault too frequent even among the best: I wish it were excommunicated, or at least suspended.  
My design in this answer to Mr. Humphrey his rejoinder, is (according to my poor talon) to find out and to clear up truth though clouded and sullied (I fear) by the dust raised between us (in these Polemical discourses) through mistake, passion, or prejudice on either hand, which as I will not justify in myself (being conscious, the pen is a slippery piece, as well as the Tongue) so I cannot approve the same in Mr. H. who by putting my words upon the wrack, makes them too often speak what he pleases, and then condemns me as malicious? A charge so improbable, he being a person unknown to me; and who before his rejoinder came forth, never did me any personal wrong, that any indifferent Reader will easily clear me of so foul an aspersion. I confess, I hate his principle of free Admission, nor can his rejoinder extirpate that Antipathy in me against such lose Doctrine, though I love and honour his person. I will not say his rejoinder is a piece of scorn and malice (let me be rather Passive than Active in such kind of Dialect) but sure I am, he deals very unbrotherly with me therein: And therefore (as he confesses in the close) considering our common corruption, he might well expect I should pay him in his own coin.  
But my blessed Lord and Master hath taught me, not to return Evil for Evil, Rom. 12. 17, 21. nor reviling for reviling, 1 Pet. 2. 23.  
It's against my mind and design, that any Gall or Vinegar would drop from my pen; and if any such passage have slipped me, I condemn it before hand. What bitterness he imputes to me in my book, see answered in their proper places. One passage he takes notice of in my preface. My words are these. When I seriously consider his lose principles held forth to the World in this Treatise, with his being so excessively favourable to the loser and prophaner sort, it makes both myself and others apt to suspect his practices may possibly be as lose as his principles.  
Answ. I am very unwilling to speak what I can by way of just Apology for the  expressions, till I be necessitated thereunto. At present, let this suffice.  
1 Lose principles give just suspicion of lose practices.  
Yet 2 I did not charge Mr. H. with lose practices.  
Nor 3 Did I say, I suspected he was guilty of lose Practices; But only, that his lose principles make me and others apt to suspect his practices might possibly be as lose as his principles. Let the Reader judge whether herein I was uncharitable. But to pass this unpleasing subject, The Reader may please to take notice, that by divers concessions in his rejoinder, Mr. Humphrey yields his cause. And 1 By allowing the suspension of persons, ipso jure excommunicate, pa. 21, 22. For they being intelligent Church-members, and not actually excommunicated, yet lawfully suspended as Mr. H. grants, he must needs yield, that some may be suspended though they be not excommunicated.  
2 By allowing self-suspension when a man finds himself wicked and living in sin; provided he resolve to prepare against next Sacrament, page 37.  
And by granting, That unpreparedness may excuse a man from receiving at present; provided his abstinence serve to humble him, etc. page 246.  
We say such a one must abstain; Mr. H. says he may abstain. Shall we contend about that which we think is a duty, and he thinks is lawful?  
3 By asserting, that Sacraments cannot convey unto the soul any thing that is real, but only that which is relative, pag. 41. And that God engages not to give man faith by the Sacrament, pag. 171. If the Sacrament convey nothing real, than it conveys no inherent Grace, and so cannot convert: And if God engage not to give man faith by the Sacrament, than no man can expect Faith from the Sacrament, and so by consequence, no other grace. Upon which it necessarily follows, the Sacrament is no converting Ordinance: and so one great foundation of his free Admission fails him.  
4 By allowing a negative suspension upon prudential grounds, pag. 82, 83. Whence it follows, that in some cases he grants suspension of intelligent Church-members warrantable. And therefore if he cannot receive it upon our grounds, let us entreat him to accept it upon his own account.  
5 By granting, we may compel trial of Church-members by way of Catechism; wherein no man is too old to learn, pag. 60.  
And by allowing private Trial upon charitable suspicion, pag. 92. If Church-Officers may try my fitness as to point of knowledge, surely they may judge of such fitness: And if upon trial I be found so ignorant, as that I can neither examine myself, nor discern the Lords body, may they not suspend me till I have gained more knowledge?  
6 By granting, that a general faith, and acknowledgement of the Gospel, or Covenant of Jesus Christ as the only means to be saved by, is prerequifite to adult Church-membership, and so to the Sacraments, pag. 198. And, that the Conversion of assent, to believe in God, and Jesus Christ, in opposition to all other Religions is necessarily prerequisite to adult Church-membership, and both the Sacraments. Pag. 209. Doth it not hence follow  
1 That grossly ignorant persons (who know neither Christ, the Gospel, nor Covenant) must not be admitted.  
2 That such Persons are scarce so much as Church-members.  
And 3 Doth it not follow from all the forementioned Concessions, that Mr. Humphrey is a better friend to Suspension than the world takes him to be?  
Withal, I observe, that even those who for the substance agree about Suspension as distinct from the greater Excommunication, yet differ about divers circumstances thereof: nor are the best here, in every particular, of one mind. It's Vain to expect it, Tyrannical to exact it, in lesser matters. As Palates, so Judgements are various; that may relish me which hath an ill tang with an other. Oh, that we could bear with, pity and pray more one for an other, Labouring as much as may be to Centre in love and practice, though the Lines of our judgement may in some lesser things be at a distance.  
Two Positions of mine being the chief grounds of difference between Mr. H. and myself, and the arguments for proof of each being scattered in my Bar fixed, I thought fit to sum them up together in this place, for the ease and satisfaction of the Reader.  
The first is, That I hold, The Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance. My grounds are  
1 Because Sacraments presuppose initial Conversion. Should any person desiring the Sacraments declare before sufficient witness that he would not believe in Christ, and that he were resolved to his dying day to live in a known sin, what Minister could admit such an one either to Baptism, or to the Lords Supper? Now that which ever supposeth Conversion, doth never work Conversion.  
2 Because, I no where find in Scripture, that the Lords Supper is a seed of Regeneration, but a meal or feast for nutrition.  
3 Because, there is no promise of Conversion annexed to the Lords Supper.  
4 Because, he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation or judgement to himself; but he that is converted by receiving, sure doth not eat and drink judgement to himself, but grace and mercy. All these laid together seem not only probable, but cogent arguments.  
The second Position is, That no unregenerate person ought to receive the Lords Supper.  
My grounds for this are, 1 Because, receiving cannot convert, but doth prejudice such a one in statu quo.  
2 Because, no natural man can either examine himself, or receive worthily, in the Apostles sense.  
3 Because, Christ forbids such to receive as have fellowship with devils, 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21. But all natural men have fellowship with Devils, Ephe. 2. 2, 3. and 2 Tim. 2. 26. Ergo.  
Others add the following reasons.  
1 Only friends must partake of the Lords Table.  
2 It's the bread of the faithful, and must not be cast to Dogs.  
3 It's a Sacrament of union by charity, which natural men want.  
4 It's spiritual nourishment, and therefore is receptible only by spiritual persons.  
Withal, I entreat the Reader to note, that though with us, the rule of receiving be real worthiness; yet, the rule of Admission is visible worthiness, which consists in competent knowledge, profession of piety, and immunity from scandal.  
It may happily be expected, I should now take Mr. Timson to task: but I must herein crave to be excused, since 1 I want leisure. 2 Love not to ampliate controversies. 3 My present answer to Mr. Humphrey, if solid, will also subvert Mr. Timsons principles, as to the main.  
When I consider the zeal and strictness of the Primitive times, (in which a clear difference was put between the Catechumeni, the Fideles, and the Poenitentes; of which only the middle sort received the Sacrament, though in some cases the Penitents were allowed to see the Lords Supper administered, yet might not receive) I fear we sin on the one hand in point of defect, as their zeal might carry them too far on the other hand in point of excess. In Corporations well ordered, all of the same Society have not equal Privileges; but visible worth is the gradual foundation of Honour and Trust: And why it should not be so in the best of Corporations, I see nothing either in Scripture or Reason to the contrary. The judicious Reader by comparing what hath been writ on both sides, will easily enough discern where the hinge of the Controversy turns, what to choose or refuse in either. I shall only add this in general, That what ever he finds in this, or the former Treatise, of error or weakness, he may be sure that is mine, what ever of truth or strength, that's none of mine, but comes from the fountain of all truth and strength. My scope in this return to Mr. H. his rejoinder, is no way to vent my spleen against Mr. Humphrey, upon whose head I would heap coals of fire to melt him, not to vex him.  
Yea, in the close of his second Vindication published this very month, though he adhere to his former opinion of free Admission, yet page 144. he expresses himself with much Candour, in these words.  
I both allow and reverence the Piety, zeal and pains of many Ministers, that prudentially take occasion hereby to look into the state of their flocks, only for their admonition and just instruction, without driving them from their duty: And I do bewail the frowardness and off-wardnesse of most unto so easy a submission; utterly disliking at the bottom of my heart the spirits of such Christians, who either out of conscientiousness of their own ignorance, or Haughtiness of their minds, will be content be deprived the Sacrament, rather than give an account of their faith, to those that ask it in the spirit of Meekness for their Edification. Nay, I do profess for my part, were I under the Presbytery, I should most freely subject myself to their trial, as being afraid to grieve the spirit of my Pastor (supposing him to require it merely out of the tenderness of his Conscience) and give example of obstinacy unto others, etc. and afterwards he proceeds thus.  
To this end I could wish, that for the ignorant, there were Catechists in the Church, and some prudent kind of Law for the bringing of all such to submit to be catechised: and for the scandalous, that there were some Authoritative way for the exercise of that most yielded and least practised duty of Fraternal correprion, etc. I wish that ignorant and scandalous persons, with all haughty opposers of Sacramental Trial, would now at last imitate Mr. Humphrey in his Christian moderation; were this once obtained of our people, and would all Ministers and other Church-officers in their places, manage this work of Trial, with humility, faithfulness, and Christian prudence; and would Governors of families, make conscience of initiating and training up their Children and Servants in knowledge and piety, and send them to be catechised, We trust that in a short time through grace (instead of disputing for a sacramental Rail or Bar) we should unite together in blessing God for that light, amity, and order, which would make the Churches in these three Nations glorious.  
How ever, I shall rest in having done my duty; and where any 'scapes have slipped me through weakness, incogitancy, multiplicity of occasious, etc. Let the Reader consider, Humanum est errare; but, through grace assisting, I shall not wittingly persist in any error. The Lord send us all the Spirit of Truth, Holiness, and Meekness.  
From my Study in Silverstreet June 24. 1656. Thy Servant in Christ, Roger Drake.   

THE BAR TO FREE ADMISSION, FIXED. Or An Answer to Mr. Humphrey his rejoinder.  
The First PART.  

Sect. I.  
SO prevalent is old Adam (since our primitive apostasy) in the hearts of the best, that we find it very hard to contend for the Faith in any particular, without the breach of Love and Charity: I wish it were not so between Mr. Humphrey and myself. Standers-by usually see more than Gamesters; and sorry I am to see and hear, that any passionate expressions on my part, or bitter scoffs falling from Mr. Humphrey his pen, on the other part, should contribute more to pierce the hearts of any of God's precious ones with grief, than the managing of this controversy on either hand, hath contributed to satisfy their judgements and consciences by solid conviction. If in heat of dispute I have any way transgressed (I am assured I was far from malice) I shall be ready to throw the first stone at myself, and bless God who hath given me the opportunity to mend first, which once was in Mr. Humphrey his hands, before he put forth his rejoinder. Some sores are better cured by lenitives then by corrosives.  
Passing therefore his reflections upon myself, in a great part of his Preamble, as extrinsecall to the matter in debate, I observe page 5. and believe he speaks in good earnest, That unless his Latitude of Admission be allowed, tender consciences can never have solid peace at the Sacrament: Sacraments will still be neglected by Ministers and People, separations fomented, human Forms set up as necessary, etc. Ans. If this hypothesis were true, and such inferences did naturally and necessarily flow from our principles, well might we be at a stand, and look with a more favourable eye upon Mr. Humphrey his principles and practice. Scruples may possibly be raised in tender consciences, and false conclusions inferred by mistake, &c but far is it from us to hold forth any such principle, or principles as of their own nature have any aptitude to stumble the weak, or offend Christ's little ones: And this I hope by God's assistance to make out in the following discourse, as the forementioned particulars shall come to be scanned in their proper places. Page 6. He thinks me very for: ward to be known among the Elders in the Gate- and, Charges me for passing sentence before conviction. Ans. Had Mr. Humphrey known how oft I was solicited to write, how unwilling I was to have my name appear either in the frontispiece or otherwhere in the book after it was finished, he would not have passed so rash a censure: had I not been acted more by conscience of my duty, then by desire of vainglory, it might have been long enough ere so poor an inconsiderable person as myself had took him to task. For his second charge, I hope Mr. Humphrey doth not imagine I made the Title Page first, and my Answer afterwards; and for a due Examen, let the Answer itself speak, whether I took not some pains (according to my poor model) in order to his conviction, before I passed a public sentence: The cause indeed may suffer much by my weakness, but I hope it neither than did, nor now shall, suffer by my wilful negligence. Page 7th. he spends, in endeavouring to excuse those harsh expressions I noted and represented as savouring more of pride then of humility, contrary to his profession in the frontispiece; and that first, by begging pardon, if any pious men are offended at those expressions. 2ly. By professing, that to his utmost memory, none of those passages came from him, with the least reflection upon any. Ans. Taking it for granted, Mr. Humphrey speaks the truth, I believe it's the best Apology he could make: Yet secondly, Mr. Humphrey cannot blame me for charging those expressions with pride and censoriousness, since verba are indices mentis; and if proud and censorious words do not argue pride, acting (though not always reigning) in the heart, I know not what doth. Let the Reader peruse those expressions of Mr. Humphrey in the third and fourth pages of my Bar to free Admission and if I have passed a wrong sentence, let him judge me for Pride and censoriousness.   

Sect. II.  
Page 8 Mr. Humphrey charges me with a contradiction, as if I had said in one place, Christ cannot give Judas the Sacrament, and in another, he cannot deny it him. Ans. pag. 8. I only bring Arguments to prove Judas did not receive the Sacrament. Page 9 I say, it was not sit Christ should be both judge and witness. And page 11. Christ acting as a Minister, could not be both witness, Judge, and Executioner. Where, I pray, is the contradiction? Let Mr. Humphrey produce but one place where I say, christ cannot give Judas the Sacraments. I bring arguments indeed to prove judas did not receive, but whither Christ denied him the Sacrament, or ordered it in providence judas should go out be forehand, and so miss of the Sacrament; that is left in medio, and the latter seems more probable. And whether judas received or not, it is not much material for Mr. Humphrey his cause, no not in Mr. Timsons judgement, in his bar to free admission removed. pag. 3. & 4. though otherwise a great friend to Mr. Humphrey his Latitude for Sacramental receiving.  
In answering my 2d. Argument against judas his receiving, he says Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and so for Judas, 1 john 2. 3.  
As. When Mr. H. can prove that by whole world, There, are meant the Reprobate as well as the Elect, he says something indeed to invalidate the argument; otherwise he doth but shuflle. And the Sacrament had been a poor Cordial to the Apostles, had it sealed no more to them than it doth to Reprobates. But I shall not trouble myself or my Reader with the further vindication of those five Arguments here, as studying all possible brevity and judging it not material in this business, whether Judas received or no, what ever weight Mr. Humphrey may lay upon it. But whereas pag. 10. He says, I answer those five reasons myself. In that he mistakes. I brought indeed five reasons to prove Judas did not receive; but I brought no reason to prove Christ denied him the Sacrament, nor do I believe Christ did deny him the Sacrament Only by laying open his wickednessc, its probable Christ did either shame him away, or fright him away, or occasion his going away in a pet; and Judas being gone, Christ spoke very comfortably, and applicatorily to the Eleven, which very probably he would not have done without a distinction, had the Traitor been present.  
Pag. 10. 11. He says, Many more Authors are of opinion, Judas did receive it, than those I produced out of Gelaspi to the contrary. Answ. 1. This is said; but not one word of proof brought by Mr. Humphrey. 2. Grant it true, he answers himself, or I may answer him with his own words, I do not value them at the rate of Scripture. It's well, we both agree here: I wish hearty all Disputers were of this mind. Here therefore Mr. Humphrey presseth Mark 14. 23. They all drank of it. I answered, All is put for all present, and twelve for eleven, from 1 Cor. 15. 5. To this Mr. Humphrey returns, pag. 11. If All be put for All present, then is it put for the whole twelve, for the twelve sat down with him, Ans. 1. The weakness of this answer of Mr. Humphrey will easily appear to a mean capacity. The twelve sat down with Christ, ergo the twelve (that is, every of the twelve) received the Lord's supper. To make out his assertion, he must prove not only that all the twelve sat down together, but that they also stayed all the whiletogether till the Comon-supper, the Passover, and the Lords Supper were ended. Doth it follow because twelve sit down together at a Feast, therefore they must needs all sit at Table together, or be present in the same room till all the Courses be served? we grant Judas was present at the Common-supper; haply also he received the Passover, which yet some doubt; but doth it hence follow, that he was present at the Lords supper also? Is it not said that upon the receiving of the Sop, immediately Judas went out? John 13. 30. and that Sop he received at or before the Passover; after which, the Lord's Supper was instituted and administered.  
To my second, That twelve is here put for eleven, He answers, None that can tell twenty will believe me. Ans. 1. Let Mr. H. remember his own rule, & a good rule, and stand to the judgement of the Scripture, 1 Cor. 15. 5. Christ after his resurrection appeared to the twelve, but Judas was at this time dead, and Mathias was not yet chosen in his room; Ergo, here twelve is put for eleven. Secondly, this is ordinary, for roundness of number: yea in this very case, Mar. 14. 17. twelve are put for ten, since two of the Apostles he sent before to prepare the Passover ver. 16. and, at the evening, himselfcomes with ten of them, who yet verse 17. are said to be twelve.  
Mr. Humphrey proceeds. 
Pag. 11.  His argument is this. Because twelve is put for eleven when there were but eleven, therefore twelve must be put for eleven, where there was twelve.  
Ans. What is this but a mere begging of the Question? Mr. Humphrey asserts that all the twelve received the Lord's Supper. I answer, it's not affirmed in Scripture, that the twelve received. 2. Had it been affirmed yet twelve might be put for eleven by roundness of number, as in the former instance; to which his final answer is, I, but there were twelve there, which is the very question in dispute between us. By the Law of dispute (he being opponent, and I respondent) he ought to solve my distinction; and not barely to say, but to clear it, that twelve in the business of the Lords Supper cannot be understood or taken for eleven by roundness of number.  
I shall ever acknowledge the force of St. Luke, as of every other Scripture: but I deny that Luke says, either in terms or by consequence that judas was present at, or received the Lords Supper, and therefore as yet neither my five Arguments nor 26. Authors are confuted by St. Luke. 
See Mr. Collins more to this purpose in his vindic. suspensionis etc. pag. 62. 63.  True, Luke mentions per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those words of our Saviour: But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the Table, after the Celebration of the Supper; doth it therefore follow they were uttered in that order? I have proved the contrary by comparing the two other Evangelists. I shall instance in another Hysterology, wherein the order is inverted by Saint Luke, yet without any prejudice to the truth, Matth. 4. 8. The temptation to worship the Devil, is the third and last, which yet Luke makes to be the second and middlemost, Luke 4. 5. In like manner Matthew mentions the prediction of Peter's denying Christ, after their going to the mount of Olives, Matth. 26. verse 30 34. so doth Mark, Chap. 14. verse 26-30. which yet Luke mentions before it, Chap. 22. verse 34-39. as also doth Saint John, Chap. 13. verse 38. compared with Chap. 18. verse 1. Here then, in two of the Evangelists, there must needs be an Hysterology, without any prejudice to the truth of the narrative; and why not in our business also? We deny not but those words, Behold the hand, etc. were spoken at the Table; but it lies upon Mr. Humphrey to prove, that it was the Lord's Table at that time, when our Saviour uttered those words: We believe it was first a Common Table; secondly, the Paschall Table; thirdly, the Lord's Table; and that those words were spoken by our Saviour when it was a Common Table, or a Paschall Table, but not when it was the Lord's Table; and withal, that Luke attended not so much upon the order, as the truth of the narrative.  
But, suppose Judas was present and received, what doth this advantage Mr. Humphrey He thinks much, because neither Christ nor his Apostles did examine Judas, etc. Ans. The Apostles (upon supposition of Judas his receiving) were but his fellow communicants; nor do we think it necessary that fellow communicants should examine one another before receiving. And for our blessed Saviour; it follows not, because he thought it not necessary then to examine the Apostles, therefore it is not necessary for Church-Officers to examine the people before receiving: Yea, as Mr. Collins well notes, in his Vindiciae suspensionis, etc. page 41. & 53. It is worth the observing, that Christ did not so much as call upon the Jews in the same house, to receive the Lords Supper; which he would have done probably, if he had intended it for All; or, for a converting Ordinance. Christ thought it not necessary then to admit either ordinary Christians or Women to the Lords Supper, or to put the Apostles upon selfe-examination before the Lords Supper at this time; is it therefore now not necessary that the people, and particularly women, should be admitted to the Lords Supper? or, is it not necessary a man should examine himself before he eat, & c? Must Church Officers give an account of their people to God, and must they not take an account of their people?  
I added further, That as Judas was not suspected by the rest of the Apostles, so he had not yet actually betrayed Christ, and it is absurd to punish any for a future sin.  
To this Mr. Humphrey opposeth an other passage of mine, page 102. and then infers, Christ may not keep away Judas, because he had not actually betrayed him; but Mr. Drake must needs keep men away, for fear they should betray him. Ans. 1. Let the Reader take notice, that Mr. Humphrey wrongs my Text, page 102. by leaving out a very material part of it; the words are these, We keep men away, to prevent certain scandal, by the admission of Persons visibly unworthy: Which last words of my Text he utterly omits, that thereby my sense may appear more ugly: But those words being added, there is no contradiction betwixt Christ's practice and ours (upon the supposition that Judas did receive) since Judas was not visibly unworthy to Christ as a Man or Minister, but as God; who knew both Judas and other hypocrites from the beginning, john 6. 64. yet admitted them as Disciples: Yet, it follows not thence, the Church should admit such before it have good satisfaction (at least, in the judgement of charity) about their sincere conversion; otherwise the Disciples did ill to be so shy of Saul, till they had good evidence of his sincerity from Barnabas, Acts 9 26 27. Christ as God, knew by knowledge of vision, who were unclean and defiled the Temple: yet, he drove none out, but such as visibly defiled it, john 2. 15. So he knew judas was unworthy by his divine Omniscience, but acted not by virtue of that knowledge in point of suspension: Nor was Achan censured upon divine discovery, till clear evidence of his theft was produced, Iosh. 7. verse 20. to 24. And if Christ's rule of suspension, or other censure, be visible unworthiness, we hope our way and practice is not contradictory to Christ's rule. 2. We keep not any away barely upon fear, lest they should betray Christ (for this fear and jealousy we may have of divers whom we admit) but, 1. Because they are visibly unworthy. 2. That we may in the use of God's means, endeavour their fitting against the next Sacrament, and they who upon this account withdraw, suspend themselves, as refusing the Ordinance of the Lords Supper, rather than they will accept of it upon a most equal and honourable condition. Had Mr. Humphrey been as zealous against selfe-suspension, as against Ministerial suspension, and shown the people their sin in standing out against Sacramental trial, he might have brought God more honour, himself more peace, and have done the Church more service, than by aspersing Sacramental Trial, as if the end of it were rather to exclude men from, then to fit them for, the Sacrament. Whereas therefore Mr. Humphrey is pleased to say, 
Page 13.  that I suspend, to prevent the sin men have not committed, and that the supposal only of future sin is the very ground of my excommunication. I am sorry to see him biased by so much uncharitableness, when as he knows, that in these censures we proceed by the rule of visible unworthiness; and doth oppose with might and main our acting in these kinds by the rule of visibility. We aim indeed at the preventing of sin, in this and other Church-censures; but, I dare appeal to Mr. Humphrey his conscience, whether that be our sole End.  
The following passage is sadder, and chargeth us deeply, as if we gave more power to the Presbytery in point of suspension, then to Jesus Christ the great Master of Discipline.  
Ans. I am sorry to see what prejudice and uncharitableness will draw men upon, to wrest such false and odious conclusions from, or put such uncouth interpretations upon, our principles. Far be it from us to offer wittingly to detract the least tittle from our blessed Lords authority and sovereignty; we would loathe our own principles, could any such conclusion be justly deduced from them. My words which he wrists to that purpose, are these, 
Page 9 f.  Christ here acting as a Minister, it was not fit he should be both judge and witness; and it might have been an ill precedent for Ministers, to take upon them by their own power to deny the Sacrament judicially to whom they please. Christ had a three fold power: 1. Absolute, as God. 2. Mediatory, as God-Man. 3. Pastoral, as a Minister. Now my former assertion (which he carps at) meddles not with Christ's power as God, or as Mediator (neither are they any precedents or rules for our imitation) but only with Christ's power as a Minister. And if Mr. Humphrey be of the mind, that Christ as a Minister (waving his Divine and Mediatory capacity) might alone be Judge and Witness, and suspend judicially whom he pleased, must he not of necessity also yield, that any other particular Minister may do the like? See what a dust is raised to make our ways and principles odious; whereas Mr. Humphrey himself (if he will speak religion and reason) cannot but be of our mind: yea, Mr. Timson, his cordial Abettor, lays it down as a solid principle, 
Page 67. f.  That no single Pastor alone, but such as are so in Association, as to derive authority from the whole, can exercise Church-censures authoritatively. Yet I hope Mr. Humphrey will not thence conclude, that Mr. Timson by this assertion gave more power to the Presbytery then to Jesus Christ, the great Master of Discipline.  
To what further I add, page 9, 10. That none are suspended by us, but such as suspend themselves, by slighting or refusing due trial; Mr. Humphrey replies, Suppose a religious man, nay, suppose twenty, upon grounds of conscience or prudence, will not submit to his trial, yet offer themselves at the Sacrament; dare he refuse to administer it to them? Alas Sir! will you not let men serve God, and save their souls?  
Ans. Suppose a godly Minister; nay, suppose twenty, upon grounds of conscience and prudence dare not admit such a person or persons; yet beseech them, as they tender the honour of God, reformation of the Church, and their own comfort and edification before they receive, to give an account of their faith and hope that is in them, will they refuse so easy and honourable a duty? & yet tempt, yea, press him or them against the rules of conscience and prudence, to admit them to the Sacrament? Alas Sirs, do not thus wound the consciences, and grieve the Spirits of those whom God hath set over you.  
D. Dr. Secondly, Besides the former, we suspend none but such, who upon trial, are found unworthy.  
Mr. Humphr. But I pray, have you any thing at first to allege against them: if you have not, how will you bring them to trial?  
Ans. 1. From Scripture evidence and experience, that many Church-members are unworthy. 2. From the Scriptures warranting an universal trial, upon less ground of suspicion than we have, and punishing the neglect thereof; witness Achans case, Iosh. 7. 3. From the fruit of this trial, which being rightly managed, will prejudice none, but edify all, by putting them upon the exercise of, or seeking after, knowledge and grace.  
Mr. Humphr. If they come willingly, and you find them unfit, than you go about to punish again them for a future sin.  
Ans. 1. If the prevention of future sin be a punishment, the Lord send me store of such punishments. 2. He mistakes: we go not about to punish any for a future sin, but to prepare all for a future mercy. 3. He may as well say, pious Governors of families, and Ministers in the times of the Prelates, punished children and servants, because they kept them from the Sacrament till they were fitted by catechistical trial. Gal. 6. 6. the Apostle will tell him, that every Church-member is a Catechumenus. Nor need Mr. Humphrey here fly especially upon the trial by Elders, since both this paragraph and his whole discourse, manifest him to be against all trial, either by Ministers or Elders.  
D. Dr. None of the Apostles were ignorant or scandalous, no, not Judas himself, therefore his or their receiving is no warrant for any ignorant or scandalous person to receive.  
Mr. Humph. This is not true for indeed we shall find both ignorance in the Apostles, and scandal in Judas: The Apostles were ignorant of Christ's Death and Resurrection, and of the Sacrament; and Judas had made his bargain to betray Christ.  
Ans. 1. They knew Christ to be the Bread and Water of Life, and the Saviour of the World, john 6. 68, 69. Secondly, had as much knowledge as might stand with grace. Thirdly, were willing upon all occasions to be further instructed and Catechised by Christ. And we trust Mr. Humphrey shall never be able to charge us with keeping any away who are of this temper. As for judas, though he had made his bargain of betraying Christ, yet it was not then scandalous: Nor did Christ (though he knew it well enough) discover, that judas had made any such bargain, but did only foretell that judas would betray him. However therefore pag. 15, & 16. he is pleased to charge me as speaking a very untruth; a grain of charity might have informed him, that judas (however he purposed, plotted and contracted, all which he knows, or may know, I believe as well as himself) yet betrayed not Christ, as to the Execution, till he kissed him in the Garden. True, in God's account a purpose, plot and contract of evil is an Execution thereof: but civil and Ecclesiastical Courts proceed usually by evidence of the fact, not of the purpose, plot or contract. I might add that john 13. ver. 18, 19, 21. 27. our blessed Saviour (even after the discovery) looks at judas his betraying him as a future act. In some sense therefore, it is a truth that judas had not betrayed Christ. And if so, than I did not speak a very untruth, in saying judas had not yet betrayed Christ, no more than Peter had denied him, understanding it of the ultimate and completing act of his Treachery, which Christ endeavourd to prevent by the Commination, as well as Peter's denial by the Premonition. Besides, our Saviour's dispensation here was extraordinary, admitting only men, Ministers, Apostles, and that without self-examination foregoing, which is no rule for our imitation in point of Sacramental admittance; no more is his admittance of judas, supposing he did receive; And if this supposition fail, where is Master Humphrey his superstructure upon it?  
His upbraiding me again, by comparing Christ with the Presbytery, hath been formerly answered: Which therefore, with other passages of less moment, for brevity's sake I pass. I shall only add this, judas his treachery (if it were, before the completing of it, matter for a Judicial cognizance, and if Christ's extraordinary knowledge and discovery of it were legal evidence, as Mr. Humphrey would ●ave it) was a just ground of excommunication; yet our Saviour did not excommunicate him for it, no more than he did suspend him; nor did he send to the High Priests or their officers for evidence against judas: May not the Church therefore excommunicate or seek for evidence against scandalous or suspected persons? Even before this, all judgement was committed to Christ, john 5. 22. yet we read not that Christ judged any, either Civilly or Ecclesiastically, but rather the quite contrary, john 8. 11, & 12. 47. Doth it therefore follow that either the Magistrate, or the Presbytery do lift up themselves above Christ the great Master of Discipline, because they undertake that, both in Civil and Ecclesiastical Judgement, which our blessed Lord would not meddle withal in his State of humiliation?  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 18.  As for the Question, whether he acted as a Minister or Mediator? It is vain, for he acted as both: He could not institute an Ordinance for his Church, but as he was Head and Mediator, nor could he administer it but as a Minister.  
Ans. 1. If this Question be vain, the more to blame Mr. Humphrey, who troubles his Reader with it, especially since we both agree Christ acted here both as a Mediator and as a Minister.  
Secondly, I only distinguished between Christ's acting as a Mediator and as a Minister; And added that Christ is imitable, not in his acting as a Mediator but as a Minister: We doubt not but Christ as Mediator, might be both Judge and Witness; But in that he is no pattern for our imitation. If, as a Minister, he might be both Judge and Witness, than every Minister may be both Judge and Witness.  
Thirdly, Mr. Humphrey himself here grants Christ could not administer the Sacrament but as a Minister; Yet, at the same time Christ was Mediator. We say, Christ as Mediator might be both Judge and Witness, but not as a Minister: Will he forbidden us the same liberty of distinction he takes himself?  
The other instances he excepts against, pag. 18. of Christ's administering it only to Ministers, etc. prove strongly that all Christ did at the Supper, is no necessary rule for our imitation: amongst which Judas his Admission (upon Mr. Humphrey his supposal) being one, falls under the same notion; unless Mr. Humphrey can prove that Christ did not only admit judas (a person then, as he says, scandalous) but also with this very intention, that his practice herein might be a Rule for all Ministers to the end of the World to admit to the Sacrament scandalous persons. As for his appeal in the close of pag. 18, I have showed formerly that Mr. Timson, though his Second in this cause, looks not at Judas his receiving, or not receiving, as clearly argumentative in this cause, pag. 3, & 4. And should the stress of this controversy lie upon judas his receiving or his not receiving, at what uncertainties should we be about our practice herein, when it is so hard to determine out of Scripture whether judas received or not.  
His Quotation out of Doctor Hammond, makes not for his purpose: We easily grant with that learned Clerk, That Christian professors may lawfully be admitted, though their hearts be full of villainy: and when we have done all we can, such will be admitted. Where we find competency of knowledge, professed subjection to all the ways of Christ, not contradicted by a scandalous life, we bless God for the good we see in them, cheerfully give them the right hand of fellowship, leaving their hearts and inward condition to God's Judgement. For that other worthy Gentleman he quotes in the end of this Section; I have some reason to believe (what ever may be his judgement about judas his receiving) he is not of Mr. Humphrey his Latitude for admittance to the Sacrament.   

Sect. III.  
Mr. Humphrey comes to the stating of his Question; In which for explication, pag. 20. He premiseth, That between these two, a covenant-relation visible, and truth of grace which is invisible, there is no middle thing enjoined in the Scripture for the rule of our Admission.  
Answ. If this Rule be true, than Mr. Humphrey doth very ill to coin divers middle things for the rule of Admission, as that persons to receive, first must have some maturity of understanding: Secondly, must be in their right wits: Thirdly, must not be jure excommunicate. If it be objected, that these he excepts afterwards by way of Explication. Ans. 1. His Explication must never contradict his Rule. Secondly, By the same reason he can find three middle things, we shall find more, as I hope to make evident when we come to particulars.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 19, 20, & 21.  Some are uncapable of the Ordinances by Nature; namely, such as can discern no meaning thereof: As infants, the distracted, natural fools, in opposition to the ignorant that are of age: And that first, Because discerning the Lords Body cannot be a duty in the former, etc. Secondly, Because signs cannot work upon the unintelligent, as to any real effect.  
Ans. 1. Here you see one middle thing between Church-membership and truth of grace. Infants, etc. are Church-members, and divers of them have truth of grace; Yet are uncapable of admittance to the Lords Supper in M. Humphrey his judgement for lack of understanding, which therefore must be added to Church-membership as a Qualification for admittance. 
I here dispute ad hominem.  Secondly, Why may not unintelligent persons be admitted as well to the Lords Supper as to Baptism, since they understand and discern the Body of Christ as much in that, as the Water of the Spirit in this; and if Bread and Wine cannot work upon the unintelligent, no more can Water, both being Sacramental signs. If therefore Mr. Humphrey will keep to his rule, he must deny Infant's Baptism as well as the Lords Supper. If he urge●, That discerning the Lords Body is required in all receivers of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 29.  
Ans. 1 If discerning the Lords Supper be necessary, as to admittance; This strongly justifies our way of trying persons before we admit. If it be not necessary, as to admittance, then how dares he exclude any Church-member from the Sacrament, and punish Infants, etc. by suspending them who are only naturally uncapable, when at the same time he wittingly admits those who are morally uncapable. We grant Elder persons ought to get understanding, which we endeavour to work in them, by offering to instruct them whom we find ignorant against the next Sacrament; and divers we doubt not will bless God to Eternity, that by a temporary suspension, they were brought out of the Darkness of Ignorance and sin into the Light of Knowledge and Grace. But doth it follow that because they ought to get understanding, therefore they must be admitted before they have it. Is not their privative Ignorance a greater Bar than children's negative Ignorance? We further grant they may be wrought upon by many parts of the Sacrament, and therefore suspend them not from presence, but only from actual receiving, it, till Mr. Humphrey can prove the ultimate act of receiving to be a converting Ordinance. But till then, these two great reasons of his, may well prove gravell-stones in his own bowels, but not in our teeth, what ever he may please to fancy of them.  
Mr. Humphrey allows, 
Pag. 23.  that persons excommunicate, ipso jure, should be suspended, namely, persons guilty of notorious and evident crimes, etc. Yet, this he minces again, saying, I do not hold the Minister or Church is always bound to take cognizance hereof, for what hath been shown already so plainly in the pattern of Christ. See more of this kind, page 26. where he makes the keeping away, or suspending of persons, jure excommunicate, but a prudential.  
Ans. 1. Is not here another middle thing to be a rule of admission, besides Church-membership? Persons jure excommunicate, are Church-members, till actually excommunicated, and therefore either must be admitted, or Mr. Humphrey his former rule is false. 2. Note further, and tremble, Mr. Humphrey holds, the Minister and Church are not always bound to take cognisance of a Zimri and Cosbi, a person stark staring drunk, incestuous marriages, those who come newly reaking out of open enormities, such as publicly renounce Christ, or say, they won't believe on him; such as being in notorious malice, will not forgive, but profess their obstinacy: but may admit these coming to the Sacrament, though convicted by evidence of the fact; so they be not juridically sentenced, and de facto excommunicated. Let the Reader compare page 21. and 22. and see if I wrong him. If this latitude of Admission turn not God's House into a den of Thiefs, I know not what will. Well may persons excommunicable (as he calls them) be admitted, if the former rabble of hell may pass. 3. Note further the good use he makes of Judas his admittance, (supposing he was admitted by our Saviour) by making it a precedent for the admittance of the vilest convicted miscreants, that ever the earth groaned under, so they be not actually excommunicated. Let me (to evidence the absurdity of this instance of his) enlarge it a little: As Christ did not suspend, so he did not excommunicate Juaas, nor send to the High Priests or Officers for evidence against him, though he were jure excommunicate for the foulest treason that ever the Sun beheld, Ergo, the Church must not excommunicate actually the vilest monsters of men, though never so clearly convicted by evidence of the fact; or at least, they do not sin in not excommunicating them, because Christ did not think fit to excommunicate Judas actually, who was jure excommunicate. See whither an engagement in lose principles will not drive men! But I hope Mr. Humphrey, upon a review, will be of another mind, how ever prejudice and preingagement may cloud his judgement for the present.  
Mr. Hum. 
Pag. 23.  And here I must complain of my Opposer. Were not these words (Unless excommunicate, ipso jure, or, de facto) page 24. in all three Editions; and why then doth he so overly and contemptibly bring an odium on me, by being willing not to see or understand them, etc. Ans. Herein I am sure I have cause to complain of my Opposer Let the Reader peruse his Vindication, page 24. and find (if he can) one word of excommunicate, jure or facto there. Indeed in that page he challengeth both Independents and Presbyterians, but in the Edition of his Vindication, printed 1642. I find not one word about excommunication, much less that distinction of excommunicate, jure and facto; nor do I remember it is in any part of his Vindication; so far was I from shutting mine eyes against it, that had I found it there, I should probably have improved it then, as I do now, in order to his conviction.  
Mr. H. 
Page 23.  As to the Church or Minister, I held, & do hold, that all Church-members, that are neither unintelligent, nor excommunicate, ought freely to be admitted to this Ordinance: some cases in Spiritual and Temporal prudence being considered.  
Ans. 1. Doth it not hence clearly follow, that the suspension of persons, jure excommunicate, is but a case of prudence: and if so, than we should plead for the suspension of others (who are visibly unworthy) only as a case of prudence too. Nay, 2ly. will it not follow hence, that the excommunication of persons, jure excommunicate, is but a case of prudence too, the admitting of women to the Sacrament, etc. is but a case of prudence too. I believe Mr. Humphrey will find at last, that such cases of prudence, are good cases of conscience, it being the most prudential (as well as conscientious) way, to submit to all the commands of Christ, whether they be in express terms, or by good consequence laid upon us in the Scripture. In the same page he comes to my Exceptions: the first, that Infants and the distracted (as deaf persons) are to come to the Word, therefore they are not uncapable of the Ordinances.  
Mr. Humphrey. For the deaf, he speaks miraculously well; for Infants, they were better keep at home, but only for the sake of them that tend them: His Text, Deut. 29. etc. is good to prove their Covenanting by their Parents in Baptism, where there is only a passive reception, and the benefits relative; but as to the Ordinance of Hearing, it must be actual, and they are uncapable of any real work by it. Ans. 1. Saving the jest, which Mr. Humphrey can break miraculously well, my discourse, page 13. and 14. speaks nothing of any miraculous working, farther than every work of conversion is miraculous, & indeed a far greater miracle than all miraculous cures upon the body, John 14. 12. The working upon Infants and deaf persons at the Word (I do not say by the Word) upon blind and paralytic persons at the Lords Supper, may be extraordinary; but no more miraculous, then is the working upon persons at age, and who have their senses perfect. No Ordinance is a natural, but only a moral instrument of conversion, which God useth arbitrarily, and can, when he pleaseth, work without them. 
I do not say this is all God requires, but this is the least he requires.  That, God requires of his creature, is either active or passive presence; that I should either present myself, or be presented before the Lord, according to my capacity. The Ordinances have an aptitude to represent, offer, or seal, and (when specially elevated by divine benediction) to apply Christ, & grace either initial or progressive (all of them, the latter; some of them, the former also) to any Church-member, whether he have an active, or only a passive capacity. Thus Infants sanctified from their mother's womb, may, at the Ordinance of Baptism, at least have further degrees of grace infused; and that God, who infuses grace into some of them before any Ordinance used, can infuse more grace upon the use of any Ordinance, though the Infant be no more sensible of progressive, then of initial grace, or of the Ordinance, by, or at which, it is wrought. God's operation upon Infants & others, naturally uncapable, are secret; the creatures work is to get in the way and road of grace, that the very shadow of mercy passing by, may overshadow some of them. Acts 5. 15. If I be in the way of mercy, who knows but it may spread a skirt over me, and make it a time of love, Ezek. 16. 8. A beggar bringing his babe to a rich man's gate, may obtain, not only strong meat for himself, but milk for his babe, though it be not sensible of the benefit, or how it comes by it.  
The places I quoted are not so slight, to prove Infants must be present at the Word, Read, or Preached &c. as he would make them. True, Deut. 29. 11, 12. they were before God to enter into Covenant: But Deut. 31. verse 11, 12. they were to be presented before God in ordinary, at the great anniversary feasts; that they might hear, etc. and while Infants are but present, God can teach them, though man cannot, Jesh 8. 35. every word was read before the little ones, as well as others, 2 Chron. 20. 13. In a day of humiliation, their little ones were presented before the Lord as well as others: And, joel 2. 16. the very same thing is commanded; and to take away all cavil about their age, they are expressly noted to be such little ones, as suck the breasts. What though they understand nothing? cannot that God, who bids us present them before him, lay his hands upon their hearts, and bless them at his Ordinance. As God teacheth many elder persons convincingly, whom he doth not teach savingly; so he can teach infants savingly, whom he doth not teach convincingly, namely, by infusing saving knowledge and grace, Esay 54. 13. May not they be comprehended by Christ at the Ordinances, who cannot at all comprehend him, joh. 1. 5. Phil. 3. 12. Before I pass, I shall only note that, about Infant-Baptisme. Mr. Humphrey speaks ambiguously, yet seems to hint, as if the benefits of Baptism to infants were only relative and not absolute; which if I were certain of, I had more to say to him, but till then, I forbear. I shall only add this, that however Infants may be uncapable of any real work [by] hearing, yet, they are not uncapable of a real work [at] hearing. Had Christ bid an Infant stretch out his withered hand, his Almighty power at the same time might both have cured him, and also acted him to stretch forth the same hand, being cured, although the Babe understood not one word Christ spoke. And cannot Christ cure an Infant's withered soul, as well as his withered body, though the Babe understand nothing of the word of command in either.  
He tells the Reader, 
Page 24.  my second Exception is, That Infants and the Distracted, are as capable of the Sacrament, as the Ignorant are, though of age.  
Ans. Herein Mr. Humphrey wrists both my words and meaning. Are these two Propositions equipollent, Infants are capable as well as Elder persons that are grossly ignorant; and, Infants are as capable as Elder Persons that are grossly ignorant? Or more clearly, The Creature is good as well as God; and, The Creature is as good as God: The former Proposition is a truth, the latter, an horrid lie and blasphemy: The former notes the truth of Predication in both: the latter, afferts a parity of the Predicate in both.  
I grant, afterwards he lays down my own terms; but by Mr. Humphrey his leave, the Reader might easily have been abused to believe the second exception above mentioned to be either my own terms, or at least my sense: My words are these, I ask Mr. Humphrey, why are Infants capable of Baptism, and not of the Lords Supper? If he say, because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lords Body, etc. than I answer, no more can grossly ignorant persons, etc. To this, Mr. Humphrey, Sir, you must excuse me, I shall not answer you altogether so; but, because Infants are really uncapable, in Baptism, there is required only a passive, but in the Lord's Supper, an actual reception. 2ly. Because it is not their duty to examine themselves, and discern the Lords Body.  
Ans. To omit the absurd opposition of actual to passive (which haply was an error only of the Press) are not Infants naturally uncapable of Baptism as well as of the Lords Supper? Do they, or can they apprehend any more, either of the Sign, or thing signified, in Baptism, than the Lords Supper? Or, in Baptism, is there only a passive reception required? True, in Infants, God requires only a passive reception, because they have no active capacity at present: But in Elder persons Baptised, God expects an active, and not only a passive reception; namely, the acting of faith, to receive the blood of sprinkling, and an active endeavour (especially at the time of Baptism) to mortify sin, and rise up to newness of life, besides the profession of their faith in their own persons; none of which, either God or man, expects of Infants, whom yet the efficacy of Baptism may reach, as well as Elder persons, though it be not limited to this or that time; nor doth the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, always accompany the Baptism of Water, either in Infants or in Elder persons. In Elder persons than Baptised, there is not only a passive, but an active reception, as at the Lords Supper there is not only an active, but a passive reception. For his second Reason, Because it is not the duty of Infants to examine themselves, and discern the Lords Body. Ans. No more is it the duty of Infants to examine themselves, at, or before Baptism, or to discern the blood of Christ, and the water of the Spirit represented thereby. etc. which Elder persons baptised are bound to, and sin if they do not; yet, I hope this natural uncapableness of Infants, in order to examination & discretion is no bar to their baptising; therefore upon the same account (I argue now ad hominem) they are no just bar to Infants receiving the Lord's Supper. If therefore I should say, God requires selfe-examination, and discerning the Lords Body of Elder persons, but not of Infants, would it not follow, that Infants might better be admitted to the Lords Supper, then Elder persons that are grossly ignorant, since there is not that danger of unworthy receiving, in Infants, as in Elder persons, and that because the absence of examination and discretion in them, makes them, co nomine, unworthy; not so in Infants, because God requires not those acts of them as conditions, to make them evangelically worthy. Might I not here retort Mr. Humphrey his own argument upon himself, The Apostle says, Let a man examine himself, and so eat. He doth not say, Let him not eat, unless he can and do examine himself: should I add, that the Jewish Children eaten the Passover, yet were naturally uncapable of it, as ours are of the Lords Supper. And further, that Children are Disciples as well as Elder persons, and that the Disciples assembled together to break bread, Acts 20 7. (by which argument principally, we prove, women may, and aught, to receive) I might thereby not only discover the weakness of his two forementioned Reasons, but haply also might make him a Proselyte to Infant-receiving. And it's a Question, whether a Minister might not with more comfort administer either Sacrament to an Infant, than to a grossly ignorant or scandalous person, who either professedly or really rejects the Covenant sealed and exhibited by those signs. Mr. Humphrey might very well therefore have spared those words, page 25. If the man had not been too slighting of me, he would never have run himself into the contempt of so many repetitions of this Infant passage: I will reckon them as I go, here is one.  
Ans. I hope the Lord hath learned me to slight no man, much less a Minister: But it's an hard matter, that I cannot press an argument, which to me seems solid (I have now demonstrated there is more weight in it, than Mr. Humphrey was ware of) but I must presently be judged as slighting the person of my Opponent. I wish Mr. Humphrey would lay his hand upon his heart, and sadly consider, whether his bitter scoffs do not smell rather of slighting, than my frequent pressing of this, or any other argument. If the argument be valid, it cannot be too often pressed, and I am confident, I press it not where, but where Mr. Humphrey puts me upon it. Let me be good at Weight, and I shall not envy his being good at Number. I hope his reckon will bring me in a good shot in the issue. His reckon with me shall learn me I trust to make the more frequent and strict reckon with myself.  
Mr. Humphrey having granted that persons jure excommunicate, may be suspended, adds these words. If you shall demand of me a subflantiall proof for yielding thus much, I must answer you, the Church is of age, ask it. What she in prudence hath allowed, I am ready to think there may be good reason for, though I know it not.  
Ans. If Mr. Humphrey be real in this his profession, he cannot be an Enemy to Suspension, which (besides the warrant of Scripture) hath the Church for its Patron, whether by Church he understand the Greek and Latin Church before their Apostasy: Or general and particular Councils, especially the Council of Ancyra. An. 308. or thereabouts, and the general Council of Nice gathered by Constantine the great, by whose Canons, Suspension from the Sacrament is ratified. Or if by Church he understand our own Church of England; Let him consult the Book of Common-Prayer, and particularly the Confirmation, where Ministers are ordered to Catechise in public; and Governors of Families are to send their Children and Servants to be Catechised. And the general rule in the Close is, that none shall be admitted to the Holy Communion until such time as he can say the Catechism. Here you have an evidence of Suspension for gross ignorance. And for scandalous persons, turn to the Communion in the Book of Common-Prayer: 1. They are dehorted from receiving, in these words. Therefore if any of you be a Blasphemer, etc. or be in malice, envy, or in any other grievous crime; Bewail your sins, and come not to this Holy Table, lest after the receiving of that Sacrament, the Devil enter into you as he entered into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquity, and bring you to destruction of Body and Soul. And in the Rubric before the Communion, persons, before receiving, were to give the Minister notice of their purpose therein; and if any of them were a notorious evil liver, or wronged his Neighbour by word or deed, or were in malice and hatred, he was first to dissuade them from the Sacrament, and if that would not prevail, he was to deny them the Sacrament, not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table until he know them to be reconciled, etc. I might here add the twenty sixth Canon, which expressly saith, No Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the Holy Communion, any of his Cure or Flock, which be openly known to live in sin netorious, without repentance; Nor any who have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbours, until they shall be reconciled. If by Church he mean, the Church of England as it now stands, and hath stood since the downfall of the Prelates; Hath not Suspension been revived and ratified by the Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster, an Assembly (I may say, I hope without flattery) as Learned and ploughs as ever the Christian World saw; And afterward confirmed by Civil Sanction of both Houses of Parliament in the Form of Church-Government that bore Church-membership (though never so much contradicted by practice) is sufficient for admittance to the Sacrament. Upon which account I might refer him to my former answers yet I shall add a little.  
Church-membership being a relation must needs have some foundation which foundation failing, the relation cannot hold: what is this foundation but consent (either implicit or explicit) to walk with the Church of God in all the ways of God for His glory, and their mutual edification. This consent failing, the Foundation of Church-relation ceases, and such a person unchurches himself, and that visibly too, where this consent fails visibly, as it doth in persons who wilfully refuse knowledge, and live against conviction in scandalous sins: And can the Church then be blamed for denying the Sacrament (a special Church-priviledge) to those who renounce their Baptism, and unchurch themselves, who really deny the faith, and are worse than Infidels? 1 Tim. 5. 8. who are among us, but are not of us. 1 John 2. 19 And if such be in the visible Church, and ever will be, so long as it is Militant; can you blame Church-Officers for endeavouring to find out such by their fruits, Math. 7. 16. to uncase false Brethren, and deny them the Sign, who renounce the thing signified?  
As for the seeming Contradiction, he would fasten on me, pag. 27, & 28. He that reads it observantly, may easily perceive the Cavil; since our undertaking to fit the people, is but conditional, provided they will be ruled by us; and therefore if ignorant persons will be ruled by us, we shall endeavour to fit them by instruction; if scandalous persons would be ruled by us, we shall teach them to live unblamably, whereby they may be visibly worthy: And to make all sorts really worthy (if they will be ruled by us) we shall endeavour their conversion and actual preparation though when we have done all we can, we dare not say, we endeavour our utmost de jure; we leave that to Mr. Humphrey.  
The question about an unregenerate man's duty, to abstain from the Sacrament, which Mr. Humphrey touches upon, page 28, I shall pass here, as referring it to its proper place: And being rightly understood, I hope it will not appear so heterodox.   

Sect. IU.  
Mr. Humphrey, If we must hold the Sacrament to be a means of grace only to the Regenerate, and that none may come without these Sacramental graces, etc. we cannot approach this holy Table, but the terrors of the Lord must fall upon us, as trembling to be guilty of the blood of Christ, and eat our own damnation. The best of God's people (who are most apt to question their spiritual estates) will be discouraged; and others, upon sleight trial, will conclude their estate to be good, presume upon the Sacrament, and thereby bring upon themselves security, and the blood of their own souls, etc. This I take to be the substance of page 29. and 30. The case is very serious, and pathetically propounded.  
Ans. 1. We all agree (from express testimony of Scripture) that they who receive unworthily, eat and drink judgement to themselves, and are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 2ly. Mr. Humphrey is not ignorant of a twofold unworthiness (as well as worthiness) acknowledged generally by our Divines; viz. the unworthiness of Person, and of Preparation, and that either of these unworthinesses make a man obnoxious to the forementioned guilt and danger. 3ly. It's confessed that hypocrites may be very confident, and true Nathaniels may doubt very much they have neither the worthiness of person nor preparation; or through infirmity, sloth, and negligence, may fail very much in point of preparation, yet have the worthiness of Person.  
4ly. We must distinguish between the rigour of the rule, as laid down doctrinally, and the equity of the rule as reduced to practice. To explain this by the Law of the Passeover: the rigid rule was, no unclean person should eat thereof; yet, it might fall out, that many unclean persons did eat thereof, and that without blame or danger, provided they were not supinely negligent either in avoiding or searching out their uncleanness. Otherwise no man durst have eaten the Passover, since its possible he might have been defiled though unwittingly.  
5ly. Abstinence from the Sacrament is twofold 1. Out of profaneness and slighting of Christ, and his grace. 2ly. Out of clear conviction or grounded jealousy about our spiritual estate. In like manner, Receiving of the Sacrament is twofold. 1. Out of Custom or other sinister respects. 2ly. Out of Conscience rightly informed (about truth of grace inherent) or deceived and mistaken, or doubting and scrupulous; namely, when it cannot clearly either assent or descent: Or when it inclines in assent to the better part; yet with fear and jealousy of the contrary.  
These things premised we say. 1. That for Persons totally destitute of the worthiness of person, (such are all in their natural condition) it were happy if the terrors of the Lord were more upon them that by fear of murdering Christ, they might be kept from murdering Christ, at the Sacrament.  
2ly. If upon trial, an erring conscience tell them they have truth of grace, they are exposed to a snare whether they receive or not: since if they come not, they sin against their consciences; and if they come, they receive unworthily, and thereby contract guilt and incur danger; as it is in other cases, when an erring conscience puts a man upon sin as duty, or pulls a man from duty as sin.  
3dly. If any doubt of truth of grace (be the ground of his mistake right or wrong) and thereupon fear to receive 1. this abstinence of his, is far from a slighting of Christ. 2ly. cannot be prejudicial, but advantageous to his soul, provided he sit not down in a doubting and despondent condition.  
4ly. A true Nathaniel wanting evidence, and so fearing to approach is by the Sacrament put upon it to be more diligent in making his calling and Election sure: And by self-examination, backed with prayer and advice of experienced Ministers and Christians, may through the blessing of God attain such a measure of evidence, as that he may with comfort approach the Lords Table, and go away with a double Portion of the spirit of evidence; and for such in special, the Sacrament was instituted as a Cordial to refresh their fainting hearts, and as a seal to ratify the Covenant of grace, and to put it out of question to their consciences. So that if we be rightly understood, here is no sadning of those whom God would not have made sad nor any strengthing the hands of the wicked on the other side: And for those whose portion is sorrow, they had better be in the house of mourning then in the house of feasting. As for the Objection Mr. Humphrey moves from Rom 14. last: He that doubteth is Damned, if he eat etc.  
Ans. 1. In things indifferent, to act doubtingly is a sin, but Sacramental eating is not a thing indifferent to him that hath truth of grace.  
2ly. What if he doubt, he shall sin by abstaining as well as by eating: May not such a case possibly fall out, when the faith of evidence is balanced by an opposite doubting?  
3ly. The word put for doubting, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  signifies in the Original a discerning, or putting a difference, as 1 Cor. 11. 29. Judas ver. 22. which notes a positive act, and not a bare hesitancy or neutrality between assent and descent.  
Let us now peruse Mr. H. his Commentary upon 1 Cor. 11. from pag. 32. to 38, for some ease (as he terms it) of the forementioned perplexities. Pag. 32. he hath these words, I would not have men think Saint Paul advances this Ordinance (which he speaks but lowly of, 1 Cor. 10. 4.) above others, as prayer, the one being only Instituted the other Natural worship.  
Ans. 1. I think Mr. Humphrey is mistaken in saying Saint Paul speaks but lowly of the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10. 4. I conceive it's no low expression to call the Manna spiritual meat, the miraculous Water, spiritual Drink; and the Rock (out of which it flowed) Christ. And though both Manna and Water were common, (they all eaten and drank thereof) this is no undervaluing of either, since the choicest mercies are most common, at least as to the tender of them: (witness God himself) especially in the Church.  
2ly. Whether the Apostle intended here to advance the Sacrament above other Ordinances (which to me seems probable,) or not: I believe it excels other Ordinances; And that because it is made up of them all, to wit, the Sign, the thing signified, the word & prayer; besides the commendation it hath by our blessed Saviour's institution at such a time, and for such high ends. And if all these Ordinances combined, are better than any one of them single; surely the Sacrament must have the preeminency.  
3ly. Upon the same account, instituted worship excels natural worship, because it includes it, and superadds institution. Particularly faith in the Mediator is instituted worship; yet I hope it is not inferior to natural worship, which it includes, and superadds Institution. There is no Ordinance but hath its peculiar use and excellency, for which we have cause to bless God and be thankful; nor need we trouble ourselves with comparisons of this kind, which are for the most part curious, and too often odious. Yet, were actual receiving a converting Ordinance, I think we might well honour it as the Crowning Ordinance, since it excels in point of Confirmation, and represents Christ effectually to so many senses: but I forbear.  
Mr. Humphrey. Pag. 32, & 33. Here is a Church-sinne; that sin is making that common which was sacred, the using of this Sacrament but as their Love-feasts, etc.  
Ans. 1. 
Yea supposing, they were joynned together, as were the common Supper, the Passover and the Lords Supper.  It's gratis dictum, that they made the Lords Supper a common supper as their Love-feasts: Nor doth he produce any argument or Classical Author to avouch it. The Apostle indeed blames their schisms, intemperancy, disorder, and slighting their poor Brethren, etc. 1 Cor. 11. ver. 18. 21. but where is one word of making the Lords Supper a common supper?  
Pag. 33. & 34. He seems to question whether the Lords Supper be first a seal. 2ly. Whether it be a sign of future things, and particularly says, that Remcanbrance is of some thing only that is past.  
Ans. 1. Why should Circumcision be a seal, and not every other Sacrament, and so by consequence the Lords Supper?  
2ly. Hath it not the Office of a Seal in ratifying the Covenant of grace as well as other Sacraments?  
3ly. How doth the unworthy Receiver eat and drinkjudgement, unless this Sacrament by sensible signs applied (as in sealing there is First a sign; Secondly, Application thereof; Thirdly, Ratification thereby) ratify judgement to him without repentance?  
4ly. Mr. Humphrey forgets himself in saying Remembrance is only of things past; otherwise how can I remember the Sabbath to sanctify it, or remember my latter end? etc.  
5ly. Why should not this Sacrament be a sign of future things as well as other Sacraments? Circumcision and the Passover were signs of future things. Baptism is a sign of future things; Namely, of Regeneration, Mortification and Vivification, which (in most baptised persons that attain them) are future: and why should not the Lords Supper be a sign of future, as well as of past things (especially upon Mr. Humphrey his principles, who makes it a converting Ordinance)? Is not the coming of Christ future, and how can this Sacrament declare Christ's death till he come, and not remember the receivers of Christ's coming that is future, as well as of Christ's death that is past? 1 Cor. 11. 26. Pag. 34. In opening, what is this eating and drinking unworthily; he distinguishes between a worthy Receiver and receiving worthily. This last he places mainly in coming with Reverence.  
Ans. 1. I deny not but Reverence is a part of worthy receiving, and that he who receives irreverently, receives unworthily with a witness.  
2ly. Yet as it is compatible to a natural man, he makes it lie very much, in fearing his own Damnation, which (grant it be a duty in statu quo) being but slavish fear, is no part of Evangelicall worthiness; and therefore cannot be a main part of receiving worthily. It's such a worthiness, as he that hath committed the sin against the holy Ghost may receive with.  
3ly. If further by reverence he mean, some inward awe, and outward demure behaviour, it's a very easy matter to receive worthily, yea though a man neither have truth of grace, nor make conscience either of examining or preparing himself. Certainly when the Apostle said, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, etc. he apprehended that who ever of age received without self-examination received unworthily; but Mr. Humphrey tells us, the main of receiving worthily, lies in reverence; and this reverence a natural man may have, and receive with; yet never so much as examine himself. From such worthy receiving, good Lord deliver me. Not but that I think this reverence is necessary, but it falls infinitely short of receiving worthily, and he that receives no more worthily, will eat and drink damnation to himself.  
4ly. If receiving worthily lie mainly in this reverence, than it doth not lie mainly in the acting of Faith, Love, Hungering and thirsting after Christ, Evangelicall repentance, etc. Which how absurd and contrary, not only to the consent of Orthodox Divines, but chief of the Scripture itself, which placeth Evangelicall worthiness in closing with Christ, and unworthiness in the rejecting of him, and withdrawing from him, Matth. 5. 3, 4,5. & 22. ver. 5. 8. Acts 13. ver. 45, 46. Such cold, lose, and jejune interpretations, may well make cold and lose Christians, but will contribute poorly in order to receiving worthily.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 35.  What is the meaning of that phrase, not discerning the Lords Body? Is it the not putting a difference between this Sacred, and a common Table: When men have no more respect to this Bread and Wine then to their ordinary meats.  
Ans. 1. By way of concession; this is a gross breach of the rule indeed, and which grossly ignorant persons are very subject to. This gross sin we should endeavour to prevent by Sacramental trial, and instruction of the Ignorant, how ever our care herein find little favour in Mr Humphrey his eyes.  
2ly. The very laying open of the sin, in the Text, imports a contrary duty of discerning the Lord Body, if we would receive worthily: and this lies not barely in historical faith, discerning the Elements to be holy in use, though common in nature; and that the Lords Body is distinct from them though united Sacramentally with them; but principally in the discretion of saving faith and love (words of knowledge in Scripture being put for acts of the will and affections) whereby the Heavenly Eagles, discerning the body, fly to it, and feed upon it; the discretion of taste being held forth in the Sacrament as well as the discretion of sight; and otherwise what is our discerning of the Lords Body more than a Devil may do? Intellectual discretion without cordial discretion, is so far from being a main part of receiving worthily, that without this latter, it doth but aggravate our sin, and increase our doom. Let my soul never rest, nor please itself in such discerning.  
Mr. Humphrey. The Apostle inquires not into the state of the person, whether regenerate or not, but looks to their manner of receiving, etc.  
Ans. 1. But doth he not put them upon enquiry into their own estates? What else is meant by that precept; Let a man examine himself, etc. Let the Apostle interpret himself. 2 Cor. 13. 5. Gal. 6. 4. And when is there a fit time to examine my estate, actions, growth; then before and after a Sabbath or Sacrament? Sabbath days being with them Sacrament days?  
2ly. If they must look to the manner of receiving, must they not then see to it, they receive graciously; and what was either their receiving, or remembering Christ's death (as to their particular good and comfort) if they did not both in a right manner? 3ly. Can we be so uncharitable as to imagine, they came not to the Lords Supper as a memorial of Christ? Can they either name or receive the Lords Supper, and at the same time utterly forget the Lord, whose Supper it was, and look at it only as a common Supper?  
Mr. Humph. If the meaning of either of the phrases were, to come without faith or regeneration (as some too harshly press it) than the Corinthians that were punished for this sin, must have been not only chastened, but condemned with the world, which they were not, verse 32.  
Ans. 1. It's probable, divers of them did come without faith and regeneration (many of every Congregation being in their natural condition, and under impenitency, which the Apostle hints of the Corinthians in particular, 2 Cor. 12. last, and 13. 5. compared) yet it follows not, they were condemned with the world, since they might repent in their sickness, which the Apostle prescribes, verse 31. as the remedy. 2ly. Even the godly amongst them might haply come profanely, though they made it not a common Supper; and undoubtedly to these. God gave repentance before their death. His argument then is very weak, to conclude their damnation from their unworthy receiving. They indeed who repent not, were damned; but there is no connexion between any man's sin and his damnation, unless that sin be accompanied with final impenitency. 3ly. If it be harsh to say, that they who come without faith and regeneration, receive unworthily when it's delivered only in thesi, how harsh is it to charge a Church in hypothesi, with such high profaneness, that they received the Lords Supper but as a common Supper, and never so much as remembered Christ in it, who is both the Author, Matter, and End of the Sacrament, and whose Name in an special manner is called upon it?  
Page 36. Mr. Humphrey opens that expression, of being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, and grants, that unworthy receivers contract this guilt, by offering an indignity to the thing signified: but he approves not that harsher language of murdering Christ. Ans. 1. Whether he that is guilty of blood be not a murderer. 2ly. Whether degrees of murder vary the kind. 3ly. Whether in murder all be not principals. 4ly. Why should slighting of Christ in Apostates be murder, Heb. 6. and 10. and not in unworthy receivers? If slighting my Brother be murder, shall slighting my Saviour be no murder? The least murder is murder as well as the greatest. This language therefore, by Mr. Humphrey his leave, is not harsh, unless it be harsh to call a Spade a Spade.  
His next head of explication, 
Page 37.  is, about selfe-examination, wherein Mr. Humphrey and we agree very much. To his second caution I shall only add thus much, That whosoever upon trial, is truly sensible of, and grieved for, the want of grace; humbled under, and resolved against, sin: this man hath truth of grace at present, and is the worthiest communicant in God's account. In his third caution, he grants, that in order to better preparation against the next Sacrament, a wicked man may abstain at present; but if he resolve to go on in sin, than he is bound to come and to apply damnation to himself, unless he repent.  
Ans. 1. By way of concession, every obstinate sinner is bound to apply damnation to himself, in statu quo. 2ly. This he may do in an especial manner, when present at the Sacrament, though he receive not. 3ly. By receiving so maliciously, he contracts more guilt, then by abstaining, it being a Judas sin to betray and murder Christ any where, but most of all at his own Table, to eat of his bread with a resolution of lifting up our heel against him. John 13. 18. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, how much more when he brings it with a wicked heart. Prov. 21. 27.  
4ly. Supposing it were his duty to come and apply Damnation by receiving, what if he will not apply Damnation, and comes with an intention not to apply Damnation but Salvation, as Deut. 29. 19 is it his duty to come, though he will apply Salvation and not Damnation by the Sacramen. Is it his duty to come though he come presumptuously? Much I confess might be said for his coming absolutely, Let his intentions be what they will, were actual receiving a converting Ordinance. But of this, in its proper place.  
Pag. 38. He says, that unless a man use the Lords Supper as a common thing, there is no peculiar eating damnation there, more than at any other Ordinance.  
Ans. 1. This cannot be, since the Sacrament is a complex Ordinance: He that eats his Damnation at four Ordinances, eats it more than he that eats it but at one Ordinance. At the Sacrament Christ crucified is held forth by reading, hearing, prayerr, and the Sacramental Elements and Actions; in all which Christ is murdered by the unworthy receiver. He who murders Christ four times, sure is more guilty than he who murders him but once.  
2ly. He that by eating Damnation, seals Damnation, eats Damnation more than he that eats it without sealing: As a godly man at the Sacrament eats Christ more than at the word, so doth a wicked man eat Damnation.  
Object. If this be true, than a wicked man by presence at the Sacrament, may murder Christ as well as by receiving.  
Ans. 1. True, but not so much.  
2ly. The three Ordinances of reading preaching and prayer are converting; not so, actual receiving: upon which account we dare not deny any the three former, nor dare admit every one to the latter.  
Pag. 39 He distinguisheth between eating and sealing Damnation: That is the effect of irreverent unworthiness: this is a confirming of the truth of the Covenant, to every man according to his condition, which is a duty, etc. and of high concernment, as they look to be converted and saved.  
Ans. He is too narrow in limiting the eating of Damnation only to irreverent unworthiness, as if there were no other Sacramental unworthiness but that.  
2ly. We must distinguish between Gods sealing and man's sealing; God by the Sacrament seals Damnation (as to state) unto wicked men whether they receive or not. Man at the Sacrament seals Damnation to himself, wittingly or unwittingly. Wittingly, in Mr. Humphrey his sense, when he receives the seal with an intent to apply the threat of Damnation to himself, in order to his deeper humiliation; unwittingly, when being personally or relatively unworthy he lays hold of, and applies the seals either rashly or presumptuously, which ever seal salvation or damnation according to the state & carriage of the receiver and if not the former, then necessarily the latter: as a man by inconsiderately sealing to a Bond, may easily ratify his own undoing, though haply at the same time he dream of no such matter; That we may call an intentional, this areall and actual sealing. The distinction being thus cleared and stated, I believe that every unworthy receiver doth seal his own damnation really, whether he mind what he doth, or no.  
2ly. That if such a person in statu quo, will venture to receive, he ought to seal and apply to himself only his own portion which is Damnation otherwise he were bound to seal a falsity.  
But thirdly, that any man is bound to receive for this very end, that he may seal his own Damnation; I desire a scriptum est from Mr. Humphrey. Certainly, were this a duty, the Sacrament were more necessary for persons either de jure, or facto excommunicate then for any other: The proudest sinners have most need of sealing their own Damnation, that thereby they might be driven to humiliation and repentance.  
The comfort of poor souls, (who being sensible of their unworthiness, fear their Damnation,) is sealed and cannot be reversed, lies in this. 1. That the sealing in the Sacrament is not according to their Apprehension, but according unto Truth. Let men think themselves never so unworthy, if they be Evangelically worthy, not their Damnation but their Salvation is sealed. 2ly. Supposing their Damnation be sealed, it's sealed but conditionally, as to the Event, however it may be sealed absolutely, as to their present State. If therefore they keep not the condition of Damnation, the sealing thereof shall no more prejudice them then the sealing of Salvation shall advantage Hypocrites, who keep not the condition of Salvation. His distinction of Actual and Potential sealing is not so accurate, since every receiver doth actually seal both parts of the Covenant, namely, both Salvation and Damnation only the one he seals absolutely, the other conditionally, according to his particular state and continuance therein. Only the worthy Receiver hath this singular advantage, That his Salvation is sealed absolutely, both as to State and Event; not so the Damnation of the unworthy Receiver, I mean as to the latter.  
Mr. Humphrey. If the Sacrament be a Seal, it doth exhibit and convey something to the Receiver; and that, to the Unregenerate, must be dangerous. Here then let us know and arm ourselves, that Sacraments being only moral Instruments, cannot convey any thing that is Real unto the Soul by way of Obsignation; but only that which is Relative, making no change, but as to our Estates, and Relations to God, etc.  
Ans. 1. If the Sacrament being only a Moral Instrument, cannot convey any thing that is real, than the Word being also but a Moral Instrument, cannot convey any thing that is Real. The Word Preached, may work Knowledge physically, but it cannot work grace physically. He that looks at any Ordinance under Christ, as more than a Moral Instrument of Grace, doth at once debase God, and Idolise the Ordinance.  
2ly. If Sacraments can convey nothing Real and absolute but only Relative, than Sacraments cannot convert and regenerate; these being Real & absolute privileges, as Justification and Adoption are Relative privileges; (not to stand upon his opposition of Real to Relative, as if a Relative state were not a Real state.)  
3ly. Suppose they could convey no Real thing to the Soul by way of Obsignation yet they may by way of Signification. The Sacrament is a Sign as well as a Seal, and preaches Christ crucified to the eye, as the Word doth to the ear.  
4ly. As a Seal conveys an Estate to him that keeps the Conditions of a Covenant for Estate; so the Sacrament conveys degrees of Grace to him that keeps the condition of the Covenant. True, the Seal is nothing without the Writing, for it must have some what to seal to; and that is the Covenant: but, as annexed to the Covenant, it makes a complete Instrument, and doth not only signify, but also convey Christ with all his benefits to the worthy Receiver: 
That is, gives a Title to Christ, as by exhibiting, it gives possession in part.  and if so, than not only Relative, but also real and absolute Privileges: namely, more degrees of Sanctification as well as further evidence of Justification and Adoption. The Iron therefore he complains of, pag. 41. will still stick in his Soul, since neither word nor Sacrament convey either wrath or mercy Physically, but only Morally: Both represent by way of Signification, which if the spirit please to set on effectually, may contribute much in their several kinds; but the Sacraments excel in way of Obsignation and Ratification.   

Sect. V.  
Having vindicated the Apostles Text against Mr. Humphrey his gloss: 
Pag. 44.  Let us see, what he hath to say to my Confutation of his proofs.  
D. Dr. If Mr. Humphrey plead that only Legal uncleanness, excludes from the Passover, I ask him, why? He will answer, because it defiled the holy things, etc. but so did Moral uncleanness, etc.  
Mr. Humphrey. Here Mr. Drake is miserably mistaken. Mr. Humphrey intends not to answer him so sillily: but because it was Gods positive Command, that Levitically-inclean persons should be separated from the Camp; but there was no such Law for Moral uncleanness at all, but the contrary, that all the Congregation were to eat thereof.  
Ans. 1. There is no positive Command that all unclean persons should be put out of the Camp; the more famous uncleanesses indeed were so to be separated, Numb. 5. 2. but not every uncleanness.  
2ly. God himself assigns this reason, why they should be separated, namely, lest they should defile others. Levit. 5. 3. therefore Dr. Drakes reason was not so silly, it being Gods own reason.  
3ly. Moral uncleanness defiled as well as Legal uncleanness, as Mr. Humphrey confesseth from my proofs, Levit. 18. and Ezek. 23.  
4ly. Church-Officers were set on purpose to keep all unclean persons from the holy things, 2 Chron. 23. 19 Those that were unclean in any thing. If no unclean person were to enter, and persons were unclean by Moral, as well as by Legal pollutions; then my proofs were not busily vain as Mr. Humphrey would make the world believe. Whether therefore the charge of petulancy and reviling, be justly laid upon me, I leave to the judgement of the impartial Reader; not that I shall, or dare, excuse every word written in heat of dispute, as well knowing my own weakness, and that the tongue and pen are slippery pieces.  
D. Dr. That all unclean persons were to be suspended the Passover, is evident by 2 Chron. 23. 19  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Page 45.  For shame do not say so. 1. Doth that place speak of the Passover: Or, 2ly. of Suspension: Or, 3ly. of Moral uncleanness?  
Ans. 1. The term Passover, is not mentioned in my Text, quoted by Mr. Humphrey, page 19 2 . Had I said, that all unclean persons, were not only to be suspended in general, but in particular to be suspended the Passover, had it been any more than the truth? I would not here be mistaken, as if I thought that either Moral or levitical uncleanness did exclude from all Ordinances, but only from some Ordinances; and that both under the Legal and Evangelicall dispensation. Amongst which, I apprehend that the Passover then, and the Lords Supper now, are in a special manner distinguishing and separating Ordinances. This I have in part made out here, and shall, by God's assistance, clear it more hereafter, in its proper place. 3 . I brought not that place, 2 Chron. 23. 19 to prove it in terms, but by consequence. The Resurrection is not in terms in these words, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; yet, those words prove the Resurrection strongly. From the forequoted place its evident, that unclean persons were to be kept from those holy things, which were instituted for meat's of Edification, not of Conversion. I assume: But the Passover was such an holy thing; therefore they were to be kept from the Passover. 4 . As the term Suspension, is not named here, so the term Excommunication is not mentioned, either in the Old or New-Testament: Doth it follow therefore, that suspension cannot be proved by this Text, nor excommunication by Scripture? Mr. Humphrey can conclude, we suspend those persons whom we do not admit, and can he not as well conclude, that Jchofada suspended those persons whom he did not admit? 5 . Let me retort a passage of his Answer in this page, changing only the term of levitical for Moral: Is it probable, that the Levites at such a time, did, or could, in such a concourse, try, and examine them concerning levitical cleanness and uncleanness? Let Mr. Humphrey tell me, how they could try all for levitical uncleanness; and I will tell him, how they could try all for Moral uncleanness. I avouch not, page 202. that an excommunicated person might come into the Temple; but into the Church, where presence doth not defile. And as for the Publican, his Office did not make him unclean, nor did John the Baptist bid them renounce the Office, but be just and righteous in their places, Luke 3. verse 12, 13. Indeed generally, Fublicans were very oppressive and hateful, but their Office was warrantable and therefore upon that account solely, they could not be kept out of the Temple, I mean the Court for the people. But it follows not, that because Publicans, as so, might not be excluded the Temple, therefore when morally unclean, by horrid oppressions, etc. they might not be kept out.  
For my second Exception, about Children eating the Passover, it seems probable enough, that Children who were capable of eating flesh, and could conveniently be brought up to Jerusalem, did eat of it; from that general Precept, Exod. 12. 48. nor doth Mr. Humphrey deny it, though he seem more inclinable to the contrary opinion. This granted, makes much against Mr. Humphrey, his excepting Children from the Lords Supper. Since therefore he will needs be scoring, let him took notice of it, as a probable evidence against himself.  
He doth well in passing over my instance of Hezekiah's Passover, 2 Chron. 30. verse 18, 19, 20. which proves, that Moral uncleanness made them more uncapable of it, then levitical pollution, God accepting those who set their hearts aright, though they were not cleansed after the purification of the Sanctuary.  
D. Dr. Excommunication was a bar to the Passover, and this was for scandalous sins, not Levitical pollutions.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Page 46.  Who will not be willing to grant this in the main? But what follows then? only, as I hold, that men must be first excommunicate, before they be kept from the Sacrament.  
Ans. 1. Take notice, that Mr. Humphrey grants excommunication is a bar to the Passover. Now I would entreat him to give me but one express Text of Scripture, that in terms asserts this conclusion: If he can prove it only by consequence, let him not deny the same just and equitable favour to us, of proving suspension from the Sacrament also by consequence. 2 . Take away the homonymy and equivocation of the term Excommunication, under which Mr. Humphrey beguiles his Reader; and it will easily appear, that I have not played with my own shadow, what ever he, through prejudice, may imagine. Mr. Humphrey takes excommunication for a juridical exclusion of a Person from all public Ordinances at least. I know no such excommunication in Scripture, unless it be evident, a person hath committed the sin against the Holy Ghost: and this also is demonstrable only by our consequence, because we are sure no Ordinance can do such a one good, no more than the Devil himself. I take excommunication in the Latitude, as it notes a turning out of Communion, whether in order to any Church privilege, or in order to dis-Membering, which is properly a casting out of the Church, in the rigour of the phrase. Accordingly, I prove there were several degrees of excommunication in practice, both in the Jewish and Christian Church, page 21, 22. built upon Scripture grounds: as, when we are forbid to eat with a scandalous Brother, 1 Cor. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. and 2 Thess. 3. 14. commanded to avoid them, not to keep company with them; the very end whereof (that they may be ashamed) seems in a special manner to respect separation from such at the Sacrament, since by suspension they are put to public shame, a far more effectual remedy to reduce them, then private separation alone; which yet must concur and back this public shame, for the better obtaining of the forementioned end and purpose. Hence I concluded, that suspension is excommunication, and the first degree thereof. And as degrees of heat do not alter the nature and kind of heat, but that the least degree of heat is as truly heat as the highest degree thereof; so the least degree of excommunication is excommunication (that is, a turning out of communion, though but in part) as well as the highest degree. And therefore Mr. Humphrey granting, that excommunicated persons may, and aught, to be kept from the Sacrament, doth therein grant, that suspended persons may be kept from the Sacrament since suspension is excommunication, though in a low degree.  
For my exception about the word (Type) he deals very ingenuously, and acknowledges, That if strictly taken, it is not amiss. Only thence he infers against me, that exclusion of the Legally unclean from the Congregation, is not proof for me to plead, that the Morally-unclean aught to be kept from the Sacrament; but a Type indeed, that such, in whom the Leprosy, etc. of sin reigns, shall be excluded Heaven.  
Ans. 1. I do not bring it as proof yea, I believe, that if sequestering any out of the Camp, did typify an Evangelicall Censure, it should rather typify turning out of Church membership (especially if their uncleanness were incurable) than Suspension: but for my part, I believe its a type of neither.  
2ly. I go upon the general rule, that all unclean persons were to be kept from those holy things which cannot convert, but prejudice them in statu quo. The Scripture is clear, that Moral uncleanness is worse than levitical pollution, and that therefore it doth desile as much, yea, more than any Legal pollution, Levit. 18. Ezek. 23. To which I might add, Ezek. 44. ver. 9-14. (a Text the more considerable, because a prophecy of Gospel-times) Where persons uncircumcised in heart as well as in flesh, were forbid Entrance into God's Sanctuary: And the Priests formerly guilty of Idolatry, were cut short of choice Privileges in the Church an evidence that neither Church-members nor Church-officers were, eo nomine, to enjoy equal privileges, but a difference was to be made in point of privilege according to their visible worthiness or unworthiness. So Mat. 5. 23, 24. Christ forbids a malicious person in statu quo, to draw near in order to Sacrifice; and will he allow a malicious person to draw near in order to the receiving of the Sacrament? But of this more hereafter. Yea the Sacrifices did typically expiate Moral as well as levitical uncleanness, Levit. 5. & 6. though neither the one nor the other were to enjoy the benefit of Sacrifice, till evidence given to the Priest either of their Moral Legal, or Spiritual cleansing, either by the mercy of God curing their unclean diseases or by their application of more private levitical means of cleansing, or by the public testification of their repentance, and faith, for their Moral uncleanesses. Levit. 5. ver. 5, 6. & 6. ver. 4. 5. & 15. ver. 13. 14. & 13. ver. 4. to 11. Yea further, for the searching into, and discovery of Moral uncleanness (though but upon jealousy and suspicion, and that where there was no witness at all) the Lord was pleased to work a miracle. Numb. 5. ver. 13. to 31. Acts 5. ver. 5. to 11. thereby warranting and encouraging, both Church-Officers and private Christians upon any grounded jealousy of Moral Pollution, not to stay till Evidence come to them, but to improve all lawful means of discovery, as they tender their own peace and safety, or the peace and safety of the whole. Compare Jos. 7. Add to this the example of Jehojadah, 2 Chron. 23. 19 It's evident, Church-Officers were of purpose set in the Gates of the Lords House, to keep away those who were unclean in any thing: and if persons unclean in any thing, were to be kept off, than persons unclean by gross, or reigning sins (which is moral uncleanness) were to be kept away; since in that place there is no more mention of Levitical then of Moral uncleanness; but the Scripture commends Jehojadas care for keeping back those who were unclean in any thing: I argue therefore from a Moral precept, not from a levitical type; nor doth the Suspension of persons Levitically unclean any more exclude the Suspension of persons Morally unclean, than the Suspension of persons Morally unclean doth exclude the Suspension of persons Levitically unclean, seeing neither of them are named in the forementioned Text, but both included in the general.  
D. Dr: It is evident that Niddui was a Bar in particular to the Passover.  
Mr. Humphrey. I pray mark it. Niddui was an excommunication for thirty days. Now if it were a Bar to the Passover, a man could never be excommunicated but at Easter. The truth is, Niddui was no more in reference to the Passover then any Society; and it is twelve to one throughout the year, whether it ever happened to concern the Passover, etc.  
Ans. 1. I pray mark it, Mr. Humphrey grants Niddui was an Excommunication.  
2ly. Pag. 46. he grants that Excommunication was a Bar to the Passover. Why then doth he find fault with me for saying no more, than what himself says and grants, namely, that Niddui in particular was a Bar to the Passover?  
Object. I but Niddui was an Excommunication only for thirty days; and if it were a Bar to the Passover, a man could never be Excommunicated but at Easter.  
Ans. 1. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant, that the time of this Excommunication, might be doubled or trebled, yea, extended to the end of a man's life, if he continued impenitent; See goodwin's Jewish Antiquities, pag. 200.  
2ly. It's very absurd he says, that then a man could not be Excommunicated but at Easter. True, his Excommunication could not keep him from the Passover, if he were absolved from it before the Passover came; no more can Suspension be a Bar to the Sacrament, if a man be absolved from it, before the Sacrament come: but the sentence of Niddui might be issued out against a person at any time of the year.  
3ly. It's likewise a gross mistake (supposing this Excommunication lasted but thirty days) to hold that it is twelve to one throughout the year, whether ever it happened to concern the Passover. Hath Mr. Humphrey forgot there were two Passovers every year, and that the second Passover was in the Second Month, for those who could not receive in the First Month? Numb. 9 ver. 10, 11. & 2 Chron. 30. ver. 2, 3, 15. therefore upon his own supposition it was but six to one in the year, that this Excommunication might concern the Passover. But what will Mr. Humphrey say, if Niddui extended to an whole year, yea, to a man's whole life; did it not then clearly Bar such a person from the Passeover?  
4ly. Niddui was a Separation from eating and drinking with any, and how then could such a one receive the Passover which was never to be eaten alone? It's apparent than that Suspension is no Novel invention: That their Niddui & our Suspension were very like one to the other, since under both, men were kept from the Sacrament, but not from other Ordinances, but might be present at Divine Service, either to hear, or to teach, &c: Only our Suspension is far milder: since the males of persons under the sentence of Niddui, might not be circumcised, etc. Besides, with us many persons suspend themselves, and choose not to receive at all, rather than they will give an account of their faith to those must give an account to God for their souls. Had Mr. Humphrey improved his Art and skill in persuading the people to return to their duty, instead of discouraging Church-Officers from painfulness, watchfulness, and faithfulness in their duty, he had contributed far more (than now he doth) to the glory of God, the Reformation and edification of the Church, and the peace of his own Conscience. But I forbear. How ever therefore Mr. Humphrey soars high in confidence, as if we had nothing to say against the daylight of his Free-Admission (as he is pleased to term it) 
Pag. 47.  yet it hath formerly appeared, and will further appear by this ensuing parallel, that we have more to say for Suspension, and against his Free-Admission, than he was ware of.  
The Parallel lies thus. Every Church-Member was bound to receive the Passover. Every Church-Member is bound to receive the Lords Supper. This General is limited by an exception of Legal and Moral uncleanness. This General is limited by an exception of Moral uncleanness. It lay as a duty upon Church-Officers, to keep away such as were unclean. It lies as a duty upon Church-Officers, to keep away such as are unclean. Those pollutions which excluded a man from the Passover, did not exclude him from the means of Conversion. Those pollutions which exclude a man from the Lords Supper, do not exclude him from Prayer, Hearing, etc. which are means of Conversion. If a man were unfit to eat the Passover in the first Month, he was to forbear till the next Passover in the second Month. If a man be unfit for the Sacrament at this time, he is to forbear till the next Sacrament.  
The question is, What if a man were unclean at the second Passover? Ans. He was either to forbear, till the Passover recurring the next year; or else, to endeavour to make amends for his Legal pollution, by striving more after, and giving stronger evidence of his moral purity, 2 Chron. 30. verse 18. to 20. Whereby it appears, that Moral pollution was a greater Bar to the Passover, then levitical pollution.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Page 48.  My second proof was from 2 Cor. 10. 17. These Corinthians were scandalous many of them; and yet, says the Apostle, We being many, are all partakers of one bread. Against this, Mr. Drake hath his three exceptions, page 25, 26, 27.  
1. He extenuates their crime, and counts it no bar to their receiving.  
Ans. 1. I may more safely extenuate their crime, than he may aggravate it. 2 . Himself doth not charge them with Idolatry, but says only, that they were ready to go to Idols. 3 . Yet that they were ready to commit Idolatry, is not evident by Scripture; only they gave great occasion of scandal and suspicion in that kind, by eating things sacrificed to Idols, and that in the Idols Temple; which the strong judged a part of their Christian liberty, and thereby offended the weak: Whereupon 1 Cor. 10. latter end, the Apostle disputes against this carnal liberty of theirs, and by commanding them to flee from Idolatry. verse 14. he wills them to avoid the signs, appearances, and occasions thereof. This carriage of theirs, I grant, was bad, but not enough (especially before sufficient admonition given) to bar them from the Lords Supper. Let the Reader now judge, whether in this extenuation (if Mr. Humphrey please to call it so) I have sinned, either against the light of Truth, or the law of Love.  
Mr. Humphrey. Secondly, He confutes this himself, and proves, they were guilty of gross sins, by 2 Cor. 12. 21. and so will not allow them to be admitted. Ans. 1. Having denied they were guilty of Idolatry (which Mr. Humphrey himself dares not charge them withal) did I afterwards confute myself, by granting they were guilty of other gross sins? Let us set the two Propositions together. 1. Prop. The Corinthians were not guilty of Idolatry. 2. Prop. The Corinthians were guilty of other gross sins. Is here any contradiction? or, doth the latter Proposition confute the former? 2 . All that I say, page 25. and 26. is in substance this, Yet, taking it for granted, many of them were guilty of greater sins, as appears by 1 Cor. 15. and 2 Cor. 12. 21. how proves he from the place, that all these were notwithstanding admitted, & c? Let us here again set both Propositions together. 1. Prop. Persons abusing their Christian liberty, are not presently to be suspended the Sacrament, especially before sufficient admonition given, 2. Prop. Persons guilty of gross sins, are to be suspended the Sacrament. Are these two Propositions contradictory? or, doth the latter confute the former?  
Mr. Humphrey. Thirdly, He supposes this too, and questions only Paul's allowance of it. Thus you see how playful the man is; and that at one breath he can blow his bubble out, and in, and out again. Ans. Sure Mr. Humphrey was merrily disposed when he wrote these things, and hoped, the Reader would never put himself to the trouble of comparing what I wrote with his Answer, but take all he says upon trust. It's well, since he was resolved to be so merry here, and in other parts of his rejoinder, that he hath pitched upon so inconsiderable a person as myself for the object of his mirth. The Lord hath been pleased of late years to give me the cup of contempt and slighting, by the hands of precious friends and acquaintance, whom I honour in the Lord; I may well therefore take this cup out of the hands of a stranger. Let him alone, the Lord hath commanded him, who shall say unto him, wherefore hast thou done so? 2 Sam. 16. 10.  
But to come to the matter: my scope in the forementioned words (which he wrists so pleasantly) was to give Mr. Humphrey all the fair play he could desire in order to his more effectual conviction. Therefore I grant him, 1. That the Corinthians went too far towards Idolatry. 2ly. That besides this they were guilty of other grievous sins. I deny, 1 That his Quotation proves those gross sinners were admitted to the Sacrament. 2ly Supposing they were admitted de facto, I deny that his Quotation proves the Apostle allowed, much less commanded such a Free-Admission. I hope Mr. Humphrey will give me leave to tell him these are serious matters, and will not be put off with a Jest.  
Mr. Humphrey. For the first it is manifest, that these Corinth's were Fornicators, etc. For the Second, the Text is full to the point. St. Paul says, they were all partakers of this Bread. Mr. Dr. says, but how will he prove, notwithstanding they were admitted? and that they had only a right to it in actu primo. Whom shall we believe Mr. Paul or St. Drake.  
Ans. 1. That many of the Corinth's were very scandalons, is agreed on both sides.  
But 2ly. I say, That, these scandalous persons were admitted to the Lords Supper, is not proved convincingly, by that Quotation: And my reason is, because both in Scripture and particularly in the Epistles to the Corinth's, universal propositions are not understood de singulis unius generis, or the word All doth not always include every particular person, or thing which in form of speech seems to be comprehended under it. For instance, 2 Sam. 11. 1. David sent Joab and All Israel, etc. will any thence conclude that not one man was left in the Land of Canaan, but that every male passed over Jordan to destroy the Ammonites? Matth. 23. 3, All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: must All there be understood without any restriction? then Christ's Disciples must observe the Traditions and corruptions taught by the Pharisees, contrary to our Saviour's express commands otherwhere. But to come nearer, 1 Cor. 8. 1. We know that we all have Knowledge: Yet 1 Cor. 15. 34. Some of you have not the Knowledge of God, I speak this to your shame: and ver. 36. he calls them Fools, for their gross ignorance about that Fundamental point of the Resurrection. Yea, in that very particular about the Latitude of their Christian Liberty. 1 Cor. 8: He that says, vers. 1. We all have Knowledge, yet says v. 7. How be it there is not in every man this Knowledge; a clear evidence that All in the first verse must not be understod universally? I shall trouble my Reader but with one place more. 2 Cor. 3. 18. But we All with open face, beholding as in a Glass the glory of the Lord etc. Will Mr Humphrey hence conclude, that every Member of the Church of Corinth had saving Knowledge and grace? Certainly every one, who, with open face beholding the glory of the Lord, is changed from glory to glory by the Spirit, is a godly man and this the Apostle affirms of all the Corinth's, as well as of himself: yet no man will urge that place to prove that every Member of the Church of Corinth was truly godly. And why then should Mr. Humphrey conclude, that all the Corinth's did actually receive the Sacrament, because the Apostle here useth a like phrase, saying, 1 Cor. 10. 17. We All are partakers of that one Bread. It is not my work now to digress, by giving my Reader an account why the Scripture using general expressions, doth not include all particulars under that general Its sufficient that it is usual in Scripture under a general to comprehend but some particulars for which, hundreds of instances might be produced: Yea, seldom in Scripture doth any general include all particulars under it; and this kind of expression is usual in common discourse, All the World knows such a thing, and who knowsaot this nor that? However therefore Mr. Humphrey is so merrily disposed, that he will break a jest upon Saint Paul rather than he will not be merry with Dr. Drake; Yet I hope it is now evident to the Reader, that Mr. Humphrey might well have been more serious in so serious a matter, and that though St. Paul's Doctrine be true, yet it is misinterpreted and misapplyed by M. Humphrey.  
Mr. Humphrey. For the third, that he allowed of this practice, that is manifest too, In that he did not forbid it, which if it had been sin, he must have done etc.  
Ans. 1. Must a Minister, when treating of the Sacrament, or of any other Ordinance, needs particularly forbidden every sin committed, or committable against that Ordinance: then he may make Paul's work of it indeed.  
2ly. Doth Mr. Humphrey think there were no other sins committed against the Sacrament, but those mentioned in 1 Cor. 10. and 11. by the Apostle?  
3ly. May he not have forbid the admitting of scandalous persons otherwhere, as 1 Cor. 5. 11. & c?  
Nay, 4ly. Doth he not forbid it, in this very Chapter. 1 Cor. 10. 21? You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and of the Cup of Devils, etc. What can the meaning of these words be, but that they who did partake of the Devil's Table, might not partake of the Lords Table It was naturally possible enough (and probably divers of them who eaten the Devil's Sacrifices in the Idols Temple, ●id also receive the Lords Supper) but it was morally impossible, because sinful and prohibited: and by coming to the Lords Table from the Devil's Table they provoked the Lord, ver. 22. 
Page 49.  But more of this, haply hereafter. Mr. Humphrey indeed endeavours to avoid the evidence of this place, saying, The Apostle speaks not of divers persons (in the whole Church) going to one Table, but of the same persons going to divers Tables: and he plainly reasons from their partaking of the one, against the other.  
Ans. 1. It's evident the Apostle speaks of divers persons (supposing, as Mr. Humphrey would have it, they who are the Idoll-Sacrifices, did also partake of the Lords Table, which is probable enough; though Mr. Humphrey his ground to evidence it be not convincing) in the whole Church going to one Table, some strong Christians who took liberty to eat things offered to Idols, some weak Christians who were offended with this their liberty, both Church-members, and both probably partaking of the Lords Table, 1 Cor. 10. ver. 28, 29 32. compare 1 Cor. 8. ver. 7. 10. unless Mr. Humphrey be of the mind that only the strong did receive the Lord's Supper, and not the weak Brethren.  
2ly. We grant and agree with Mr. Humphrey, that the Apostle doth plainly reason from their partaking of one of these Tables, against their partaking of the other, which makes much for us, and against himself. From their partaking of the Devil's Table, he argues against their partaking of the Lords Table as well as from their partaking of the Lords Table, he argues against their partaking of the Devil's Table. What follows then (by Mr. Humphrey his own grant) but that, as those who partake of the Lords Table, ought not to partake of the Devil's Table; so those who partake of the Devil's Table, ought not to partake of the Lords Table; A clear evidence for S. spension of Church-members that were Morally unclean: the Apostle doth not say, they ought to be Excommunicated (in Mr. Humphrey his sense, by sequestration from all Ordinances) but they ought not to receive the Lords Supper; and what is this but that they are to be Suspended? But whereas he adds, Those who were engaged from going to Idols, partook of the L●rds Supper: but, it was not the regenerate only, but all their intelligent members, were hereby engaged from Idols. Ergo, All their intelligent members partook of the Sacrament, and were to partake of it, if the Apostles argument were sufficient.  
Ans. He may as well argue, Those who were engaged against open renouncing of Christ, buggery, witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, the sin against the Holy Ghost, etc. partook of the Lords Supper; but it was not the regenerate only, but all their intelligent Members, were, by the Apostles Doctrine, engaged against the former crimes (even those who were most guilty of them, and that upon open conviction, having no show of repentance, and so being ipso jure, excommunicate) Ergò, all their intelligent members, yea, even those who were jure excommunicate, did partake of the Sacrament, and were to partake of it, if the Apostles argument were sufficient. You see how the man rises in his latitude for admission to the Sacrament: page 21. and 22. he yields, that persons ipso jure excommunicate, may be kept from the Sacrament, though they be not actually excommunicated: 
Mr. Humph. says not so in express terms, but it follows necessarily by consequence from his way of arguing.  Here he tells us, that even persons ipso jure excommunicate aught to receive, and therefore must not be kept back, or else the Apostles argument is not sufficient. Yea further, if Mr. Humphrey's argument be good, should not children, distracted, and excommunicated persons, be admitted also to the Lords Table, since all these are engaged against sin, as well as the regenerate? But this I will not press.  
His next proof is drawn from 1 Cor. 10. verse 3, 4, 5. Here he brings in Calvin, as agreeing with him in his explication, that all the Israelites were Baptised, did eat of the Manna, and drink of the Rock, and had free Admission to those Sacraments. All which we easily grant, as being clear in the Text. Against this, he says, I bring two exceptions. 1. I say he speaks gratis, in saying they were admitted to our Sacraments.  
Mr. Humphrey. I pray see the words: does Saint Paul speak gratis: They did all eat the same spiritual meat? etc. Nay, he says not only the same spiritual meat, but the same spiritual Symbols, etc.  
Ans. 1. The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same, refer clearly (as the scope of the context evidenceth) not to the unity of their and our Sacraments, in order to the Symbols or Elements of each, which are as manifestly distinct, as wheaten-Bread and Manna, Wine and Water: But, to their unity in receiving, or their mixed communion in those Elements pell-mell, without distinction of good and bad, distracted or sober, infant or elder person, circumcised or uncircumcised, Israelite or Heathen, in the mixed multitude, Exod. 12. 38. Numb. 11. 4.  
Ans. 2 . Their Baptism indeed had the same Symbol of Water with ours, but were their Sacramental meat and drink the same Symbols with ours? then their Manna was our Manchet-bread, and their Water was our Wine. Well may Mr. Humphrey persuade men, that all Church-members, before Excommunication, may, and aught, to be admitted to the Lords Supper, if upon his dictate, they can presently believe, that the Manna was bread made of Wheat, and the Rockwater was Wine. Christ can turn Water into Wine, but than it must cease to be water; but Mr. Humphrey can make the Element of Water to be both Wine and Water at the same instant. Nor will that shift help him, because we sometimes have Sack, sometimes Claret: since Sack and Claret are evidently under one kind, namely, under the kind of Wine; but so is not Water. And to strip him of this cavil, let Mr. Humphrey give Water in stead of Wine at the Sacrament, will any say, he gives the same Element, or Symbol, with Wine. I deny not, but Calvin says, they enjoyed the same symbols. But doth not Mr. Humphrey know, there is Identitas generica & specifica, generically a man and a tree are the same; yet, it's absurd to say, A man is a tree, or, a tree is a man▪ So, generically Wine and Water are the same symbols, both being under the genus of corpus inanimatum; but he who therefore should say, that Wine and Water are the same Symbols, would speak incongruously, and may as well ay, that Bread and Water are the same Symbols, since they are the same generically, as being both of them inanimate bodies. Mr. Humphrey therefore might well have spared this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as understanding my meaning well enough; and that I grant Their Sacraments and Ours are the same as to the thing signified.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 50.  Whereas he urges here, The Uncircumcised and Infants (which is now thrice) were admitted: his argument will but ever come to this, That because our Scriptures sometimes seem to prove more, therefore they cannot prove the less.  
Ans. 1. Mr. Humphrey saw he was pinched here, and might with fare more honour have confessed his error, than, by making a vainflourish, have baffled his Reader; especially considering, whether this place be for him or no, it is not much material to his cause, the Sacraments being extraordinary, both in their institution, and their use; miraculous in their institution, common in their use: And as to their Sacramental Elements, their very Beasts did partake at least of some of them, or else they must have choked for want of Water, Exod. 17. verse 32. 6. Numb. 20. 8. which puts a wide difference between them and Sacraments in Ordinary. 2 . Here further his vanity appears, in upbraiding me now the third time, with that passage of Infantadmission, which makes so much for me, and against himself. 3 . We deny not the strength of that argument (either in Scripture or elsewhere) drawn a majore and minus, but willingly grant, where the Scripture proves the greater, it proves the less; where it proves more, it proves fewer, in a right sense: and thence we deduce that, Where it proves excommunication, There it necessarily proves suspension. 4 . We say, that Mr. Humphrey his Bulwark from this place, is a Battery against himself, and makes him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That, he would prove out of this place, is, That all intelligent Church-Members, not actually excommunicated, aught to receive the Lords Supper, because all intelligent Church-members did receive those Sacraments, 1 Cor. 10. We answer, If his argument be good from this place, then, pariratione, all unintelligent Church-members, yea, persons excommunicated, yea, very Heathen, (not to instance in bruit Beasts) ought to receive the Sacrament. Therefore, say we, this argument cannot serve his turn, there being an apparent hiatus in it. Mr. Humphrey therefore pag. 50. perverts and corrupts the scope of the Apostle, who never intended to encourage the Corinth's to receive pell-mell, because the Israelites did so: For then, by the same reason, he should also have given encouragement ro admit pell-mell, all persons of age (living in the same Parish or Neighbourhood) to Baptism without any Examination or Confession of their Faith, they being so Baptised unto Moses, 1 Cor. 10. 2. whereas the apparent scope of the Apostle was, to warn the Corinthians, and in them all Christians, not to presume upon Outward Privileges, but to study real Piety, else they should perish for all their Privileges; Yea, their perishing would be sadder, because of their Privileges; as is evident by comparing 1 Cor. 10. ver. 6. to 12.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 51.  For the difference he makes between our Elements and theirs, which he says is manifest, namely, theirs was to nourish their Bodies as well as their Souls, etc. It is gross, and fit for none to say but the Papists, that hold, there is left only the qualities of the Bread (that cannot nourish) in Transubstantion.  
Ans. My words are Pag. 29, & 30. Herein is a manifest difference; Their Sacramental Elements had a double use and end, namely, to nourish their Bodies as well as their Souls; nor had they ordinarily in the Wilderness other food to live upon, and therefore must either receive these Sacraments or die: I hope there is not such an absolute necessity of our Sacramental Bread and Wine etc. I appeal now to the Reader, whether this be gross and Popish; nay, whether this be not a very truth, which Mr. Humphrey cannot contradict, and therefore discovers too great a spirit of Cavilling and wresting my sense and meaning. Can any rational man apprehend that I insinuated. 1. That our Sacramental Elements have lost their substance, and retain only the Accidents of Bread & Wine Or, 2ly. That I took away all bodily nourishment from the Sacramental Elements? My scope is clear that their Sacraments were their ordinary food, and when the people needed them no more for food, they failed, Jos. 5. 12. so not ours; and that if they had eaten and drunk no more of their Sacraments then we do of ours, they must have starved and choked, unless Mr. H. could have taught them an Art, to live an whole month or six weeks upon one bit of Manna, and one draught of Water.  
Mr. Humphrey. Whereas he says, they must have choked and starved also. I say, if it be necessarily sin, to eat of Christ Sacramentally, unless men be regenerate, there is no doubt but they should have rather died than be guilty of Christ's Blood, etc. If it be not a sin, but accidentally, here is good reason indeed for their eating and drinking all of them: But what reason is there, Saint Paul should parallel our eating and drinking with theirs, unless it be true likewise that we are to eat?  
Ans. 1. For the first Branch, he answers himself; saving that his distinction whereby he opposes a sin necessarily to a sin accidentally, is lame as being a distinction without a difference, in the present subject; Since the same sin may be a sin accidentally, and yet necessarily a sin also. For example, a wicked man in hearing, praying, etc. fins accidentally; yet he sins necessarily, and cannot but sin so long as he continues in that estate. It is so in receiving the Sacrament, and the great reason we bring for his non admission to the Sacrament is, because in statu quo, (understand it of actual receiving) it cannot benefit, but will certainly hurt and prejudice him. Wicked men sin necessarily in their Ordinary repast, yet must eat to prevent starving.  
2ly. Yet further as some other instituted precepts) this is dispensable with, in case of necessity: as was david's eating the Shewbread that was Sacramental, and for the Priests only.  
3ly. Parellels (as Similitudes) do not run on 4. feet, nor doth the present Parellel lie in countenancing a mixed communion like theirs, but in warning us, to take heed of abusing our Privileges like them; we have Privileges like them, Sacraments like them, are apt to abuse our Privileges like them, and upon this abuse are in danger of God's wrath as well as they. But for admitting all pell-mell to the Sacrament as they did to their Sacraments of Baptism, Manna and Water, I am confident it never so much as entered into the Apostles heart.  
4ly. He breaks the neck of his own Parallel, and therefore cannot blame us in making bold with it. If his Parallel run even, then, as all sorts without any difference did eat of the Manna, & drink of the Rock, so all sorts without any difference ought to receive the Lords Supper, and then admit Infants, distracted and excommunicated persons; yea, Heathen also: Which, how absurd! Had Mr. Humphrey said thus, What reason is there, Saint Paul should parallel our eating and drinking with theirs, unless it be true likewise that we are All to to eat, to wit Infants, excommunicated persons, etc. as they were all to eat of the Manna; the nakedness of his inference would have been shamefully uncovered. He therefore very prudently omits the word All, which would would have cried out against him, Fie for shame.  
Mr. Humphrey. I have two things here for tender Christians. 1. That to eat Christ symbolically, is no such dreadful thing as is made of it, (I mean above other Ordinances): for Saint Paul makes no account to say, they all drank Sacramentally of of him, provided always you come with reverence, etc.  
Ans. 1. Extenuation of sin, and Alleviation of duty, is at best, a wrong course to relieve tender Consciences. The Gospel holds forth duty in its strictness, sin in all its aggravations more than the Law; and that Minister who lightens either, sins against Moses, or against Christ, & that to his own great peril. Matth. 5. 19 But herein the Gospel makes amends, that it gives strength, in, and through Christ, to perform in sincerity the strictest duties, and abundant consolation in Christ against the guilt, filth, and power of the greatest sins repent of, etc.  
2 . The Apostle tells us, that to eat Sacramentally, is of very great consequence, if the danger of being guilty of Christ's Body and Blood, or of eating and drinking Damnation to ourselves, be of consequence. Mr. Hnmphrey tells us, to eat Christ Sacramentally is no such dreadful thing. Whom shall we believe, St. Paul, or Mr. Humphrey?  
3 . Eating Sacramentally must needs be more dangerous, if to abuse Christ at four Ordinances be more dangerous, then to abuse him at one or two Ordinances.  
4 . Mr. Humphrey says, there is no great danger, so you come with reverence (which yet a wicked man may do in his sense.) St. Paul says, there is great danger in receiving unworthily; and the Scripture says in effect, they come unworthily, who come without the Wedding-Garment; as that evil guest did, else he had not been so reproved and punished, Matth. 22. verse 11. to 13. yet, he is not censured for want of reverence. Let tender consciences take heed, lest by making light of sin and duty, they bring themselves, first, to searedness, and at last, to desperation. There is no danger in aggravating sin and heightening duty, provided thereby you be driven and led to Christ: but very much danger in lightning of either.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Page 52.  2 . That the want of grace is no just hindrance, or excuse, from our profession, etc.  
Ans. 1. By way of concession: The want of grace, is no just hindrance to duty; yet too often it is an hindrance. And 1. naturally, to some duties that are more spiritual and abstracted, since I cannot do the chiefest part of my duty without it. Thus he who wants a principle of God's fear, cannot do his duty in fearing God actually. Here the want of grace is an impediment, though no just impediment as to the excusing of him who omits the duty of fearing God.  
2ly. The want of grace is an impediment Morally, when at present a person is uncapable of that, for which the Ordinance was instituted, namely, spiritual Edification, which is the case of natural men coming to the Sacrament. And therefore, whether the want of grace may be an excuse or no its enough for our purpose, that its a Bar to some duty or Ordinance. And if a natural man will receive, he comes at his own peril of murdering Christ, and of eating and drinking Damnation to himself: For which indeed self-judging, rightly taken, is the remedy, but every natural man falls infinitely short of it, as being a self justifier, not a self-judger, till God by a Spirit of conviction force him to Legal selfe-judging; and by a spirit of grace lead and enable him to Evangellical self-judging.  
3ly. The want of grace is no just excuse from profession in General; yet may well be a Bar to some particular Act, wherein profession is held out else it were unlawful to suspend persons ipso jure excommunicate, which yet Mr. Humph allows.  
Mr. Humphrey. My fourth proof was from the Parable of the Feast, Matth. 22, Luke 14. Mr. Drake here is in a straight: If he allow it applicable to the Supper, it is clear against him. The Servants bring in all, both good and bad. If he will not allow it, he goes against the stream of Divines, and wrists out of their hands, their main Argument from the exclusion of him that had not the Wedding Garment. The truth is, the Feast doth not signify particularly the Supper, but it is as true it does it in general, as other Ordinances. The Feast is Jesus Christ, etc.  
Ans. 1. Let Mr. Humphrey remember, that he who here charges me conditionally, with going against the stream of Interpreters, goes himself absolutely against the stream of Divines in his Interpretation of 1 Cor. 11, about the Doctrine of the Sacrament. See his rejoinder, pag. 32. to 38.  
2ly. Dr. Drake his straight, is only in Mr. Humphrey his pen or fancy; he easily grants the Feast is served at the Sacrament as well as at other Ordinances, which is evident by his comparing Christ to the Feast, the Ordinances to the Dishes, in which the Feast is served. But the great Question is, whether the Feast must needs be served to every Guest in every dish.  
3ly. Taking the Parable as particularly applicable to the Sacrament; it's said indeed, the Servants brought in good and bad; but did the King or Master of the Feast allow chose bad Guests? did he not in (the Parable of the Guest coming without the Garment) command those very Servants to bind and cast out evil Guests? I wish there were not too many Servants, who bring in Guests of all sorts: but let such remember, it's their Lord's will such should be turned away: they who, have not the Wedding Garment, and care not for the Feast itself, are unworthy of the Dish.  
4ly. That it cannot be meant particularly or strictly of the Sacrament or any other Ordinance, especially in reference to hic & nunc, is evident, because those who absented themselves upon their necessary worldly occasions, are judged as unworthy: but certainly, he that absents himself from a Sermon or Sacrament upon a necessary worldly occasion, is not presently unworthy of the Marriage Feast, but he that withdraws from Christ, who is the Feast.  
5ly. It's remarkable, Mr. Humphrey grants, that the stream of Divines improve the instance of the Guest, who wanted a Wedding Garment, against his free admission. All he hath to say against them herein, 
Pag. 53.  is, That this exclusion, being the Act of the Lord, their Inference from it, is not well applied.  
Ans. 1. Let Mr. Humphrey plead the practice of the Servants for admittance, while we have he command of the Lord for Exclusion.  
2ly. Are not those very Servants who brought him in, commanded to shut him out?  
3ly. Is not this done at the very same Sacrament, to which he was invited, if Mr. Humphrey will needs have it to be the Sacrament?  
Mr. Humphrey. It is true, if men be scandalous, they are liable to censure; but who does not see this upon another account, I mean of Discipline, to satisfy the Church, amend them, and warn others. But if you do it upon this ground of setting up a aiscriminating Ordinance, I think it not according to the mind of the Lord of the Feast.  
Ans. Let Mr. Humphrey practise Suspension upon the account of Discipline, which is a very good and warrantable account: We shall not strain his or any man's Conscience else, to rise up to our account of a discriminating Ordinance. Men may agree in the same practice, upon several principles. We have several Judgements as well as several palates: One may eat Sugar because its sweet, an other because its abstersive, a third because its healing and consolidating. Let us agree upon Unity of practice, and I hope we shall not fall out upon diversity of principle. Excellent is the counsel of the Apostle 1 Phil. 4. ver. 15, 16. Let Christians endeavour agreement in practice as far as they can, and wait upon Heaven, for further light, to reconcile them in Unity of Principles.  
Mr. Humphrey mistakes me. 
Page 54.  I hope he takes me not for a Ranter, or One above, or against all Ordinances. Though I distinguish between the Feast and the Dishes, in which it is served; yet I do not separate the Feast from all the Dishes. Doth it follow, a man must eat the Feast without a Dish, because he must not eat it in every Dish? we grant all may eat the Feast in the Dish of the Word. Contra, Himself would have some eat the Feast without any Dish, to wit, persons excommunicated. His fine story therefore is more applicable to himself then to us, who grudge the egg of the Gospel to none, though we do not think, it is to be eaten in every shell.  
Mr. Humphrey. He urges, than should Heathen be admitted. Ans. And so they may, if they come in an orderly way.  
Ans. Content, And so may every Church-member if he come in an orderly way: but the admittting of grossly ignorant, and scandalous Church-members is no orderly way.  
Mr. Humphrey. Thirdly, He adds, How were the unthank full Guests also excluded? And answers himself, Because they would not come.  
Ans. It's apparent, they were shut out by the decree of the King, Luke 14. 24. and that others were compelled in to fill the house, that there might be no room for the unthankful Guests. Whence its probable, the Parable more directly and immediately concerned the rejection of the Jews, that the Gentiles might be received in Rom. 11. ver. 19, 20. 25. 28. 30.  
2ly. If it be particularly applicable to the Sacrament, what follows, but that they who slight the Sacrament, deserve to be suspended from it. But doth Mr. Humphrey think there is no slighting of the Sacrament but by keeping from it? Did not he that came without the Wedding Garment slight the Sacrament, as well as they who profanely kept from it?  
3ly. As sleighters of Christ crucified, repenting, may yet partake of him; so sleighters of the Sacrament, the Picture of Christ crucified, may yet partake of it, upon their repentance. Only remember. That, as slighting is visible or invisible, so repentance must be visible or invisible: And if visible sleighters repent visibly, we hope, Mr. H. nor any else shall have cause to censure us for keeping them away.  
Mr. Humphrey. Fourthly, he tells us, Worldly business may detain a man from the Sacrament. Ans. Who doubts it? but there is no strength in this reason.  
Ans. Worldly business detains a man either from the time and place of receiving; or takes a man so up, as he wants time to prepare himself for the Sacrament. Upon either of these accounts abstinence is justifiable, if the business be indispensible. In the latter branch, worldly business keeps a man from the Sacrament, because it hinders him in order to actual preparation. And if persons who want actual preparation, must for present abstain, doth it not follow à fortiori, That persons who want both actual and habitual preparation ought much more to abstain? But such are all grossly Ignorant persons, and most of scandalous persons. Let the Reader judge then whether there be not much strength in my reason, what ever Mr. Humphrey may fancy to the contrary: for he brings not one argument against my reason, only with a ridiculous story endeavours to catch his Reader.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 55.  In the way. For my quoting that text, Luke 12. 42. etc. Mr. Drake need not have given me such ill words, etc.  
Ans. I meddle not with his person; Only, I say that his Interpretation (or rather application) of that Text, to encourage Ministers to admit all Intelligent Church-members pell-mell, is gross, senseless and profane; and if my reason urged, pag. 32. be not convincing to prove it so, then let me suffer as a rash Censurer. If judging an error, be it where it will, to be as bad as indeed it is, be a giving of ill words to that person who holds it, than who can uncase an error without breach of charity? I shall thank Mr Humphrey for laying open my errors in their native dress. Error (as well as Vice) deforms, though it doth not unstate a godly man; it doth not, I am sure it should not, gain Lustre by his piety. An error that is gross, senseless, and profane, may be taken notice of, and branded though it fly to a godly man for Sanctuary. I think it's no breach of Charity severely to censure an erour in a godly person, so it be without bitter reflection upon his person yet a passionate reflection is not so cutting as an Ironical reflection.  
Mr. Humphrey. My Fifth proof was from John's Free-Baptism even of those, he calls Vipers: And yet Mr. Drake as he is wont, answers me thus overly. He says but proves not that John Baptised all Comers. He should say, he does not prove it, only brings Scripture for it.  
Ans. 1. That All is not in many places to be understood Universally, I have formerly cleared.  
2ly. That it is not here to be taken Universally, is as evident; for then John must have Baptised every man and woman in Judea, and round about Jordan; which how unlikely, let Master Humphrey himself judge.  
3ly. That it cannot be meant of all Comers, neither is demonstrable from the Text, unless Mr. Humphrey can make it out, that all Comers did profess their repentance, and confess their sins, Matth. 3. 6 and particularly the Pharisees whom he calls a Generation of Vipers, and falls very foul upon them coming to his Baptism, ver. 7. In saying therefore, Mr. Humphrey proves not. I mean, he brings not Scripture; for Scripture misinterpreted and wrested is not Scripture. Mr. Humphrey I see is upon a merry pin, but seriousness would more become him. Let the Reader peruse my answer, page 32, & 33. and he will easily perceive, there is no such ground of insulting on Mr. H. his part.  
For his Rule, Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti. I must tell I him again, It makes much for us, and against himself. Since by this Rule at every Sacrament, men ought to give an account of their faith, as they do at Baptism. The force of this answer to avoid, 
Pag. 56.  Mr. Humphrey shuffles pag. 56, and tell us, there is eadem ratio, but not in omnibus, and that the very coming of Church-members is their profession.  
Ans. 1. Is it fair Mr. Humphrey should bring a Rule to bind us, and yet will not be bound by it himself?  
2ly. Whether it hold in omnibus or no, it must hold in the matter controverted. Now the business in controversy between me and Mr. Humphrey is, whether every Receiver before receiving aught to make profession of his faith and repentance. This Mr. Humphrey denies, and for an argument makes use of this Rule, Adulits eadem est ratio, etc. We say, Content, but Adulti are bound to profess their faith and repentance before Baptism, therefore they are bound to profess the same before Receiving, for (according to Mr. Humphrey his Rule) there is the same reason of both Sacraments. And as the offering of owns self to Baptism, is not sufficient profession in order to Baptism; so the offering of one's self to the Lords Supper, is not profession sufficient in order to the receiving of the Lords Supper.  
M. Humphrey. My proof is Acts 2. 41, 42, 46. which Text he leaves out; you may conceive, it hath silenced him: For while we find thousands admitted thus freely and equally (not omitting his phrase of pell-mell) in their breaking bread (I say even wholly alike) as in doctrine and prayer, we dare not fall down to that Sacramental Rule upon trial he would set up.  
Ans. 1. What ever Mr. Humphrey may think of me, I hope one convincing Scripture for his fee Admission, should have silenced me every where and not only here. I desire to be in their Number, who can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth.  
2ly. Not conviction of the strength, but apprehension of the weakness of his proof as to the point intended, together with study of brevity, made me pass it over in silence. But since he will needs have me lay open his nakedness, as well here as else where, I shall not think much of my pains for his further conviction, and the Readers satisfaction.  
3ly. Their Admission, therefore, pell-mell makes nothing for Mr. Humphrey his Admission pell-mell since those three thousand had but just before made profession of their faith and repentance; 2ly. Held forth that profession exemplarily both in works of Piety and Charity. 3ly. But two of them (Ananias & Saphira) contradicting their profession by Hypocrisy, were put to an othergate Test then our Church-members are. Contra, Divers of our Church-members are grossly ignorant, or openly prosane, covetous, griping, oppressive, or erroneous and heretical in fundamentals. Will Mr. Humphrey put no difference between the first and purest Primitive Church and our leavened Congregations?  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 67.  My seventh Text was Acts 10. 28. which I apply only as to the Expression: Yet does he pur sue it in four pitiful exceptions, pag. 34, 35. The first whereof is untrue: Saint Paul says not, Tit. 1. 15. The unbeliever is unclean to us, but all things are unclean to him.  
Ans. 1. Are those words Dr. Drakes which first he pins upon my slieve, and then charges with untruth? My words are these, That God, who taught Peter to count no man unclean, taught Paul to count some men unclean; yea, persons within the Church, and not excommunicated, Tit. 1. 15, 16. where, in all these words, do I say, The Unbeliever is unclean to us? Doth not the Text brand some with defilement as well as unbelief?  
2ly. Doth not the Apostle explain what defilement he means, when he tells us, their very mind and Conscience is defiled?  
3ly. Is not this contradictory to Mr. Humphrey his profession: That he counts no man unclean, unless excommunicaeed? I had thought Excommunication did not make a man unclean, but declare him to be unclean, and cast him out as unclean, 1 Cor. 5. 7. The incestuous Corinth was a Leaven of uncleanness before he was cast out. His sin made him unclean really, Excommunication declaratively.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 57  This Text Act, 10. 38. may be full and solid, for those weak Christians who think they shall be defiled if they communicate in our mixed Churches, though it reach not others. Mr. Drake should be more tender then to debilitate their supports.  
Ans. 1. It follows not, that because Peter was to count no man Levitically unclean, therefore we must count no man Morally unclean.  
2ly. Mr. Humphrey knows, it's my declared judgement, that he who is absolutely unclean, is not straightways relatively unclean: and that wicked men's presence and receiving doth not defile the godly who receive with them; but the godly contract guilt and pollution by virtual consent to their wickedness, as if they do not reprove them, or inform against them being obstinate. I hope tender Consciences will not look at me, as one that debilitates their supports, because I cannot encourage them to build upon a sandy-Foundation. Sin cannot defile me but by a touch, 1 John 5. 18. It cannot touch me but by consent either formal or virtual. It's not sin in the wicked, but sinful connivance in the godly, that doth defile the godly. Levit. 5. 1. & 19 17.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 58.  While persons are Federally clean, we need not doubt that they may be communicated withal, without any pollution; and a man is not Faederally unclean, till excommunicated.  
Ans. Be persons federally clean or unclean, they may be communicated withal without pollution, provided I do my endeavour in my place to reform them or keep them away. Suppose through the connivance of Church-Officers, an Heathen or person excommunicated come and partake of the Sacrament: This great disorder I descent from, complain of, and desire it may be reform, but my desire will not be granted shall his presence and receiving either defile or turn me from the Sacrament? It's their sin indeed who admit him, and who give consent to his admission; but the presence and partaking of such a one, is no Bar to my receiving, nor can defile me having done my duty. A man might be Levitically defiled without, yea against his consent, but so he cannot be morally defiled. But what is all this to their receiving, and the Churches admitting of them? A person unclean may sin by receiving, and the Church by admitting him wittingly, while at the same time his presence and receiving defiles none who are innocent.  
2ly. Children of Christian Parents are faederally clean by Birth, before they are admitted solemnly into the Church by Baptism, 1 Cor. 7. 14. nor doth faederal holiness cease till themselves do formally renounce Christ and the Covenant, and thereby cut off themselves and their Posterity. Rom. 11 19, 20. Hence one that turns witch, Jew or Pagan is faederally unclean, though he or she be not excommunicated: And a person excommunicated, may after Excommunication be both faederally and really holy, since Excommunication, till it rise up to Maran-atha, is medicinal and not destructive, as a branch cut off, that it may faster and better be grafted in. He errs then, in making. faederal holiness to lie in Church-membership, seeing a man may be a Church-member, and yet faederally unholy; and faederally holy, yet no Church-member in his sense.  
Mr. Humphrey. He objects, wicked Christians reject Christ, pag. 35. and answers himself with me, pag. 84. Though they transgress, they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do, and are Church-members, till Excommunicacated.  
Ans. 1. Set both Propofitions together, 1. Prop. Wicked Christians reject Christ. 2. Prop. Wicked Christians do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do, and are Church-members till excommunicated. If these three, a rejecter of Christ, a Church-member, and a non-renouncer of the Covenant, may stand together in a right sense, then here is no contradiction: but these three may stand together in a right sense; Instance in Simon-Magus, Acts 8. By his wickedness he rejected Christ virtually, compare 1 Sam. 10. 19 John 12. 48. Yet at the same time he was a Church-member, and did not renounce Christ formally.  
2ly. Therefore there is a twofold renouncing of Christ, 1. Virtual by wittingly acting or living in any known sin, especially gross and scandalous. 2ly. Formal and express by word and deed, as Witches, Jews, and Turks do. Both these a man may do & yet be a Church-member, (in Mr. Humphrey his sense) till Excommunicated. The latter makes him faederally unclean, not so the former at least presently. Therefore the Children of the former are more capable of Baptism than the Children of the latter; yea, supposing the former were Excommunicated, the latter not: much more, if the former be not Excommunicated. A formal and express rejection of Christ and the Covenant, contributes far more to Separation from Christ, than a virtual and interpretative rejecting of either. By all hath been said, it appears that by the two forementioned places compared (which Mr. Humphrey would feign set together by the Ears) I answer, not myself but Mr. Humphrey. My other three exceptions, because he only Quibbles upon them, but answers them not, I pass; as also his vapour in the close, since my work is not to answer words but Arguments.  
Mr. Humphrey. For the close hereof, I gathered up some Texts, as, Rev. 22. 17. etc. that doth set forth the most free offers of Jesus Christ, which, though Mr. Drake make but light of, etc.  
Ans. 1. I make not light of the offers of free grace, but say, those free offers are no ground for his Free Admission to the Sacrament, since those offers are free to Heathen and excommunicate persons (as well as to Church-Members) who undoubtedly are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. 2 . Add Church-membership to these free offers, since persons, jure excommunicate, are Church-members, and are also under these free offers; yet, may be kept away, as Mr. Humphrey grants, page 21. Is it not evident, that free grace may be conditionally offered and applied to Church members, though they do not receive the Sacrament, but are justly barred from it for the present. 3 . Whereas he adds, Jesus Christ is proportionably gracious in his exrernall, as he is in his internal privileges, etc. What follows from thence, but that as they who reject internal privileges, shall miss of, and be kept from, them; so they who reject external privileges (further then those privileges are necessary, in order to their conversion) ought to be kept from them.  
Object. True if they reject them: But we keep many away who desire the Sacrament. Ans. So Christ keeps internal privileges from many, who, in some sense, desire them, Luke 13. 24. May not an Hypocrite desire truth of grace, as a necessary means to free him from Hell etc. who yet at the same time, rejects and hates holiness? Now the sign and thing signified are Correlates, and he that rejects either, rejects both interpretatively. He than that rejects Grace, rejects the Sacrament the sign of Grace; and therefore upon Mr. Humphrey his own Principle, aught to be kept from it, unless actual receiving be a converting Ordinance, etc. of which afterwards. What therefore Mr. Humphrey says, 
Pag. 59  What sense is there in this? Jesus Christ is to be freely showed forth, to bring men home effectually to him; and yet must the Receiver make out that right unto the Minister, before we dare offer, or conditionally apply him to them, reaches not our case home: We granting that Christ ought to be freely offered, and conditionally applied to all, be they Church-members or not: But, is there no way of offering, or conditionally applying, Christ, to all, or to any, but by his actual receiving the Sacrament?  
Mr. Humphrey. We must not make the notion of sealing so dreadful, and bring so much blood upon our souls; we need not fear to judge the Heathen, visible Rebels, etc.  
Ans. 1. If the notion of Sealing a man's own Damnation must not be made dreadful, I know not what must. 2 . What ever cavil may be made about the notion of Sealing, he will not deny, but to eat and drink a man's own Damnation, is very dreadful; and that, every one who receives unworthily, doth, 1 Cor. 11. 29. 3 . We should not indeed bring so much blood upon our souls; but they who receive unworthily, do bring so much blood upon their own souls, if the Apostle speak true, verse 27. and they who admit such, when they may be regularly kept away, are accessary to this their blood-guiltiness. 4 . Are Heathen visible Rebels, who never professed subjection to Christ; and is not he a visible Rebel, who after, yea under, professed subjection, acts open Rebellion, doing the same, and worse, acts of hostility against Christ, than Heathen do? 2 Kings 21. 11. and, 1 Cor. 5. 1. Was not Judas, at the time of Christ's apprehension, for all his profession, as visible an enemy of Christ, as the Ruffians who came to take him? 5 . Should not all care and diligence be used to discover and make visible those Judasses', who after, and under, profession, are worse enemies of Christ, than heathen are, Matth. 19 verse 14, 27. Rev. 3. verse 15, 16.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Page 60.  The word is no sealed word, (even outwardly) but to the Church.  
Ans. This is gratis dictum. In the Word Preached, the Covenant is held forth conditionally to all the World, instance, Mark 16. 16. and John 3. 16. And if all the World be in the Covenant conditionally, then when ever the Covenant is sealed (as it is ever in the Sacrament) it's sealed to all the World conditionally, and that whether they receive or no; yea, though they be not so much as present, as a Pardon may be sealed conditionally to Traitors, though they be absent; yea, in the height of their Rebellion: Is Christ's death shown forth to all at the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11. 26. and is it not offered to all at the Sacrament, and sealed there to all conditionally? Why may not open Rebels be present at the sealing, as well as at the publication of a Pardon? Here seems to lie Mr. Humphrey his great mistake, in that he thinks the Covenant is not sealed to me, unless I actually receive. Indeed by receiving, I, in a special manner, put to my Seal, and God doth more particularly seal to me; but, whether I receive or no, God, in the Sacrament, seals to the Covenant, in which, I being comprehended as a party, it's no more absurd, the Covenant should be sealed to me, being absent, than it is absurd, a Covenant of Indentures should be sealed to a person absent; yea, to a child unborn, who likewise doth seal virtually, though not formally. As at every Baptism grace redounds, and the Covenant is by it sealed, not only to the party Baptised, but also to all present, yea, to all the world conditionally, who are not hindered from presence at any Baptising: And why should it not be so at the Lords Supper.  
Mr. Humphrey. We cannot compel any trial of Church-members more (unless by way of Catechism and Instruction, wherein yet, there is no man too old to learn, Luke 14.) but it must be as to the truth of their profession, or effectual sincerity: which for to do (where no scandal calls them in question) is to go about to judge men's hearts, and to enter into the seat of God, etc.  
Ans. 1. Note it, Mr. Humphrey grants we may compel trial of Church-members, by way of Catechism and Instruction, from Luke 14. 23. and that moan are too old to learn. Doth not Mr. Humphrey know, that one great makebate is, because many Elder persons will not be persuaded, much less compelled, to trial, by way of Catechising, no, not by their own Minister, though none of the Elders be present?  
2 . By Mr. Humphrey his own confession, in some cases persons may be tried, as to the truth of their profession, or effectual sincerity, to wit, when some scandal calls them in question. Let Mr. Humphrey give any Scripture-rule for such trial, in case of scandal, which will not extend to the like trial upon other occasions.  
3 . If trial, as to the truth of profession, be a going about to judge men's hearts, and to enter into the seat of God, how can Mr. Humphrey allow it at any time, in any case? If it be not an entering into the seat of God, than Mr. Humphrey his main Argument against it, fails him.  
4 . If putting a man to the test about his sincerity, be an entering into the seat of God, than Philip in ask the Eunuch, Whether he believed with all his heart, Acts 8. 37. entered into the seat of God; and Ministers, when they ask the party Baptised (supposing he be of age) Dost thou for sake the Devil and all his works, etc. enter into the seat of God: Yea, then Jehu ask Jehonadab, 2 Kings, 10. 15. Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart? entered into the seat of God. He indeed that will undertake to know the heart immediately, intuitively, and infallibly, enters into the seat of God: Not so, I hope, he, who by discourse, observation, and consequent effects, labours to draw out what is in the heart, Prov. 20. 5. The Tree may be known by its Fruit, yea, by its Leaves; and the heart may be known by some expressions and actions, or at least shrewdly guest at: Otherwise how did Peter perceive Simon Magus to be in the gall of bitterness, Acts 8. 23. yet, I hope at that time, he entered not into the seat of God. A dying man sends for his Minister to comfort him: May not the Minister puts him to the Test, whether, at least in the judgement of charity, he be a subject capable of comfort: May he not 1. try him in point of Knowledge? 2 . May he not inquire about his truth of grace, and from Scripture-evidence, labour to find out whether he hath true faith and repentance, that accordingly, he may either comfort or warn him? 3 . In so doing, is he justly chargeable with entering into the seat of God? Do we any more to people, in order to their Sacramental preparation, than they will be glad to have us do at the hour of their death, if they have any sense of their spiritual condition, and mind their poor souls in any measure? The truth is, if many of our people minded Heaven but half so much as they mind Earth, they would upon their very knees entreat us, to do that against every Sacrament, which we beg of them we may do but once, in order to their edification, comfort, and salvation: Yet, they will not hearken unto us, upon which account, in some poor measure (though we dare not say, we have endeavoured our uttermost, de jure, in any thing) we may wash our hands from the guilt of the blood of their poor souls. Oh Sir, I beseech you do not bolster up People in that, of which one day, both you and themselves will see, there is great cause to repent.  
Mr. Humphrey. I must confess, I believe, it was only the zeal and piety of good men, that made them thus to rise up against ignorance and sin, without intending to enter upon God's Throne; but, if we have erred, etc.  
Ans. 1. Sir, you speak in part, truly and charitably, as to the first branch: Therefore I beseech you, be not a Quench-cole to that zeal and piety.  
2ly. It was not a blind zeal acted them herein, but a zeal according to knowledge; I beseech you, do not seek to hid that Light under a Bushel.  
3ly. In so doing, they neither did, nor intended to enter upon God's Throne. I beseech you, do not charge them falsely and uncharitably: But where you have erred (I wish the same to myself) by false Doctrine, misapplication and wrong-imputations, be content to lie down in the dust, to acknowledge the truth whereby you may be sweetly led to acknowledge God's hand in returning your Captivity from the Rivers of Babel, when you have sat down and wept, etc.   

Sect VI.  
Having surveyed Mr. Humphrey his stating of the Question, and his proofs from Scripture, and laid open what strength or weakness I apprehend therein; I shall now proceed to his Reasons and Arguments, with candour and simplicity of heart by the grace of God, as in the presence of God, to whom both of us must one day give an account of this, and all other our Transactions. Glad shall I be to close with him in any truth, and to keep company with him one mile, if I cannot go with him twain: And where I am forced to shake hands with him, I shall endeavour to give him and others such grounds of my dissatisfaction in the Spirit of meekness, as thereby it may appear, I do not act either irrationally or uncharitably. The Lord send the Spirit of truth, grace and love into all our hearts, to lead us into all truth, holiness and unity.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 61.  My first reason was from the nature of the Sacrament, It is the showing of Christ's death, a visible Gospel, and so a firm ground of free Admission. Unto this the sum of what he says over and over from pag. 37. to pag. 52. comes but to this. All may be present, but not actually receive, granting the foundation.  
Ans. 1. If the Reader will please to peruse my Text, I am confident he will be more candid to me then Mr. Humphrey hath been, and not judge I have spent those seven or eight leaves in mere tautologies. Such weak imputations argue more strength of passion then of reason, and serve rather to catch, than to convince the Reader.  
2ly. Can there be fairer play then to yield my Antagonist (by way of position or supposition) as much as he desires for his stronger conviction?  
3ly. If Mr. Humphrey his Free-Admission flow not from this Principle, I hope he will remember himself better, and not hereafter charge his Brethren as going about to abolish the remembrance of Christ's death, because they cannot admit all as Receivers, whom yet they are willing to admit as Auditors and Spectators at the Lords Supper, be they Church-members or no: And I think in so doing, we make better provision for the Publishing and declaring of Christ's death, than Mr. Humphrey doth by admitting only Church-members, and shutting the Chancel-door against all others, as if men might not see Christ crucified, and hear a crucified Saviour speak, because they may not feed Sacramentally upon a crucified Saviour.  
Mr. Humphrey. I shall begin with the last. His words are these. The word and the Sacrament, 'tis true, must go hand in hand together: but the Covenant of grace, or the Word is not (visibly) applicable to all, therefore not the Sacrament. Mr. H. For my answer to this, which is all his weight with but a very few grains more: We must know, The Ministers of Christ are the Ministers of the New-Covenant to be revealed, & that not of the absolute, Heb. 8. which is secret, and belonging to Election; 
Pag. 62.  but of the conditional Covenant, (or the Covenant in its conditional capacity) which is tenderable to all the World and that more especially applicable with a distinction of outward privileges, and interest to the Church. Now look what is the Tenor of the Covenant, the Sacrament seals; and nothing else. May not I say to all, and every Intelligent Church-member, If thou believe thou shalt be saved? and may not I seal to such what the Word says?  
Ans. 1. Granting we are Ministers of the conditional Covenant, how doth that exclude us from being Ministers of the absolute Covenant? Is not the absolute Covenant revealed in the Word, as well as the Conditional Covenant; and ought not Ministers to declare unto people the whole Counsel of God. Acts 20. 29. Is not the writing of the Law in the heart, part of the absolute Covenant, Heb. 8. 10? and is not the whole Covenant of Grace sealed at the Sacrament? Are not Ministers Instruments of Conversion, and Edification, and thereby of applying the absolute Covenant. 2 Cor. 3. 6? Is the Sacrament (in Mr. Humphrey his professed judgement) a means of Conversion, and yet hath it nothing to do with the absolute Covenant?  
2ly. If the Conditional Covenant be tenderable to all the World (as Mr. Humphrey rightly asserts) will it not follow (he building his Free-admission upon this Principle) that all the World ought to be admitted to the Sacrament. To use his own words, May not I say to all (not only to every intelligent Church-member) If thou believest, thou shalt be saved? and may not I seal to such what the Word says? Christ is tenderable to all, conditionally, be they Church-members or no, and that in every Ordinance, therefore even Heathen may be present at prayer, hearing, Baptism, etc. and why not proportionably at the Lord's Supper, & c? in all which the conditional tender of Christ is universally held forth. But doth it thence follow that Christ is, or must be applied to all by way of promise or Seal in either of these? The Latitude then of the Covenant-tender, is no ground for the Latitude of Mr. H. his Free-Admission.  
3ly. Nor will the Latitude of the Covenant Tender, prove it should be applied by the Sacrament to all Intelligent Church-members: for than it ought to be applied to persons jure Excommunicate, who yet (according to truth, and Mr. H. his own grant) may be suspended. Might not Theodosius have pleaded the Latitude of the Covenant, when Ambrose denied him the Sacrament divers months together for his cruelty in Massacring thousands of Thessalonians upon the Theatre? Yea, might he not have pleaded, that considering his great guilt he had more need to receive the Sacrament, that thereby he might seal Damnation to himself for his deeper conviction and humiliation? yea, if Mr. Humphrey his Doctrine in this particular be true, ought not persons jure excommunicate, of all others, to be admitted to receive, that thereby they may seal damnation to themselves?  
D. Dr. page 42. Dares Mr. Humphrey say to a person in the state of Nature, Sir, All the benefits of the Covenant are actually yours! The Language of every actual giving is, Christ is thine in particular.  
Mr. Humphrey. I answer, this is a manifest error: The Language of the Sacrament, is the Language of the Covenant; and that is not, Christ is thine, but Christ is thine if thou wilt believe. And who doubts, but I dare say so to one in the state of Nature, conceiving we know it not, and cannot judge thereof.  
Ans. 1. That the Language of the Sacrament is, Christ is thine, and that in a saving way: Let our Saviour be judge, Luke 22. verse 19, 20. This is my Body which is given for you, not against you: And, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, which is shed for you; and for what end? see Matth. 26. 28. for the remission of sins: Which words we use as an Argument, to prove Judas did not receive, since our Saviour could not say to Judas (who was to Christ visibly in the state of Nature) This is my blood which is shed for thee, for the remission of sins. And that it is otherwise with any receiver, is accidental by reason of his unworthiness: which unworthiness, if it may be discerned, why ought not Church-Officers, by Suspension, to prevent the sin and misery of such a person, at least in part?  
2 . Mr. Humphrey wrongs my Answer, by leaving out a very material word in it: My words are these, Dare Mr. Humphrey say to a person, visibly in the state of Nature, Be assured, & c? But, in quoting my Answer, he leaves out the word visibly, to my no small prejudice. We dare say, to persons in the state of Nature, (where we have not clear evidence against them, or good ground to suspect their sincerity) from the fair account they give us, of the truth of grace in them, All the benefits of the Covenant of grace, are thine; 
By which assertion we do not exclude Mr. Humphrey his supposition (Christ is thine if thou believe) but declare our persuasion about such a person; namely, that we believe he hath the condition, which entitles him to Christ, as, 2 Tim. 1. 5. which persuasion we cannot have of any, who is visibly in the state of Nature, and therefore dare not say to him, Christ is thine.  yea, we dare in the Name of the Lord command them to believe so, where we have no ground to suspect the absence of the Condition in them, but have very good evidence of the condition of the Covenant performed in them, and by them through grace. If upon trial we have ground to suspect them, than we can speak those words to them only conditionally: But, when we have evidence they are in the state of Nature, and know they have not the Condition, it's in vain to say to them in that estate, Christ is thine, if thou do believe; And it's all one, as if I should say to a proud and insolent Traitor, acting in the height of Rebellion, Sir, Pardon is yours, if you do come in and submit; taking the words in their Grammatical construction, I may assure him he shall be pardoned, if he will presently come in, and submit: But, it's incongruous to say, Sir, Pardon is yours, if you do submit, since at present he is visibly neither an object of pardon, nor a subject of submission. Upon which account I apprehend those expressions of Mr. Humphrey, not so congruous, Christ is thine, if thou wilt believe: I may say, Christ is thine, if thou do believe, where I have not clear evidence of the dominion of unbelief: Or, Christ shall be thine, if thou wilt believe, where I have never so clear evidence of unbelief in dominion: But, to apply the Promise, de praesenti, upon a condition, de futuro, I think is neither Grammatical, Logical, nor Theological: Some truth there may be in it, if understood Rhetorically; but Rhetoric is fit for an Orator, than a Disputant.  
3 . Mr. Humphrey himself scruples to use these words, to a person visibly in the state of Nature, witness, those expressions of his, Who doubts, but I dare say this to one in the state of Nature, conceiving we know it not, and cannot judge thereof? Where therefore we know, and can can judge a person to be in the state of Nature, Mr. Humphrey will not encourage us to say, Be assured, all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace, are actually thine. 
Pag. 63.  To answer therefore Mr. Humphrey his retortion, I dare say to the visibly Godly, what Christ said before me in the Sacrament, The Body of Christ is broken for thee, the Blood of Christ is shed for thee, for remission of sins. But these words I dare not say to one, against whom I have evidence (by his gross ignorance, or profane conversation) that he is in the state of Nature.  
However therefore, page 63. Mr. Humphrey utterly renounces the very undertaking to make any Church-Member visibly in the state of Nature; Yet, that herein he is heterodox, is evident by clear testimony of Scripture, Matth. 7. verse 15. to 20. our Saviour there teaching us, that, as a Tree, so a Person, may be known by his fruits. And, Acts 8. 23. Peter, by that wicked offer of Simon Magus, knew he was in the state of Nature. See also Tit. 3. verse 10, 11. the Epistle of Judas, 2 Pet. Chap. 2 and 3. and 1 Cor. 6. verse 9, 10. and Ephes. 5. verse 5, 6. But I will not trouble the Reader in so clear a case. And indeed, if gross ignorance, fundamental errors obstinately maintained, open profaneness, scoffing at holiness; if these, I say, lived in (especially after due means of conviction) be not palpable evidences of a person at present in the state of nature, than the forementioned texts must be razed out of Scripture, and Ministers (as to this particular) must learn a new Gospel of Mr. Humphrey.  
Mr. Humphrey. The solidity of this answer may appear the more, by this man's weakness, to solve the objection, page 48. which otherwise cannot be done. It is this, Doth not the a Minister seal to a lie, if he seal to the unworthy? He answers most miserably, He does but seal to an untruth, not to a lie, so long as he comes in to the Elders, and is thought visibly worthy by them. Well, but what if the Elders should admit one visibly unworthy, and the Minister judge him so to be; yet the Major part carrying it, what shall become of him then? 
●…g. 64.  Here his untruth must be a lie again. It is not his pleading an admonition, or that he cannot help it, will serve him, if it be positively a lie, or a sin to admit any that is visibly unworthy, he may not offend his Conscience, and presume upon God though he lost his place and life too. So that he must of necessity come over to us, and then he may know how neither to commit an untruth nor a lie neither, by saying, He offers or applies Christ but conditionally, etc. The truth is, seeing the Minister is God's Ambassador, and what he does is by his Commission, we may as soon say, the God of Israel can lie, as that the Minister ever Seals an untruth, or lie either, in doing his Office, etc.  
Ans. This charge being heavy, and managed with a very high hand by H, I thought it needful to recite his words more carefully, lest by altering of them (as he hath done mine) I should seem to wrong him.  
1. Therefore, in propounding the Objection, he takes not my words; but frames it for his own advantage and my prejudice. My words are these, But doth not the Minister Seal to a lie by giving the Sacrament to those who are visibly worthy, yet really unworthy? pag. 48. Mr. Humphrey propounds my Objection thus. Doth not the Minister Seal to a lie if he Seal to the unworthy? The Objection thus propounded may bear a very foul sense, as seeming to include persons both really and visibly unworthy, whereas my Objection clearly hints a distinction between persons visibly worthy, yet really unworthy, and between persons both really and visibly unworthy. Besides that in the latter branch also, I use not the term of Sealing, but of giving the Sacrament. And however he may possibly agree with me in sense, yet the terms altered may occasion a foul mistake in the Reader. But to pass that: Let us scan his exceptions against my answer to that Objection.  
And 1. He corrupts my Text in the answer, as he did in the objection. Mr. Humphrey frames my answer thus, He does but Seal to an untruth, not to a lie, so long as he comes in to the Elders, and is thought visibly worthy by them. page 63. This Answer thus framed is obscure, absurd, and little better than nonsense. Obscure, the second Person thee, being there applicable, either to the Minister admitting, or to the person admitted. Absurd, etc. as making the Reader believe we hold, That the Minister, without danger of a lie, may assure that Communicant of a saving interest in Christ, who he is assured hath no part in Christ, and all because the Elders have approved that Communicant against the vote and certain Knowledge of the Minister. Besides, That expression, He is thought visibly worthy, is little better than nonsense. For I pray, what is a person visibly worthy, but one that is thought and judged worthy, at least upon evidence of competent knowledge and vacancy of scandal. So then to think a person is visibly worthy, is to think I think such a man worthy, which for my part, I think is little better than nonsense, either in Grammar, Logic, or Rhetoric. Thus you see how Mr. Humphrey propounds my Answer, I will not say, faithfully, but I dare say very prudently.  
My answer to the Objection is this, pag. 48. He may possibly Seal to an untruth, but doth not Seal to a lie, in admitting that person, whom in charity (being approved, upon due trial) he may and aught to judge worthy. 2ly. If the Minister suspect a person legally approved, he may and aught the more carefully to warn him, etc. and by this means I conceive he may clear himself, but cannot keep back him that is approved by the Major vote of the Eldership. Only afterwards hath power to appeal, etc. Let the Reader now judge, whether by Sealing a saving interest in Christ to a person whom I may and aught to think Evangelically worthy, the Minister doth Seal to a lie. Or 2ly. If he Seal a saving interest in Christ to a person whom himself suspects (yet cannot evince to be unworthy, and whom others having the same power and piety with himself judge worthy) be a Sealing to a lie? If indeed the Minister know this person to be unworthy, as being in the state of nature or jure Excommunicate, here the case is much altered: of which I speak not in that Paragraph, only I am much beholding to Mr. Humphrey for endeavouring to pin such an absurdity upon my sleeve. If Mr. Humphrey and the Reader desire my judgement in this particular; For my part, if not only a Presbytery, but if a Classis, yea, Province voted a person worthy whom I knew to be unworthy (as having sufficient evidence of his gross, ignorant, or scandalous conversation backed with impenitency and obstinacy) I must desire them all to excuse me for giving the Sacrament to such a one. Yet would I not make any stir in the Church, if they appointed an other Minister to give him the Sacrament in my Congregation: By which means, I apprehend, I shall be both clear of the guilt of his Admission, and withal preserve the peace and unity of the Church. And, should this carriage of mine cost me a Sequestration, I hope I should choose rather to suffer a penal then to commit a Moral evil. The case may be illustrated by other Acts of Judicature, both Civil and Sacred. Suppose the Eldership vote the Excommunication of a person whom I knew to be innocent, or vote the non-Excommunication of a person whom I knew to be jure-Excommunicate: In such case they must give me leave to enter my protest, and not to act according to their vote against my Knowledge and Conscience. Again, in Civil Trials, suppose the Jury find a person guilty, whom the Judge knows to be Innocent, were I Judge in that case, I hope, by God's assistance, neither Law nor Jury should prevail with me to pronounce sentence against such a person. The like might be said about the Judges clearing a person whom he knows to be guilty, yet is acquitted by the Jury, if the Judge should be put to pronounce a Sentence of absolution against his Knowledge and Conscience: Which yet I think is not in practice amongst us, since the Verdict of the Jury doth acquit the Prisoner; only the Judge in such case might haply complain of the Jury, etc. My drift and scope in all this, is to show the weakness of Mr. Humphrey his Cords, wherewith he thinks to bind me, and withal that I might make it appear to the Reader, That however pag. 64. Mr. Humphrey triumphs before the Victory, yet we are not forced either to lie on the one hand, or to come over to Mr. Humphrey on the other hand.  
For the last clause in this Paragraph, That, seeing a Minister is God's Ambassador, and what he doth is by Commission, we may as soon say, the God of Israel can lic, as that the Minister either Seals an untruth or tie, in doing his Office.  
Ans. Either the sense is, That a Minister when he acts clavae non errante, Seals neither an untruth nor a lie, which is as pertinent, as if I should say, when Mr. Humphrey Preaches Truth, he Preaches not an untruth or lie. Or his meaning is, that, because a Minister is Commissioned by Christ, therefore he cannot err in this or any other part of his Ministerial function; which as it is a palpable error, so it smells strongly of Popish infallibility.  
What he adds by way of amplification; 
Pag. 64, 65, 66.  as there is much truth in it, so his great mistake lies in apprehending, that we cannot judge a person to be worthy or unworthy, but presently we meddle with God's Ark, and enter upon God's Throne. The weakness of which inference hath been formerly laid open, and therefore I do but only note it here.  
For his answer to my exception against divers Church-members receiving, 
Pag. 66.  though all may be present, etc. That yet the Minister may be free in his Office, in delivering the Sacrament in general as Christ did, and that especially because it is a visible Word.  
Ans. 1. This indeed accompanied with due admonition, may be a relief to the Minister, he being thereby excused from giving the Sacrament to persons visibly unworthy; 
* My meaning is, If the Minister acquiesce in the vote of the Elders, and do not his endeavour in a Moral way to have such a person kept from receiving. For I do not think the Minister is bound to thrust him away from the Table, or to pull the Bread and Cup violently out of his hands, who upon the unrighteous vote and encouragement of the Elders lays hold upon those holy mysteries.  but it cannot clear him of guilt, as permitting them to eat and drink judgement to themselves, whom he ought to keep back.  
2ly. Though the Elements and divers Sacramental actions be explicatory, and so a visible word common to all, be they Church-members or no, yet giving and receiving are applicatory, and where a Minister or a private Christian cannot apply the writing or promise of Christ (I speak as de jure) there they cannot apply the seal of that writing.  
Here I cannot but take notice of Mr. Humphrey his ingenuity, in confessing, That presence at the Sacrament is more free than actual receiving, in these words: 
Pag. 68  Not that I am so moved at free presence, but that actual receiving is not as free to our intelligent Members. 
Not that bare presence makes them guilty, but their unworthy carriage at the Sacrament, and their unprofitableness under it as a visible word.  And I do as easily yield to him, that by presence only, persons may be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as well as by receiving, but not as much, since actual receiving is like Judas his betraying Christ with a kiss, whereby he contracted deeper guilt than others of his damned Crew, especially such as came haply to see Christ taken, but put not forth a tongue or hand in order to Christ's apprehension. Yet withal, it being agreed on both hands, that presence is freer than receiving (for which Mr. Humphrey himself holds forth the practice of the Primitive Church) let him consider how he will salve his own Objections against this Tenet; and that it argues weakness for a man to yield the Cause, and yet to dispute against it.  
Mr. Humphrey. Indeed if persons be Excommunicate (as the Primitive Church did punish such with bare presence) or men have their gathered Companies; if they do not communicate with those who are present, and hear, their reason is open, they own them not as their Members: But as for us, that are not yet convinced by them, either we must maintain, or new-mould, our mixed Congregations.  
Ans. 1. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant, that in the Primitive times, persons excommunicated in this sense, were not to be present at the Sacrament, since the fourth degree of excommunication, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shut persons quite out of the Church, where they were to stand with tears, requesting those who entered in, to pray for them; and thence they were called Plorantes. See Goodwin's Moses and Aaron. They who were quite shut out of the Church, could not be present at the Sacrament, administered in the Chancel. 2 . It appears further by this Answer of Mr. Humphrey, that in the Primitive Times, suspension was a part or degree of excommunication, since some persons excommunicated might be present, yet, not receive; but others might neither be admitted to presence, nor to receiving. And this makes much for us, and against himself, who grants, that persons excommunicated, may be kept from the Sacrament: But, say we, persons juridically suspended, are excommunicated (both in our sense, and in the sense of the Primitive Church) Ergo, By Mr. Humphrey his own Principle, they are to be kept from receiving. 3 . The ground of their separation from us, who are in gathered Companies (yet are not Brownists) is it not, because we admit pell-mell, Church members visibly unworthy? And, had our Sacraments been kept pure, their very pretence of separation had been cut off (I mean, as to the point of Communicants). Besides, some of those separated Congregations, have admitted to their Sacraments our Church-members, whom they apprehended godly, when at the same time, other Church-members of ours, concerning whom, they have not had sufficient evidence of their piety, did not pass for current. A clear evidence, that they (as well as we) look more at visible worthiness, then at Church-membership.  
D. Dr. Page 37. If the Sacrament have the same latititude with the Word, than a Heathen may receive it as well as a Christian.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 69.  He hath left out my main caution (within the Church). The Word may be considered as a bare word, and an Instrument in writing, etc. or, as a Sealed word and instrument, delivered to peculiar use. The Covenant is a sealed Covenant, only unto the Church, etc.  
Ans. 1. We demand Scripture-proofe for all this: Mr. Humphrey indeed quotes Rom. 3. 2. To them were committed the Oracles of God. And, Rom. 9 4. To whom pertained the Covenants. But, 1. There is not one word of the Sacrament. 2 . If he will urge those places, then Heathen must be excluded from the Oracles and Covenant, whether sealed or unsealed, there being not one word about that particular of sealing. Suppose the Apostle had said, To whom belongs the Oracles, and the Covenants, and the Sacraments. If Mr. Humphrey will thence argue, Therefore Heathen ought not to partake of the Sacraments, is it not easy to retort out of the same place, that then, by the same reason, they ought not to read the Scripture, or to hear the Word Preached, and the Covenant declared and published, since all these were in some way, peculiar to the Jews. Yea, to some Sacraments, Heathen were admitted; namely, to Baptism under the Cloud, to the Manna, and to the Rockwater, to wit, the mixed Multitude, as well as divers uncircumcised Israelites, in which there was somewhat extraordinary. I agree with Mr. Humphrey, that Heathen may partake of the Word, yet not of the Sacraments; but his proof thereof from Rom. 3. and 9 is not valid.  
2 . He mistakes, in saying the Word is not a sealed Instrument to Heathen; and in thinking, the Word is not sealed to Heathen by the Sacraments, unless they partake of the Sacraments, Show me any Covenant in the World, where the Seals doth not concern them, whom the Articles of the Covenant do concern. If the Articles of the Covenant of Grace concern all the World, and are published and tendered to all conditionally, what absurdity is there, in sealing the same conditional offer to all, in the Sacrament?  
3 . The sealing of the Covenant is general or particular; on God's part, or on man's part. In general, God seals the Covenant by every Sacrament conditionally to all the World: Particularly, he seals the Covenant to the worthy Receiver at the Sacrament. Further, whether I Receive or no, God seals the Covenant to me as well as to others, in general; but, by Receiving, I myself seal in particular, which standers by do not. We easily agree with Mr. Humphrey, That every Church-member (without a just forfeiture) hath a public right to the use of the Sacrament. But, the Question is, Wherein this forfeiture lies? We say, the forfeiture lies in visible unworthiness: He says, it lies in Excommunication. We answer, That cannot be, since forfeiture of a privilege is grounded upon an offence; but, excommunication rightly managed is no offence. The Church indeed by excommunication takes the forfeiture, but the Church-member by the offence makes the forfeiture. This offence known, is nothing else, but his visible unworthiness, upon which, the Church may justly deny him the use of the Sacrament for all his public right to it as a Church-member. Herein indeed, an unworthy Church-member is distinguished from an Heathen, in that he hath a public right to the Sacrament (as a Jew, when unclean, had to the Passover; and a Priest, when unclean, had to the holy Things) which no Heathen have. But the influence of that right is suspended, as to his actual receiving, till he visibly repent, of his visible unworthiness.  
D. Dr. There are some righteous persons in their own conceit, many false justiciaries, etc.  
Mr. Humphrey. Of all men, I think, such as these, had most need of conviction; but I find not the Scriptures send forth any spiritual hue and cry, to make search for them; If it did, I will not for any thing, say, who are the men, etc.  
Ans. 1. That conviction they may have, by presence at all Ordinances. 2 . A Scripture hue and cry for such hath been formerly noted, and I shall not here trouble my Reader with repetitions. 3 . For any to profess, They will not help to discover those, after whom the Scripture makes hue and cry, argues at the best, very great weakness, and is in effect to say, I will not do what the Word of God commands me.  
4 . For his reflection upon divers of our Ministers and Elders; let Mr. Humphrey but discover in particular, those whom he charges in general, and make good his charge, we shall thank him for it, and trust, through mercy (so far as our power reaches) we shall not be willingly partial in God's Law, but be ready to throw the first stone at ourselves. And as we have cause to thank God, where he hath kept any of us from breaking out into grosser abominations; so we desire at all times, especially at the Sacrament, to lie low in the sense of our own great unworthiness, to renounce our own righteousness, as well as our unrighteousness; 
Psal. 15. 4.  and to pity, not presently to despise, the greatest offenders, whether they fall under the sentence of suspension, or of excommunication: And this we hope is not Pharisaisme, Luke 18. verse 9 to 14.  
D. Dr. 
Pag. 70, 71, 72.  All may be present, but not actually partake, etc. Against this, Mr. Humphrey hath four Exceptions. To the first, I answer, he wrongs me, in making the World believe, I make nothing of the whole Administration, but only of actual Receiving. I have formerly showed, that they who hear and see unworthily at the Sacrament, are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ; as well, but not as much, as those who receive: Yet, because hearing and seeing may be means of Conversion; not so, receiving; therefore all may hear and see, but not receive. 
I determine not here, whether seeing the Sacramental Elements do convert; but, am very inclinable to believe, that the observation of the humble devotion of the Communicants, may be effectual for such a purpose; as, 1 Pet, 3. vers. 1, 2. And as the courage of divers Martyrs have been means to change some Persecutors.   
To his second Exception. We hold not, that Baptism is to be repeated; nor do we believe, that Christ hath commanded absolutely all intelligent Church-members to receive. But, as a Circumcised Jew might be kept from the Passover, when Legally or Morally unclean; so may a Baptised Christian be kept from the Lords Supper, when Morally unclean.  
Doctor Rivet, upon Exod. 12, notes, 1. That Women were admitted to the Passover as well as men. 2 . That profession of their faith was required (of adult Females) before they were admitted to the Passover. A clear evidence of visible Moral purity requisite as well as levitical purity.  
To his third Exception we answer. An unregenerate man's undisposednesse, doth no more frustrate God's precept, of receiving the Lords Supper, than an unclean man's indisposedness did frustrate the command, for all the Congregation to keep the Passover, Exod. 12. 47.  
For his fourth Exception, That we go contrary to the express command, Drink ye all of it, we answer, 1. If Judas received not, (which is probable) than it is evident, the command reaches only those, who are really and visibly worthy. 2 . Supposing Judas did receive. 1. Let Mr. Humphrey peruse Mr. Timsons Answer, page 3. and 4. who, though zealous for free Admission, yet looks at this Argument as very weak. 2 . I have answered formerly, that in Judas his Admission, Christ's dispensation was extraordinary, and so not imitable by us. 3 . We admit all to the Marriage Feast, as well, yea, more than himself, but not to cat the Feast in every Dish; yea, we admit all to the Sacrament, but not to every Sacramental action. 4 . If putting the ignorant upon knowledge, the careless upon diligence to prepare, the hardhearted upon repentance, be to make them more secure, careless, and hard-bearted, we must confess ourselves guilty of Mr. Humphrey his charge; otherwise, not. And certainly, if our suspension from but part of one Ordinance, do harden (as he apprehends) what will his excommunication from all Ordinances do? 5 . For his charging us, To afflict tender Consciences; We see not how any such Conclusion can flow from our Principles, rightly understood; or, that our Principles tend, to lay waste the Ordinance of the Lords Supper. We desire, that every Ordinance may be used in every Congregation, particularly, the Lords Supper, where there are any Church-members capable of it. Nor do we believe, the Administration of this Sacrament doth absolutely depend upon the being or acting of the Elders, who are not necessary to the esse, but to the bone esse of the Church, and to the more regular Administration of the Sacrament. We believe, the principal care of Souls lies upon Ministers, who therefore ought to do their duty (whether they have Elders or no) in fitting their people for, and then admitting them to the Sacrament. Nor do we apprehend what there can be in this carriage of ours, to afflict tender Consciences, whom of all persons we shall most willingly admit: If indeed we forced any to approve, and own trial before the Eldership, there might be some plea against us in that kind; but, that there should be any such thing in giving an account of our faith before any, especially to our Minister, who, without all controversy, is charged with our Souls, as he that must give an account to God for them, is to me a very strange paradox. Yet further; Suppose one be kept from the Sacrament, yea, unjustly kept from it, what is there here to scruple his conscience? It may indeed grieve his spirit, and cause him to reflect, and that to his great and spiritual advantage; but the sin is theirs who do unjustly detain him. For our part, if we know any thing of ourselves, our great care is to invite, and encourage tender Consciences, to partake of, not to keep them from, the Sacrament; and such we are assured, will never put us against our Consciences, to admit all pell-mell. A tender Conscience is tender of other men's Consciences, as well as of its own.  
Page 72. to 74. Mr. Humphrey thinks, I wrong his Simile, and take hold of it by the left handle.  
Ans. Let the Reader peruse my Answer, page 40, and 41. and compare it with page 14. of Mr. Humphrey his Vindication, he will easily perceive Mr. Humphrey wrongs himself by it; but I wrong neither him nor his Simile. God is the Prince wronged, Christ is the great Favourite, upon whose intercession Grace is proclaimed to all the World conditionally, and sealed in the Sacrament. Now mark what Mr. Humphrey adds, page 15. of his Vindication, Can it be imagined, there is any the Proclamation belongs to without the seal? is not the seal public, as the contents of it? Is not here a free Admission for all the World, and thereby even for Heathen, to the Sacrament? That grace is proclaimed conditionally to all the World, see Matth. 28. 19 and Mark 16. vers. 15, 16. Mr. Humphrey adds in the forementioned words, The Seal is as extensive as the Proclamation; therefore by his own Principles, they must be admitted to the Lords Supper, since they are part of the World, yea, the greatest part. Nor will his following words be a salvo for this wide gap, That as we offer the conditions thereof to any, so likewise may we, and must we, the seal (upon their desire) etc. page 15. of his Vindication: Unless we have good evidence (at least in the judgement of charity) that their desire is real, Acts 8. verse 36, 37. And hence, when Heathen came on to the Church, they were first Catechumeni, and gave evidence of their faith and repentance, before they were admitted Church-members, and Baptised: Nor was Paul himself admitted by the Church of Jerusalem, till upon good evidence, Acts 9 vers. 26, 27. And why the like care should not be used in the Sacrament of growth, as was in the Sacrament of initiation, there being with us so great a distance of time, between the one and the other, and we having so good ground to fear the declension of Church-members, as well as they had to fear the hypocritical approach of Church-candidates; Mr. Humphrey, I believe, can give no solid reason. All Heathen may, and must, be admitted to Baptisine, upon their desire, and all Church-members may, and must, be admitted to the Lords Supper, upon their desire provided, the desire in both be regular. And certainly, if moderate inquisition after the sincerity of Heathens desire, be not entering upon God's Throne; then the same inquisition after the sincerity of Church-members desire's, cannot be charged as an intruding upon God's secrets. For our parts, we believe the Covenant is sealed conditionally in the Sacrament to all the World, as well at to all Church-members: But, from thence to argue, that all the world, or every Church-member, should receive the Sacrament, is a conclusion, Mr. Humphrey himself cannot swallow, much less others, who are not of his large Principles. Whereas therefore he adds, 
Pag. 74.  We may not judge, men are outwardly Rebels, unless we have somewhat to allege against them, and then they must be excommunicated. Ans. 1. We judge not any to be outwardly Rebels, unless we have something to allege against them (as David had against Absolums party, who, I think, were outwardly Rebels, as well as Edomites or Philistines) to wit, ignorance, obstinacy, scandal; and if trial of Church-members be commanded, he that wilfully refuseth it, shows himself a Rebel, as well as he that wilfully refuseth to obey his Prince. 2 . Such we judge are to be excommunicated but not presently, with the highest degree of excommunication, unless the greatness and palpableness of the offence, with other circumstances, do require the same. 3 . Whereas he pretends, There is not Scripture-warrant for trial of Church-members. Ans. Besides what hath been formerly said to this, I add, If Scripture warrant trial in general, and apply this rule particularly to some Church-members, this is enough for us; and it lies upon Mr. Humphrey to prove, that this trial must not be against the Sacrament, which when he can do, we shall easily yield him the cause. Now that Trial is commanded in general, see 1 Thess. 5. 21. we are commanded to Try all things; and if a person be not a thing, let Mr. Humphrey put him out of that general. 
Private Christians may put each other upon trial, Jam. 2. vers. 18, 20. We ought not to refuse trial from any, where there is just occasion. 1 Pet. 3. 15.  In particular, the Deacons were to be tried, 1 Tim. 3. 10. Ministers, or such as pretended to be Ministers, were to be tried by the people, 1 Joh. 4. 1. The Church of Ephesus is commended for trying the false Apostles, Revel. 2. 2. 
See Jer. 6. 27.  If people have power to try their Officers, shall Church Officers have no power to try their people? Hath every Church-member a trial and judgement of discretion, and shall not Church-Officers have a trial and judgement of decision? Whereas therefore in the foot of this page, he upbraids me again, as giving more power to the servant, then to the Lord himself; As I pardon him this wrong, so I must mind my Reader, that that cavil hath been already answered. We doubt not but Christ, as Lord and King of the Church, might have tried, suspended, or excommunicated Judas by his own power, had he pleased so to do; yet, Christ forbearing to do either of these, is no rule for our imitation. What Christ might do as a Minister, is an other question; and of that I spoke, and said, That if Christ, as a Minister, might suspend or excommunicate, than every Minister might by himself alone suspend and excommunicate; which power, if given to every particular Minister, might provefatall to the Church: Nor do I find in Scripture, that one particular Minister is the Church governing, Matth. 18. 17. Yet withal, for further explication of myself in that particular, I think we may safely distinguish between a regular and irregular state of the Church. Where Church-government cannot be settled regularly, in that case, I believe, much lies upon the Minister: or, where the Elders will not act, I do not apprehend, that therefore Sacraments are to be omitted; but the Minister, who on all hands is acknowledged as an undoubted Officer, must endeavour to supply that defect. Haply, in some cases, and for some persons, the Elders for a time may devolve the sole power of trial upon the Minister, where they have good assurance of his integrity. 2 . I distinguish between the Ministers Pastoral and Judicial power: Suppose he cannot suspend an ignorant and scandalous person Judicially, may he not therefore suspend him Pastorally? Suppose he cannot suspend such by a formal sentence, may he not suspend his own act, as being not bound against his conscience to give the Sacrament to one visibly unworthy? May there not be a negative, where there is no formal Suspension?  

Pag. 75.  He thinks I slander the Sacrament, in comparing it to the bitter Water, and saying, It can do good to none, but such as are good already. Ans. 1. Though I be not bound to answer Mr. Humphrey his thoughts, but his arguments; yet, herein I dare refer myself to an indifferent person, what slander it is to compare any of the Ordinances to the bitter Water, which ever did good or hurt, as every Ordinance doth, not according to its own nature, but according to the disposition of the subject, or the dispensation of free grace. 2 . I believe the Sacrament may do good, even to those who are bad; upon which account all sorts may be present: Only, I descent about actual receiving, which if Mr. Humphrey can prove a converting Ordinance, he shall not only make me his Proselyte, but a greater Zealot for free Admission, yea, freer Admission, than himself is. What he repeats here and page 76. I pass, as having been formerly answered. Page 75. Mr. Humphrey feeling himself pinched with the instance of godly Parents and Masters, keeping their Children and Servants from the Sacrament, till they were visibly qualified, hath nothing to except against, but my ill language, as he is pleased to term it. Ans. The worst of my ill language is to ask him, whether it be not a shame for one, scarce out of the shell for Learning and Divinity, to reflect upon such eminent and pious persons, who were Counselors and Authors of Church-government amongst us, As if they were children of Simon Magus, and went about with Judas to make a bargain of Christ at the Supper. To be a young Scholar or Divine is no reproach; but, for such a one to censure an Assembly of such Senators and Divines as he doth, I think is shameful; if it be not, I shall willingly ask Mr. Humphrey pardon for saying so.  
As I deny not, 
Pag. 77.  but the Word and seal must go together, so I am assured, they do both go together in every Sacrament, and that the Covenant is sealed conditionally in every Sacrament to all the World, though the greatest part of the World do not receive. But it follows not from thence, that all may receive: Nor can Mr. Humphrey bring any Scripture-evidence, That men must come to the Sacrament to seal their own damnation: Yea, probably such Doctrine Preached, would be a greater bar to his free Admission, than the Trial before the Eldership, which yet he so much decries. I perceive the instance of Infants and scandalous persons troubles him, which though he snarl at, will not budge or move their place. But that I pass, as having been formerly cleared. He is also displeased, that we go by a rule of visibility, in admitting Church-members to the Lords Supper: But, let Mr. Humphrey answer himself, and either admit all Church-members, or give us a better rule than the rule of visibility, to wit, That such members as are visibly capable of the Sacrament, should be admitted, others not. His rule of visibility is natural intelligence, when Church-members have the use of Reason: Our rule is spiritual intelligence, and vacancy of scandal, when persons have some competent knowledge of Divine and Sacramental mysteries, and live unblamably. Will Mr. Humphrey in one breath cry up and cry down the rule of visibility? If yet he ask, Where is there any ground to try Church-members, whether they be ignorant, or no, etc. Let him answer himself, Where is there any ground to try Church-members, whether they have the use of reason or no? Or, where doth Christ forbid the admitting of distracted persons? If the ground be, because they cannot examine themselves, the same ground will reach ignorant persons in the Church, whose inability for selfe-examination is so much the worse, as it is wilful.  
Mr. Humphrey. For his answer to my four Considerations, I reply as briefly. 1. An Historical Faith suffices to Baptism Acts 8. 13.  
Ans. What is this Reply to my Answer, page 42? my words are these, Those whom we would not Baptism, had they been to have been Baptised at years of discretion, those we cannot admit to the Lords Supper, though Baptised, etc. To this, all he answers, is, that, Historical Faith is enough to Baptism. As, 1. its utterly impertinent: So, 2 . it's false, since not only an Historical Faith, but also profession of Repentance, is necessary to Baptism, which is therefore called, The Baptism of Repentance. Mark 1. 4, 5. 3 . Profession of Faith and Repentance, cannot stand with conviction of gross ignorance, and with scandal. We refuse none, who make a charitative profession of Faith and Repentance. And here once more, let Mr. Humphrey remember his own rule, Adultis cadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 78.  A Church-members outward Acceptance is his Receiving; as for any other, the Scriptures he pleads as abundant enough, are none at all.  
Ans. In my answer to his second consideration, I do not quote Scripture, therefore Mr. Humphrey should either have mentioned those Scriptures, or referred the Reader to them. But, to come to the point; Will Mr. Humphrey stand to that assertion of his, That a Church-members outward Acceptance, is no other but his Receiving? What thinks he of public Prayer, Hearing, the Parent's confession of Faith at the Baptising of his Children, etc. are not each of these an outward acceptance? Then sure Receiving the Lord's Supper, is not the sole outward or visible acceptance. How many Church-members will scarce come to Church from years end to years' end, who yet would think themselves much wronged, if the Sacrament be denied them? Is their offering to Receive once a year, acceptance enough, who all the year after will scarce come to the public Ordinances? Do not they as visibly reject Christ, by neglecting to Hear, etc. all the year long, as they do accept Christ, by coming once a year to the Sacrament? 2 . True, Receiving is an outward acceptance of the Sacrament; but is it a sufficient outward acceptance of Christ and Grace, offered in the Sacrament? Then persons jure excommunicate, cannot be suspended. Suppose a Church-member publicly renounce Christ, and yet desire to Receive; this Wretch, by Mr. Humphrey his rule, must have the Sacrament, if outward acceptance be enough. For his charging me here again with foul language, why did not Mr. Humphrey transcribe it, as a further evidence against me? Let the Reader peruse page 43. 44, and 45. of my Bar, he will easily unveil the mystery. The truth is, in those pages I lay open his foul slanders, and this, forsooth, is my foul language.  
Mr. Humphrey. To the Third, where are many things, I say 1. Though conviction is not enough to convert without grace, what then? Is it not a means therefore with it?  
Ans. 1. Sure Mr. Humphrey forgot his own words, page 16. of his Vindication, Let a man be fully convinced of the free grace of Christ, his heart can stand it out no longer against his conversion. Is it not here evident, he makes full conviction alone, a means of conversion, yea, a sufficient means? If a man cannot stand it out against full conviction, then full conviction is a sufficient means of conversion. This was it, I excepted against: To which, in his Reply, he Answers, Conviction, with grace, is a means of conversion. For my part, I believe it's a means of conversion, either with, or without grace; but, not a sufficient means. An Horse is a means to draw a million of weight, but I hope not a sufficient means: but, if a horse alone could draw it, he were a sufficient means. If Mr. Humphrey his first assertion (to which I answered) be true, then full conviction, even without grace, must be a sufficient means of conversion.  
Mr. Humphrey. 2 . Conviction of the truth of the Covenant comes directly by sealing it; and conviction of the general offer, by applying it to every single person.  
Ans. There is a double sealing in the Sacrament: 1. By application of the Seal to the Covenant itself. 2 . By application of the Seal to particular persons in their receiving. In the former sense we agree, conviction comes by sealing the general offer, even to those who do not receive, but may be present: But it follows not immediately, nor directly, that because the Covenant is particularly applied to some persons, therefore it is offered to all. It's bad Logic, to argue from a particular to a general, unless upon a general reason: And hence, the consequence from a particular to a general, is not immediate, but remote. It follows not, that because pardon is by the seal applied to some Traitors, therefore it is offered to all Traitors: No more is it true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that, because grace is sealed by particular application to some persons in the Sacrament, therefore it is offered unto all. The consequent indeed is true, not so the consequence. In the last clause, Mr. Humphrey is ambiguous: If by every single person he means every man, woman, and child in the world; then undoubtedly, conviction of the general offer, flows properly and immediately from such application: But there never was, nor will be, such an application. If by every single person, he means some single persons of all sorts, neither is there such an application at the Sacrament, even in Mr. Humphrey his own judgement who excludes, not only Idiots, but also Heathen and excommunicated persons. If by every single person he mean only, every person admitted to receive, here his every person notes but some persons in the World; nor will it follow, that because the Covenant is applied to some persons, by actual Receiving, therefore it is offered unto all? My assertion then holds thus far true, That conviction of the general offer of the Covenant, comes by signification, and general obsignation, not by personal and particular obsignation and application: which was the thing I drove at, and which Mr. Humphrey must evince, if he will speak to purpose; nor is the distinction between offering and applying so nice as he would make it.  
Mr. Humphrey. 3 . Conviction that Christ is mine in particular, as to faith of particular evidence, comes not at all by the Sacrament: 1. Because the Sacrament seals nothing, but the Word; which speaks not particularly, I believe. 2 . What is common to the hypocrite with the true believer, cannot bring any evidence to me, etc.  
Ans. 1. Let the Reader mark it: Mr. Humphrey denies, that faith of evidence, comes either by the Word or Sacrament. 2 . He denies it upon a Popish ground, because the Word speaks not particularly. 3 . We grant, the Word says not particularly, Thou John Humphrey, shalt be saved; no more doth it say, Thou John Humphrey, shalt rise from the dead; or, Thou John Humphrey, shalt have no other Gods but Jehovah. Cannot Mr. Humphrey therefore attain to a faith of evidence, that he in particular shall rise, and that its his duty in particular, to have Jehovah only for his God? 4 . We grant, the Sacrament seals nothing, but the Word; but, doth not the Sacrament by sealing ratify the Word? And then, if the Word conduce to faith of evidence, doth not the Sacrament also? Take for instance the syllogism of Assurance: He that believes, shall be saved; I believe, therefore I shall be saved. The Conclusion, I shall be saved, is faith of evidence. This Conclusion depends necessarily upon both Propositions: The Major is Scripture in terms, Mark 16. 26. The Minor, we say, depends partly upon Scripture, in respect of the signs of true faith laid down therein: According to Mr. Humphrey here (with whom we also agree) the Minor depends upon the testimony of my own Conscience, and the Spirit. The Conclusion flows necessarily from both: If so, then Assurance depends in part upon Scripture, and particularly the Promise; this Promise is ratified by the Sacrament as by a Seal: and how then can Mr. Humphrey his Assertion hold Water, That faith of evidence comes not at all by the Sacrament. If my evidence for a Possession depend upon a Deed, and that Deed be ratified by a Seal, is it not clear, my Evidence depends much upon the Seal? Is not a Deed canceled, by pulling off the Seals, and doth it not then depend much upon the Seals? True, God's Word (considering his infallibility) is as good as his Bond; yet, to strengthen our weak faith, he is pleased to annex Seals, etc. that by strong assurance, we might have strong consolation, Heb. 6. 17, 18. His second Argument, as it makes further discovery of Mr. Humphrey his judgement, so it shamefully lays open his weakness: It discovers his judgement, that he believes, no outward Ordinance can bring any evidence: it discovers his weakness, in asserting, That nothing common to hypocrites with believers, can bring evidence to any, which, though true in some sense, is false in his sense; and he may as well say, Nothing common to hypocrites with believers can convert, and thereby deny the power of Conversion to the Word preached. Can the Word convert, and can it not evidence conversion? Can it convince me to be in the state of Nature, and can it not as well convince me to be in the state of Grace? Can it do the greater, and can it not do the lesser? True, nothing common to hypocrites with believers, can be a formal cause of evidence; but, divers things common to both, may be efficient causes of evidence, I mean, as instruments; to wit, Prayer, by impetration; the Word, by conviction; the Sacraments, by obsignation; and conscience, by reflection; all backed by the Spirit as the Principle, who by the Word, etc. convinces of righteousness and judgement, as well, as of sin, John 16. 8.  
For his Reply to my Answer of his fourth Consideration, 
Pag. 79.  illustrated by the Magician and his Friend, it may indeed take the Reader with its pleasantness; but is altogether impertinent, unless Mr. Humphrey can prove, that Suspension is not only the occasion, but also the proper cause of Church-division. I wonder Mr. Humphrey doth not cry out of all Church-censures, and excommunication itself, upon the same account. See my Answer to his fourth Consideration, page 49, and 50. of my Bar, which Mr. Humphrey only plays with, in his Reply, as well knowing it will bear jest better than earnest.   

Sect. VII.  

Pag. 80.  In defence of his second Reason, he makes the Sacraments essential notes of the visible Church.  
Ans. I grant, the Sacraments rightly administered, are infallible notes of the Church visible; but, I question whether they be essential notes, because such notes hold both negatively and affirmatively. An essential note of a man, proves the subject where it is, to be a man, and the subject where it is not, to be no man: Upon which account, I dare not say, the Sacraments are essential notes of the Church visible, since a Church may be truly visible, though it have them not for a long time: Such was the Church of those Israelites, who were not Circumcised in the Wilderness, Josh. 5. ve s. 5, 7. which answers our Baptism: Nor do I doubt, but Constantine the Great was a true member of the visible Church, even before he was Baptised: The like may be said of Abraham's family, before Circumcision was instituted; and likewise of the Catechumeni, who were members (though incomplete) of the Church-visible, yet were admitted to neither of the Sacraments, which however necessary, necessitate praecepti, yet are not necessary absolutely necessitate medit, so their absence proceed not from contempt. The Church cannot be visible without combination, in order to the Preaching of the Word, and Prayer● but was visible from Adam's fall to the days of Abraham, without Sacraments in ordinary. 2 . If the Lords Supper be an essential note of the visible Church, than many Congregations of England, who have been without it for divers years of late, are thereby unchurched, which I believe, Mr. Humphrey is more charitable than to assert. How many Congregations have for ten or twelve years together, assembled constantly at the Word and Prayer, without the Lords Supper, yea some of them, haply, without Baptism? A great fault I grant; but, I hope, not so great, as to unchurch them.  
I perceive, Mr. Humphrey is too willing to lie at catch, who cannot forbear snapping at me, even when I plead for him, and excuse him. His definition of a Church-visible I shown, was liable enough to exception; yet, took it in the best sense, supposing he meant more than he said. He defines a Church visible, to be a number of such, as make profession of Jesus Christ. This definition, I said, was deficient, as wanting the copula, that united them in one body; namely, Combination for Church-ends: 
Pag. 81.  Yet, supposing this might be his meaning, though not mentioned in his definition, I pass it: For which he flouts me, as curious, and with a pretty story, thinks to catch his Reader. But, Mr. Humphrey should remember, that in a Dispute, the Reader must be convinced with Arguments, not caught with expressions. Would he play the Logician more, and the Rhetorician less, naked Truth would sooner take place. Let me ask Mr. Humphrey, whether the Members of the invisible Church be not a number of Professors? If so, What distinguisheth the visible from the invisible Church, but this Combination for Church-Ends? When all the parts of a body can make a totum without union, than all the members of the Church visible, can make a Church visible without the former combination. Professors make the Church invisible, by invisible combination in Christ; and the Church visible, by visible combination at the Ordinances of Christ, the most necessary of which, the visible Church cannot want.  
In the same Page, He asserts directly, That all Professors and Saints by Calling, must, eo nomine, be admitted to the Lords Table.  
Ans. If so, than many who are not Members of the Church visible, must be admitted to the Lords Table. Suppose an Heathen converted, and making profession, yet, seeks not Baptism; nay, suppose he be Baptised, yet, joins not to any particular Congregation, but Hears here and there, where he pleaseth, as an unconverted Heathen may, 1 Cor. 14. 24. Jam. 2. vers. 2, 6. Will Mr. Humphrey admit this Professor to the Lords Supper? If not, than a Professor and Saint by Calling, may not, eo nomine, be admitted. If he will admit him, than one, who is no member of the visible Church, may be admitted to the Lords Supper. Now mark, I pray: If one who is no Church-member, may be admitted, and divers who are Church-members, may not be admitted to the Saceament; is it not evident, that the ground of Admission to the Lords Supper, lies not properly in Church-membership, but in visibility, since a visible Saint may be admitted, though no Church-member; but divers Church-members may not be admitted, though invisible Saints.  

Pag. 82.  By this also may appear the weakness of that assertion of Mr. Humphrey, page 82. That he thinks, a visible Professor, and Church-member, are terms convertible. True, every Church-member, eo nomine, is a Professor, but every Professor is not presently a Church-member: 
Yet as a Church-member, he may be only a Professor at large, not in the stricter acception of the term, and as it is commonly taken, when we say, Such a man is a Professor, in opposition (not to Heathen, but) to lose and profane Church-members.  Fit matter he may be for a Church, if his knowledge and conversation do suit in some good measure with his profession; but, he is no more a Church-member, till in union, than a beam or stone is part of the House, till compacted with the building. This is further evident in the case of excommunication, whereby even a pious Church-member, may be cut off, for a scandalous sin, yet remains still, both a professor, and a real Saint: As, Suppose David had been excommunicated for his Murder and Adultery. It's evident there, that a Professor, and Church-member, are not terms convertible, since they are not predicated each of the other universally.  
The Argument drawn from Infants and Idiots, which here again he flies upon with such contempt and scorn, hath been formerly vindicated, to which I refer the Reader. For what he adds, That Saint Paul enjoins us to examine ourselves, and to discern the Lords Body: Nor doth it excuse any of age, but they are both to do so, and come; both to prepare, and eat. We must do what we can still, when we cannot do as we ought: But, as for Infants, etc. it's no sin of theirs, if they are not fit to come. For ignorance then, and scandal; if it be not such as makes us forfeit our Church-membership (that is, become excommunicate) it cannot contradict our outward Profession.  
Ans. 1. By concession, in sensu composito, all of age, must do both: But the Question is, de sensu diviso, whether all of age must receive, though they cannot, will not, receive worthily? It was a duty to kiss Christ sincerely, Luke 7. 45. but the very kiss was a sin, and worse than not kissing, when given treacherously, Luke 22. 48. So likewise to worship Christ is a duty, John 9 38. but better not worship him at all, then worship him ironically, Matth, 27. 29. Are not all unworthy Receivers, of this Fraternity?  
2 . Again by Concession. We must do what we can morally, but not always what we can naturally, when we can not do what we would. Else, suppose a person were stripped of all apparel, must he of necessity come to the Sacrament, though naked, because he can get no apparel? The nakedness of unworthy Receivers, especially, if visibly so, is a great deal worse.  
3 . Suppose a man be drunk before the Sacrament, must he therefore Receive the Lords Supper, even when he is actually drunk, because by this sin of his, he wilfully made himself unfit for the Sacrament? Upon Mr. Humphrey his Principles he must; for, he tells us, that children and Idiots are excused, because they are not wilfully unfit for the Sacrament; but, persons of age being intelligent, must receive, though they be unfit, because these are wilfully, and by their own default, unfit. Will it not hence necessarily follow, that the vilest miscreants, who are jure excommunicate, are bound to come and receive, because by their foul scandals, they wilfully unfit themselves for the Sacrament? And by proportion, the more vile and wilful sinners are, the more they are bound, to receive the Lords Supper. And therefore a person actually drunk, by his own default, must receive, even when drunk because he was wilfully unfit; but, a person forced to be drunk by others, may be excused from Receiving, because he did not wilfully make himself unfit and uncapable. Wherefore are Idiots kept away, but because they are children in understanding, and cannot put forth those acts, which are necessary to worthy receiving? Are not all grossly ignorant persons, children also in understanding, as well as the former, 1 Cor. 14. 20. If he say, they are not wilfully so, that is not true of divers, who by their lusts, break their brains, and grow distracted. If yet he say, ignorance may be cured, so may distraction and madness also; but, till both be cured, the one by spiritual, the other by bodily Physic, I believe the one may plead admission as well as the other.  
4 . Again, by Concession. Ignorance and scandal do not universally contradict profession, whether I be a Church-member or not: It's enough for us, if either of them contradict profession particularly: As, he that contradicts any one Commandment by wilful disobedience, though he keep the other nine; yet, really contradicts the whole Law, Jam. 2. 10. So he who holds up profession in many things, yet, walks contrary to it in one visible scandal, by that one scandal contradicts his whole profession. He that yields up nine Forts to his Sovereign, but keeps him out of one, is as truly a Rebel, as he that keeps him out of all. As one sin lived in, contradicts real holiness; so one sin visibly lived in, contradicts visible holiness, which is Profession. If visible profaneness, arrayed with visible holiness, must be admitted, than a known Wolf, clothed with a Lamb's skin, must be used as a Lamb; and a Dog, having on a Child's coat (though known to be a Dog) must sit at the Table with the Children. The Tridentine Papists do not universally contradict profession, yet we admit them not to our Sacraments, because they contradict profession in divers fundamentals, though not universally: upon which account we look at them, as universally contradicting profession, and that justly. Do not many Members of our Churches raze the foundation by abominable errors and practices, as well as Papists? And shall such be admitted to the Lords Supper upon this poor account, because they are not actually excommunicated? If so, then let the rankest Papists receive also, since they were never excommunicated by us. We indeed separate from them, and so we may from persons, who wilfully go on in gross ignorance or scandal (though neither of them be excommunicated) till they profess their repentance. Why may not sincere Professors in a Church, as to Sacramental Communion, separate from scandalous Professors in the same Church, as we do from Papists, though we neither excommunicate the one nor the other. Want of separation in Churches, is the cause, or at least the occasion, of separation from Churches; and will, I fear, if not timely remedied, turn the Church of Christ into the Synagogue of Satan.  
Mr. Humphrey. He grants my Notes, but objects the keeping of Children and Servants, till they can give some tolerable account.  
Ans. I take it for granted, that the Word and Sacraments rightly administered, are true notes of the visible Church; I do not grant the Sacrament is an essential note, and that upon the account forementioned, because the absence of Sacraments doth not unchurch a People, but they may still be a Church, as Combined, for constant hearing of the Word and Prayer, (in which sense godly Families are true, though incomplete Churches, Philem. vers. 2.) though at present they have not the use of Sacraments. Now let's see what Mr. Humphrey says to my Objection: He tells us, 
Pag. 83.  There is a difference between what is done juridically, by compulsion, and what is done only as prudentially by advice; between forbearance and exclusion. His ground is good, Because affirmative precepts oblige us, semper, but not ad semper. And upon this account, He commends godly Parents and Masters, so long as they follow them with instruction, and allows the same in spiritual Fathers, that go no further in the like admonition.  
Ans. 1. I am glad we agree thus far, that both Economical and Spiritual Parents have power in a prudential way, by advice, to cause persons under their several charges, to forbear the Sacrament. Now let Mr. Humphrey give me any Scripture-ground to persuade persons, be they never so wicked, not to Hear and Pray. The worst are bound to pray every day, and to Hear as often as their just and necessary occasions will give them leave. Why so? Because 1. These are parts of natural Worship, unto which all are obliged by the Law of Nature. 2 . Because these are means of Conversion, from which none should be kept, least of all the worst, who have most need of Conversion. Contra, Sacraments (as such) are not natural, but instituted worship. 2 . Not means of Conversion, but suppose Conversion: whence persons visibly in the state of Nature, ought not to be admitted to them.  
But 2 lie. Mr. Humphrey speaks obscurely and comes not home to the point, though what he granted make against himself. For, the next Question is, What if those Children and Servants (though grossly ignorant and scandalous) in spite of admonition, will thrust themselves upon the Sacrament? In this Paragraph Mr. Humphrey says I think a man may conscionably forbear his coming sometimes upon many occasions, and much more upon pious ends, regarding preparation. You see now the man's ●…incing of the business. 1. He may forbear; he doth not say, he must forbear. 2 . He may sometimes so. bear especially, upon want of due preparation He doth not say, he must forbear, if he want due preparation. 3 . He hints not one word here, what superiors must do or not do, in case a person grossly ignorant or scandalous, will, against their admonition come to the Sacrament, upon which, yet, the very hinge of the Controversy turns. For our parts, we are clear, 1. That persons unworthy ought to forbear; understand it of Evangelicall unworthiness, especially, when sensible; I mean, one who hath no faith and repentance, especially when convinced he hath them not. 2 . So long as he continues in this condition, he ought to forbear. If upon self examination he apprehend himself (though falsely to be in the state of Grace, than his case is the same with his who thinks a sin to be a duty who of necessity must sin, whether he act or act not; in that, against the rule; in this, against his Conscience: Or, as he who received the Passover, thinking himself clean, yet, was really unclean. If he came not, he sinned against his conscience; if he came he sinned against the rule: yet, this necessity of sinning is only hypothetical, not absolute. 3 . If Economical Parents know their Children or Servants to be grossly ignorant or scandalous, they ought not only to dissuade them, but also to improve their Authority to keep such (being in statu quo) from the Sacrament. 4 . It lies upon Economical Parents to make search, who are grossly ignorant and scandalous in their families, by Catechising and watching over their Children and Servants, and in the use of private, as well as public means, to bring them to some competent measure of knowledge, and at least, to profession of repentance, before they suffer them to Receive, Deut. 6. 7. Prov. 31. 27. And why Spiritual Parents should not do the same (there being the same ground of the one as of the other) a solid reason cannot be given: Both are betrusted with souls, both must take care to prepare those under their charge for the Sacrament; which is impossible for them to do (at least, in respect of divers, both Children Servants, and People) if in spite of Parents, persons, though never so ignorant and scandalous, might thrust themselves upon the Sacrament.  
3 . Because he lays so much stress upon keeping persons from the Sacrament, uridicall, and by compulsion: I believe it would puzzle Mr. Humphrey to prove, that we have kept any away in that manner. Divers of our people will not come to Sacraments, though they may: others desire to come, but will not submit to trial: Such we entreat to excuse us, and thereupon they abstain, though with discontent. But where have we juridically, or by compulsion, kept any from the Sacrament? If there be any such thing amongst us, I am confident it is very rare. I wish Mr. Humphrey were so good a friend as he pretends, to this prudential care of Church Governors about the Sacrament; then would he persuade people upon prudence, to submit to trial, and not blow up the division between Pastor and People, by crying out so causelessly, Violence and Compulsion. Where any benefit or privilege is offered, upon fair and honourable conditions, and, upon slighting the condition, is denied, will Mr. Humphrey look at such a condition as compulsion? Or, if any refusing the condition, shall catch at the Commodity by violence, may not his violence be repelled with violence; & in such case, is not the former chargeable with violence, rather than the latter? Yet, God be thanked, we have no such custom; but, we have reason to fear, that Mr. Humphrey his Book may put heady people upon ways of violence, in order to the Sacrament, though he drive no such design in the publication thereof.  
Mr. Humphrey being urged with the Book of Common-Prayer, answers, As for the Rubrics allowing the Minister to suspend some notorious evil livers, I take it upon the account of ipso jure excommunicate, etc.  
Ans. 1. The Minister is not only allowed, but commanded to suspend, in these words, The same course shall the Curate take with those, etc. not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table, etc. 2 . The object of the Suspension is not only adulterers, etc. but, malicious, envious, and ignorant persons; yea, such as wrong their neighbours, in word or deed, and will not be persuaded to make them reparation; all which indeed are very great sins, though too rife in, and slighted by, many Professors and Church-members. And particularly for persons grossly ignorant, I appeal to the form of confirmation, which gives charge for their suspension in these words, There shall none be admitted unto the holy Communion, until such time as he can say the Catechism: In order whereunto, both Ministers and Governors of Families are commanded, to be diligent in point of instruction, and then to return the names of persons so instructed, to the Bishop, that he might examine and approve them. From all which, compared with Mr. Humphrey his present Explication and Interpretation, I conclude, That either ignorant and envious persons are ipso jure excommunicate; or, that persons may be suspended, though not ipso jure excommunicate.  
He adds, 
Pag. 84.  We may distinguish haply between sins that cannot stand with sincerity, or with profession, as Church-members. It may be the Rubric teaches the last.  
Ans. Passing his hesitancy in this distinction, for which, it may be, his heart checked him; we are beholding to Mr. Humphrey for this answer. 1. He grants some sins, and particularly wilful sins, cannot stand with sincerity. Thence I gather, That in Mr. Humphrey his own judgement, an hypocrite may evidently and certainly be discerned. If so, than I hope we may judge some men's hearts to be naught, without entering upon God's Throne, or prying into God's secrets; an heavy charge he laid formerly upon us.  
2 . It's Mr. Humphrey his judgement, that though it be certainly known a person is a wicked man, in the state of nature, and in the gall of bitterness (for such are all who have no sincerity) yet, he must be admitted to the Sacrament, so he be a Church-member. Are they jure excommunicate, who fall into some scandalous sin, (though, as to their state, real or hopeful Saints) and shall not they be jure excommunicate, who are known to be in the state of nature? Shall the Lamb for a Wolvish act, be denied the children's bread; and shall a known Wolf, stripped of his Sheep's clothing, sit at the children's Table, upon this account only, because he is crept into the Fold? 
Jud. ver. 4.   
Mr. Humphrey. But for Mr. Drake now, me thinks he should blush, to produce me this Authority which himself despises.  
Ans. 1. Suppose this charge were true, may not I urge him with that Authority, I conceive he owns, because I own not the same Authority. Were I a Jew, and despised the new Testament; yet, I hope, it would not be irrational for me to press him, being a Christian, with the New Testament. 2 . His Charge is false; I despise not the Book of Common-Prayer, though I approve not divers things in it and about it; and for which, I have both solid reason, the consent of the most pious in the Nation, and both Houses of Parliament to back me. As to the point in hand: If the Exhortation in the Communion make it utterly unlawful to be present, unless we receive; I must crave liberty to descent from it in that particular, and must oppose to this precept the practice of the Primitive Church. But, may there not be a candid interpretation of that Passage? The Exhortation is but against those, who sleight and neglect the Sacrament, and withal stand by as Gazers. Compare Acts 1. 11. who may come and will not. This certainly is a great sin. But will Mr. Humphrey thence conclude, that because some may not taste, therefore they may not hear and see the goodness of the Lord in the Sacrament? Shall I not come as near the Lord as I can, because I cannot come so near him as I would?  

Pag. 85.  Mr. Humphrey, page 56. Mr. Drake acknowledges this practice of his were against the well being of a true visible Church, if the Lords Supper were a privilege due to all members.  
I think herein his cause is yielded (to all clearly, but what we have excepted.) Why, I pray? Because our outward or visible right is Church-membership. As for the subdistinction of this, to be more remote or immediate, found out by some, we cannot receive, without warrant from Scripture.  
Ans. 1. To proceed by his own Rule: What warrant of Scripture hath he for his own exceptions, the vanity whereof I have formerly uncased. 2 . If warrant from Scripture will satisfy him, I shall give him one from the Old, another from the New-Testament: For the first, All Church-members had a remote right to the Passover, as is evident by that universal command, Exod. 12. 47. All the Congregation of Israel shall keep it. 2 . That all Church-members had not an immediate right, is as evident, because no Israelite was to eat thereof, when unclean; but to stay till the next Passover, Numb. 9 For the New-Testament, That all Church-members have a mediate right to the Lords Supper, we grant, and Mr. Humphrey disputes eagerly for it, making Church-membership the formal ground thereof. That all Church-members have not an immediate right, is evident; 1. In Infants and Idiots. 2 . From that famous place, 1 Cor. 10. 21. You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils, etc. He speaks to Church-members; and that Cannot holds forth, not a natural, but moral impossibility: for, whatsoever is unlawful, is morally impossible. Those Church-members then, who drank of the Devil's Cup at the Idols Temple, might not drink of the Lords Cup at the Sacrament. They had then a mediate right as Church-members; but, not an immediate right, because defiled by the Idol-Feast. His cavils against this place have been formerly answered. I might here add for confirmation, the practice of the Primitive Church, and our own Church, in not admitting Church-members, till they had competent knowledge, and were free from scandal: But, I forbear repetitions.  
Those three thousand he speaks of, Acts 2, had competent knowledge, and by professed repentance cleared themselves of scandal. Compare 2 Cor. 7. 11. To such Church-members we shall not deny the Sacrament: The Lord increase the number of them in our Churches.  
Mr. Humphrey. So long as he is in Communion, how can he be debarred the Communion?  
Ans. He is actually in Communion, though jure excommunicate; yet, here Mr. Humphrey will allow Suspension. Is it not clear then, by his own grant, that a person in Communion, may be debarred the Communion?  
D. Dr. 
Pag. 86.  Good Government lies in the Geometrical (not Arithmetical) Administration of Censures.  
Mr. Humphrey. Mr. Drake 's Suspension hangs by Geometry, between admonition and excommunication.  
Ans. Be it so: that which hangs by Geometry hangs fast enough, however persons unskilled in Geometry, may fear it will fall. He doth well to make up in Wit, what is defective in Reason. Suspension wants not a Bottom in Scripture, though it hang in the Air of Mr. Humphrer's Brain. But, of this, formerly, and more, haply, hereafter.  

Pag. 87.  He triumphs, because we grant suspension is not in terms in Scripture.  
Ans. No more is Excommunication, which yet, I hope, is an unquestionable: Ordinance. 2 . He deceives the Reader, in telling him, I place the whole business of excommunication in suspension from actual Receiving, when its evident by my whole discourse, I place but part of the business of excommunication in it; it being a lower degree; and but a negative excommunication, as we manage it, like his excommunication of Infants and Idiots.  
After sundry pitiful shufflings (with some scoffs intermixed) to make the Parable of the Tares serve his turn, 
Pag. 88, & 89.  Mr. Humphrey at last 
Matth. 13. 25.  coming to issue, and being pinched with the Doctrine of Excommunication, which cuts the throat of his Interpretation of that Parable; is pleased to take notice of my Objection, in these words, If the Lord will have the Tares let alone until the day of judgement, what will become of Excommunication? To this, all he answers, is, There is no doubt of Christ's reconciling his own Ordinances, page 89. f.  
Ans. Hath Mr. Humphrey no more pity upon tender Consciences, then to leave them thus in the suds? In opening the Parable, he tells us, the Tares cannot be taken up, without prejudice to the Wheat; that is, the Wicked cannot be separated from the Church, without prejudice to the Godly: Yea, so confident is he herein, as to assert, That visible unworthiness is not so much, as the rule of Excommunication, in these words, I think Mr. Drake must shut his eyes upon this Text, if he will yet persists, in making visible unworthiness, the rule of Excommunication, page 88 If visible unworthiness be not the rule of excommunication, what is? Is visible or invisible worthiness the rule? Or, is invisible unworthiness the rule of excommunicating Church-members? What was the Incestuous Corinth excommunicated for, but for visible unworthiness? unless Mr. Humphrey will say, that the charge of Incest made good against him, was not his visible unworthiness. Church-members are not excommunicated as Saints, but as Sinners; nor as sinners absolutely, but as visible sinners; else, where is Mr. Humphrey his jure excommunicate? What is visible sin, but visible unworthiness? And though all visible unworthiness do not make me Evangelically unworthy; yet, visible unworthiness in dominion, doth. This Dominion is either Tyrannical, by some enormous act wasting the Conscience: or, Regal, when a person is in the state of sin; both which make him Tareish, and if visible, a visible Tare, to be plucked up (though in order to cure, if possible) by the hands of Excommunication. By Tares then, are meant, persons visibly wicked in the Church, (be it habitually or actually) Matth. 13. vers. 27, 38. compare John 8 34. These Tares Mr. Humphrey will by no means have plucked up. We Answer, Then farewell Excommunication, which is a plucking up of the Tares. This Mr. Humphrey doth not answer, (leaving Christ to answer for himself, if he please) yet is resolved to hold the Conclusion. What heresy may not pass for current if Mr. Humphrey his Disinity be good? For instance, The Anthropomorphites teach, that God is a Body, and that, because eyes, ears, hands, etc. are attributed to him in Scripture. We reply, God is a Spirit, John 4. 24. and therefore cannot be a Body. How easily now, may they with Mr. Humphrey, hold the Conclusion still, and say, There is no doubt of God's reconciling his own Truth. God will indeed reconcile his own Truth and Ordinances, be we never so negligent to reconcile them; but we can expect but little thanks from God and Christ, if either through carelessness or prejudice, we do not our endeavour to reconcile them. For the Satisfaction therefore of tender Consciences, whom Mr. Humphrey leaves in a confused maze of doubt: Know 1. It's true in some sense, that the Tares must not be plucked up, for the Scripture says it, and the Scripture cannot be broken, John 10. 35. 2 . In some sense it is true, the Tares must be plucked up, because Excommunication (which is a plucking up of Tares) is a Scripture-Ordinance, 1 Cor. 5. 5, 7. The terms are seemingly, but not really, contradictory: The Tares must not be plucked up; and, the Tares must be plucked up. As others of the like nature, God sees no sin in his Children; and, God sees sin in his Children. The Church is without spot; and, the Church is spotted, etc. all which are only seemingly contradictory, because not understood under the same respect. For the difficulty about plucking up, or not plucking up, the Tares, we cannot have a better Reconciler than Christ himself, Matth. 13. 29. where the ground of the Prohibition, is the rule and bound of the Prohibition. From thence I gather, 1. That the Prohibition is not absolute, but with a caution, Lest you pluck up the Wheat also, how ever Mr. Humphrey, page 89. is pleased to judge of it, and in the close, to favour me with a jest. 2 . That men visibly wicked must be tolerated in the Church, rather than persons visibly godly should be prejudiced, by rash and preposterous rigour, against wicked Church-members; as it fell out by the Anabaptists: See Calvin and Pareus upon the place.  
Others think, the Tares in Palestine were like the Wheat, whence there might be danger of eradicating the Wheat with them. But, its evident, the Servants knew the Tares, and were offended with them (whether by servants you understand Church-Officers, or other discerning Church-members) whence it seems to follow, that either some may be known to be Tares, who cannot juridically be proved to be so; and such was the case of Judas: Or, though they can be proved to be such, yet, circumstances may so fall out, that just severity against them, by way of excommunication, may be noxious to the godly: In which cases, such Tares must be patiently tolerated, till either God open a door for the Church to cast them out, or deal with them himself by particular or general judgement. 3 . That Church-members may be known to be wicked, and in the state of nature, without danger of entering upon God's Throne; This Mr. Humphrey grants here, and the Parable holds it forth, Matth. 13. 26, 27. however he dispute against it elsewhere. 4 . That where wicked men may be cut off without prejudice to the godly, there the plucking up of those Tares is not prohibited by the Parable; this will be done at the day of Judgement, hath been done, and may be done by excommunication. 5 . That a Ministers knowledge of a man to be a Tare, is not enough to cast him out of the Church, since it's of great concernment, that the Wheat (as well as the Servants) should know the Tares: that the Congregation (as well as Church-Officers) should be satisfied, a person is a Tare, before he be plucked up, which order being observed, there can be no such danger of plucking up the Wheat. A Minister may suspend a positive Act, in not giving the Sacrament to such a person for the present; but, he cannot put forth a positive Act, to cut off such a person from the Church, without consent or satisfaction of the Church, at least, representative. And, if in the former case, the Minister do wrong through mistake or passion, etc. himself is accountable to the Church for that particular injury; and the person so wronged, aught to be righted by the Church. If Mr. Humphrey can reconcile the Parable better with excommunication, we shall have cause to thank him: If not, I shall entreat him not to scoff at what he cannot mend: But, however he shall please to deal with me, let him remember, it's a Minister's duty to satisfy, not to increase, the scruples of tender Consciences; especially when his professed design is, the satisfaction of tender Consciences. When two Scriptures seem to clash, is it fit for a Minister to leave them together by the ears, and say, 
Matth. 27. 43.  Let Christ part them if he will? Such carriage is fit for a Jewish Priest, then for a Gospel's Minister. Is Mr. Humphrey so careful to reconcile Christ's Members, and so careless to reconcile Christ's Truths?  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 89.  Public confession will hardly down, and Auricular we hardly approve of, etc.  
Ans. 1. No more will good Physic down with too many; yet, a wise and faithful Physician will take some course to get it down, where he apprehends its useful for his Patient. 2 . Public Confession of sin indeed is harsh, because by it, one takes public shame to himself, which the proud heart of man is loath to do; yet, in some cases it must be submitted to: But public Profession of faith is honourable, and which it's a shame for a Christian to be ashamed of. Bride's are not ashamed to profess their love of, and confidence in, their Bridegrooms before the Minister, and the Church, if need be; and shall Christ's Spouse be ashamed to declare her faith in, and love of, her most precious Lord and Husband, before the friends of the Bridegroom?  
3 . This Profession is not so public, as to offer violence to the modesty of any, it being made but before two or three, who are also ready to prompt the Bride, when her modesty seals up her lips with silence.  
4 . To avoid the imputation of auricular Confession, etc. this Profession is not made to the Minister alone, but before persons also of known integrity, whom we hope, without offence, we may call Elders; and if they be not such, it's the error and fault of those who choose them, and may be remedied by themselves.  
Mr. Humphrey. Christ sometimes conversed with Pharisees, I hope to do good upon them, etc.  
Ans. 1. So I hope Christ's Ministers will make conscience to converse with Pharisees and Publicans to do them good, and bring them to repentance. 2 . Christ admitted neither of them to the Sacrament, till he had done them good, and brought them to repentance. And if this make not for us, and against Mr. Humphrey, I pray what doth?  
This is the more remarkable, because both Pharisees and Publicans were members of the Church (divers Publicans being Jew's, as is evident by Matthew, Zacheus, etc. and is made out by Jerome against the mistake of Tertullian: See Goodwin's Moses and Aaron, Lib. 1. Cap. 2.) Christ conversed with both to do them good, but admitted neither to the Lords Supper, till after profession of repentance, as is evident in the case of the Apostle Matthew, who was a Publican, Matth. 9 9 and 10. 3. compare Matth. 26. vers. 20. 27.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 90.  Mr. Drake need not so unjustly and so direfully, first accuse me, and then condemn me, for what he forges, as if I deserved to be more then suspended, which in his sense makes me tremble it should enter into his heart. Why should I be thus devoted to the pit of Hell, even irrecoverably? These Censures are things too sharp to be put into the hands of such children of thine. It may be the Lord will look upon mine affliction, and requite me good for his cursing this day, etc.  
Ans. Such passionate digressions (at which Mr. Humphrey is excellent) contribute far more to take upon the affections, than his arguments do to convince the judgement. Had he struck at so inconsiderable a person as myself alone without such sad reflections upon the whole Presbyterian party (whom he looks at as Children, not fit to have the knife of Church-Censures committed to them) well might it have been born, and buried in silence, though I believe, that Ministers are bound more than others, in the use of all honourable means, to wipe off from themselves the blot of false aspersions. Nor can I blame Mr. Humphrey for vindicating himself, if I have been so injurious in my charge, as he pretends. But to the point. Such stress doth Mr. Humphrey lay upon Judas his receiving (a thing, 1 so controverted, and improbable enough. 2 . So insufficient a ground for universal admission, though granted, his own party being judges) as he concludes in express terms, What need more be urged, but that men, when they are willing not to see, will let any hand (put over their eyes) be enough to blind them. By this rash censure of his, I noted, that 1. He condemned the Churches at home and abroad, as sinning wilfully against light, in owning and practising Suspension, contrary to the clear and undoubted example (as he apprehends) of Judas his admission. 2 . That his Pen savoured rankly of pride, in this unchristian censure. 3 . That himself, I fear, deserved more than suspension, for this his scandalous and wicked censure. In all this, 1. Where is there any forgery, unless the quotation of his own words be a forgery? 2 . Where is the least word of cursing him, or of devoting him irrecoverably to the pit of Hell? I, but in my sense it is so. Ans. Let the Reader judge, if herein Mr. Humphrey deal charitably with me: I charge him only with his own express terms; he charges me with that, of which I wrote not one tittle, merely upon jealousy of my sense and meaning. 2 . He charges me formerly as entering into God's secrets; yet, here takes upon him to enter into God's secrets, and to judge of my heart and meaning, where my words bear no such thing. 3 . He charges me with cursing him, and devoting him to the pit of Hell irrecoverably, who had not one tittle in my book, nor own thought in my heart to that purpose. I, but all this is employed, when I say, he deserves more than suspension. Ans. 1. I say more against myself, and the Presbyterians in general, upon supposition, that we were guilty of Mr. Humphrey his charge; namely, that then we were in the high way to the sin against the Holy Ghost, and deserved not only to be suspended, but also to be excommunicated. 2 . I said not peremptorily, that he deserved more than suspension but, that I feared he deserved more than suspension. 3 . Had I said, he deserved for this his uncharitableness everlasting damnation, (supposing he were so uncharitable, of which, let the Reader judge by his own words) I said no more than the truth, unless it be false Doctrine that an uncharitable act deserves damnation 4 lie. If the saying, that such or such a sin deserves damnation, be the cursing of a person guilty thereof, or the devoting of him to damnation, than I cannot tell a man, his sin deserves hell and curse, but in that very act I curse him, and devote him to the pit of hell; and so the greatest act of charity, shall be made the foulest act of uncharitableness. 5 . As my words bear no such cursed sense, as Mr. Humphrey pins upon them, so I here profess, that in those words, I was far from cursing, or devoting him to the pit of hell; but, did apprehend indeed that such an uncharitable censure of the Churches of Christ at home and abroad, deserved a higher degree of excommunication than suspension is. And if Mr. Humphrey or any else, can make it out, that therein I have been uncharitable, I shall willingly cry both God and him mercy, and be ready to make as public reparation, as I have given thereby public offence. I never, to my remembrance, heard before now, that to say, a man deserves excommunication, is a cursing of him, and a devoting of him, irrecoverably, to the pit of Hell, nor do I believe, that the Apostle, by excommunicating the incestuous Corinth, did either curse him, or devote him to the pit of Hell, but designed rather to bring him to Heaven, 1 Cor. 5. 5. Whereas therefore, page 90. he makes his appeal to Heaven in these words, Judge me, O Lord, try me, if herein there be any iniquityin me: I shall not wish him so ill as he wiseness himself, but do heartily beg of God, that he would please to open his eyes, and pardon this, and all other his iniquities; and if this be uncharitable, I shall thank Mr. Humphrey, or any else, for such uncharitableness towards me.   

Sect. VIII.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 91.  My third Reason was drawn from Church-fellowship, which ought to be in charity, humility, without judging, every one esteeming others better than themselves. Now, if men will go to set up a discriminating. Ordinance, they cannot keep themselves from entrenching on these duties, and occasioning divisions. Our sad experience hath made this Argument too weighty for Mr. Drake 's particulars, which are not worth the naming, unless he could first prove its the Ministers duty, to discern between the worthy and unworthy, as the rule of Admission. In the same page also, Mr. Humphrey denyeth, that the rule of visibility hath any foundation in Scripture, etc.  
Ans. 1. That Church-fellowship ought to be in charity and humility, we willingly grant, and earnestly desire it.  
2 . We say, that this may stand with Suspension, as well as with reproof, admonition, or excommunication; all which may be corrupted with pride, or graced with humility and charity, according to the temper and affection of those, who do either administer or receive them: and that each of them do ordinarily occasion divisions and heart-burnings, where they meet with persons disaffected through ignorance, prejudice, or malice; for which, not the Ordinances, but our naughty hearts, deserve blame.  
3 . In charging us to set up a discriminating Ordinance, he seems to deny, that Church-Ordinances are discriminating: If that be his meaning, I apprehend it is erroneous, since every Ordinance is discrinsinating in some sense, as in an other sense every Ordinance is common. Every Ordinance, so far as it is public, is common, as to presence; yet, all parts of every Ordinance, are not common immediately and absolutely to all. The Word is common to all, yet, not every part of the Word; the Sacraments are common to all, yet, not every part of the Sacrament, namely, not the participating part.  
4 . Because here Mr. Humphrey chargeth us, with setting up an Ordinance of our own invention, by pleading for the divine right of Suspension, I shall therefore briefly by one or two Arguments, endeavour to wipe off this aspersion; and prove, that Suspension is not an human invention, but a divine institution: I shall only premise, that Suspension is either Juridical or Pastoral, Affirmative or Negative; the latter branch of the distinction being granted, the former will necessarily follow, since what a Minister may, or aught, either to do, or omit, as he is a Minister; much more may he, or ought he, to do, or omit that particular, upon the vote and sentence of the Eldership. And here, upon second thoughts, I must a little correct what I delivered in my Bar to Free Admission, page 47. namely, That the Minister hath not power of himself to admit or keep back, without judicial Process, wherein himself cannot be both Judge and Witness. I delivered it then with some hesitancy, and do now apprehend it to be a mistake, is unquestionably both a Ruling and Teaching Elder, hath at least a Pastoral power of trying and judging; and if the Evidence be clear of itself, or by sufficient witness, he may suspend his own Act, of giving such a person the Sacrament, till either the party be better qualified, or the matter do come to a juridical process. These things premised, the Argument stands thus. 
The first Argument.  Non-admission of some intelligent Church-members is commanded by Christ, Ergo, Suspension is commanded by Christ. The Consequence is clear, becausethe formality of Suspension lies in non-admission to the Sacrament; and, let us have but this, we shall not much contend about the manner of managing it, whether by a juridical act or otherwise. This is further proved by the very term: What is Suspension in the very notion of it, but a demur or forbearance at present, to give unto a person the thing he desires? The Minor is proved thus, Non-admission of a Brother that is a Fornicator, &c, is commanded, Ergo, Non-admission of some intelligent Church-member is commanded. The Consesequence is clear, 1. Because Brother is opposed to them without, 1 Cor. 5. verse 10, 11. and therefore this Brother is a Church-member. 2 . That he is an intelligent Church-member may be clearly evinced (should Mr. Humphrey deny it) since divers lusts there mentioned are not practicable by any, but grown persons. The Assumption I prove thus: Not to eat the Sacrament with a Brother that is a Fornicator, etc. is commanded. Ergo, Non-admission of a Brother that is a Fornicator, etc. is commanded. The Consequence is valid, because of the necessary connexion between the Non admission of such a person to eat with me, and my not eating with him. If I must not eat with a person, than (as far as in me lies) I must not admit that person to eat with me; for his eating with me, and my eating with him being Correlates, if you grant one, you must of necessity grant both, since he cannot eat with me, but I must eat with him; nor can I eat with him, but he must eat with me. The Antecedent I prove from 1 Cor. 5. 11. If any man that is called a Brother be Fornicator, etc. with such a one, no, not to eat. All that can rationally be objected against this proof, is, That by eating here, is not meant Sacramental eating, the indefinite Proposition being not to be understood universally.  
Ans. 1. To this I oppose the received Rule of interpreting Scripture in its utmost latitude, unless a solid ground of restriction and limitation can be given: But, no solid ground can be given, why Eating here, should be restrained to civil eating.  
And 1. Not, that Precept of our Saviour, Matth. 26. 27. Drink ye all of it: Since 1. If Judas were not then present (which is probable enough) none but real as well as visible Saints, were commanded to receive.  
2 . Supposing Judas were present and received, yet, he was a visible Saint; and so fare were the Disciples then from being scandalised at him, that they scarce understood Christ's uncasing Judas, but suspected themselves rather than him: Yea, if Luke observe the exact order of time, Judas (it seems) was not uncased, till after the Sacrament, Luke 22. vers. 19, 20, 21. since these words, Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, etc. do not precede, but follow the Sacrament; so that at least Judas had received the Bread, before he was discovered nor can it be evinced from Luke's narrative but that he had partaken of the Cup also, it being left in medio, whether Christ did discover him immediately after the command to drink; or, whether he deferred the discovery till Judas and all the rest had drunk of the Sacrament all Cup This I note, not as my own judgement, but upon the supposal of Luke's exact timing of that Circumstance: But, whether it were before or after, the objection lies fair, that Christ knew Judas to be naught, yet commanded him to receive; so far was Christ from improving his Pastoral power to suspend Judas: Ergo Ministers should not only admit those whom they know to be stark naught but also command them to receive. The Reader must remember, that here I give Mr. Humphrey his own advantage, as yielding him (by way of supposal) the Question he begs, namely, that Judas did receive the Sacrament.  
This premised, I answer, The Argument will not hold from Christ's practice to ours, since 1. The discovery of Judas was extraordinary, by immediate revelation: And, should God immediately discover an unworthy Receiver to a Minister, I question, whether without an immediate command, this Minister might suspend such a person. Achan was not censured immediately upon divine revelation, but upon evidence of the fact, and his own confession. We see that for all our Saviour's discovery, Judas seemed to deny the charge, in that question, Master, is it I? and the Apostles were very inclinable to a good opinion of him. Suppose God should immediately discover an Hypocrite to a Minister, and upon that discovery, this Minister should suspend that Hypocrite; might not the Elders or Congregation desire evidence against the party so suspended; and would the Ministers plea of divine revelation, satisfy the Congregation, in case the party so suspended, denied the charge? Yea, if this Doctrine were good, might not a Minister upon pretence of divine revelation, take liberty to charge any with Hypocrisy, and to suspend them at pleasure? I wish, upon this occasion, that those who will be tried by the Minister alone, and not before the Eldership, would seriously consider, what a snare they put both themselves and their Minister upon.  
2 . As the discovery was extraordinary, so our Saviour acted extraordinarily in admission and other circumstances, that concerned this first Sacrament: As 1. He admitted only men, no women. 2 . Only Ministers, not the People, no, not the Jews that were in, or of, the same Family, where the Lords Supper was first celebrated, as Mr. Collins well observes. 3 . In admitting only extraordinary Ministers, namely, Apostles. 4 . In admitting them suddenly, without previous examination and preparation. 5 . In celebrating the Sacrament at night, after Supper, and in private etc. And why may not Christ as well act extraordinarily, in admitting a known Hypocrite? If Mr. Humphrey will tie us to imitate Christ in one of these, why not in all of them? I might add, that if Christ's practice in admitting Judas be our rule, than it were a sin to excommunicate any, since Christ did not excommunicate Judas, though he knew Judas deserved excommunication as well as suspension.  
Nor 2 lie. Is that a ground to exclude Sacramental eating, out of the  Text, 1 Cor. 5. 11, Because all are invited to repentance, for then even Pagans should not be debarred the Sacrament; yea, if none should be denied Sacramental eating, because all are invited to repentance, why should any be denied civil eating with Church-members, since all are invited to repentance? May not there be in the one as well as in the other, 1. Testification of love. 2 . Familiarity. 3 . A desire to win the offending-Brother. And 4 . Is not the one offensive as well as the other?  
Nor 3 lie. Is there any contradiction between 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 1 Cor. 11. but rather a sweet harmony; since in the first place be forbids unworthy ones to eat; in the second place he shows their great sin and danger, if they presume to eat: Here is no opposition, but a regular subordination.  
Nor 4 . is Sacramental eating excluded out of 1 Cor. 5. 11. because it is not particularly mentioned in the Text; for then, by the same reason, both civil eating, and eating at their Love-Feasts, should be excluded also, since neither of them are mentioned particularly in the Text, but only eating in general, which is common to Sacramental, as well as to civil, eating. It's sufficient, that Sacramental eating is intended by the Apostle, under the notion of a Feast, 1 Cor. 5. 8. there being no Gospel Ordinance so properly and Literally a Feast, as is the Lords Supper, which supplies the Feast of the Passover, and comes in its room; and in it, Christ, our Passover, is representatively and declaratiuly offered for us, and actually offered to us, more than in other Ordinances, Gal. 3. 1. Before whose eyes (not only, to their ears) Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you.  
If yet it be objected, There's good reason civil eating should be included in the Text, since the Apostle speaks evidently of such an eating, wherein I may converse with an Infidel, but not with a scandalous Brother. Ans. Therefore we grant the place may be understood of civil eating, but deny it must be understood solely of civil eating, there being good reason also, why it should be understood of Sacramental eating, since the Sacrament is Literally (as well as Spiritually) a Meal, a Feast, in which I testify love to every Communicant, as well as I do to any, by admitting him to my own Table; and the scandal of admitting a scandalous Brother to the Sacrament (where it lies in my power to keep him away) will be great, as well as it will be, if I admit him to my private Table. A scandalous Brother then, was debarred some privileges of an Heathen, some privileges of a Church-member, and might not be admitted with Christians, either to a Civil Feast, or to the Love Feasts, or to the Sacramental Feast: Yea, the Apostle tells us particularly, Such were spots in their Feasts of Charity, Judas, verse 12. And those Love-Feasts were Appendices of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. verse 21, 22.  
Object. They were all partakers of one bread; yet, in the Church of Corinth, there were many scandalous sinners. 
1 Cor. 10. 17.   
Ans. The word All, can be of no larger extent then visible Saints (such as were those to whom the Apostle wrote) and surely, visible workers of iniquity cannot be visible Saints. This not mine, but Mr. Gillespy's answer, who asserts also, that it cannot be proved, that any came actually drunk to the Sacrament in which, both the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, favour him, 1 Cor. 11. 21. This Interpretation is more evident, by the manner of expression, 1 Cor. 10. 17. (compare a like place, Rom 8. 35, 39) We all are partakers etc. the Apostle putting himself in the number, though he were not a Member of the Church of Corinth, or of any other particular Church; but, as a real and visible Saint, did partake where ever he came: Yea, where Ministers, or other Christians, traveled from one Country to another, they were not easily admitted to Church-communion, without some Testimonial of their real or visible Saint-ship, by either word of mouth, or by writing, Acts 9 26, 27. and 15. verse 25, 26, 27. and 18. 27. and 2 Cor. 3. 1. and 3 John, verse 5-8. etc. What a poor recommendation had it been; I pray receive the incestuous Corinth, or such a one as denies the Resurrection, to full Church-communion, for he is a Church-member. The congregational Churches, yea, and other reformed Churches, will not admit Church-members of our Congregations, barely upon the account of Church-membership (though they acknowledge divers of our Congregations to be true Churches) but put us upon the Test (unless they have otherwise sufficient testimony) of our visible Saintship. More to this purpose, together with sundry opposite answers to several other objections, made against this Scripture, see in Mr. Gillespy and Mr. Collins his late Vindic. Suspensionis, etc. unto whom (for brevity's sake) I refer the Reader.  

2 Argum.  My second Argument for Suspension (which is also Mr. Collins his Argument) is this: It's unlawful to admit some intelligent Church-members to the Lords Supper: Ergo, They ought to be suspended. The Consequence is clear, since to admit, and not to admit, are terms contradictory; and therefore, if the one be unlawful, the other must needs be a duty: Now Suspension in its formal Nature, is a non-admission; and therefore if it be unlawful to admit, it is a duty to suspend. The Minor I prove thus: It's unlawful to admit those who cannot eat of the Lords Supper: some intelligent Church-members cannot eat of the Lords Supper: Ergo. By persons that cannot receive, I understand those who are morally uncapable, and who (if they be of age) fin by their very receiving, as being forbidden to partake of the Lords Supper, because at present they are visibly unworthy by gross ignorance or scandal; as well as Heathen are forbidden to receive, upon the account of being no Church-members. Both have a natural, but neither of them have a moral power to receive: Nor is an Heathen in express terms forbidden to receive the Lords Supper, but only by consequence, as are unworthy Church-members. This premised, the Major is evident, upon the very explication of the terms: for, if it be unlawful to admit those, who sin by their very receiving, than it is unlawful to admit those, who cannot eat of the Lords Supper in a moral sense, since that, and that only, is morally impossible which is sinful. Compare Gen. 39 9 Deut. 21. 16. Josh. 9 19 and 2 Cor. 13. 8. they had all natural, but no moral power, to do the things there mentioned; yet they say absolutely, They cannot do such and such things. Those places, Deut. 16. 16. and Josh. 9 21. are rendered, He may not, and, We may not, etc. but in the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he cannot, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we cannot etc. or, shall not be able. This is the more remarkable, because the same phrase is used about the Passover, Numb. 9 6. Certain men were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the Passover on that day. Moses, in the Old Testament says, You cannot eat the Passover, and touch the dead body of a man. Paul, in the New Testament, says, You cannot partake of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devils. In both, the Cannot is moral, not natural. An unclean man might not eat of the Passover; one in communion with Devils, might not receive the Lords Supper. Now that all intelligent Church members have not a moral power to receive, is evident by the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. 21. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils; ye cannot be partaker, of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devils. Undoubtedly they had a natural power to eat the Sacramental bread, etc. but they had not a moral power because, being under the guilt of communion with Idols, it was unlawful for them at that time to eat. The Steward sins against his Lord, in giving bread to those of the Family, or otherwise, who ought not to eat it. Doth Christ, the Master of the Family, say I will not have such a one to eat of my Supper; and dare any Minister say to that person, Take and eat? If the Lord say, it's morally impossible for such a one to eat, he says, its unlawful for him to eat. And what a man must not do, that no man must tempt him to do, nor permit him to do, when he can lawfully hinder it: But, Church-Officers may very lawfully and easily hinder those from partaking, who may not partake; and such are all who have fellowship with Devils. Now fellowship with Devils is either explicit, as in Witches, etc. or implicit, when men drive the Devil's trade, and do the works of Satan willingly, John 8. 44. and 1 John 3. 8. From which number, I know not how persons grossly and wilfully ignorant and scandalous, (especially after due admonition) can be exempted: Sure I am, they communicate more with Devils, than did the Corinthians, who are of the Idols Feasts, in the Idol Temples, without any intention to honour the Idol; as judging, that under the Gospel there was no uncleanness, either of meats or of places: Yet, even these are forbid by the Apostle to receive the Lords Supper, when they feasted at the Idols Temples. The Argument stands thus: He that hath communion with Devils, cannot (that is, ought not to) partake of the Lords Table. All grossly ignorant and scandalous persons have communion with Devils: Ergo, No such aught to receive: And, if they ought not to partake, surely the Minister ought not to admit them, and therefore he must needs suspend them.  
This I might further illustrate and confirm, by comparing 1 Cor. 5. 12. With such an one, no, not to eat, 1 Cor. 10. 21. You cannot partake of the Lords Table. And 1 Cor. 11. 20. This is not to eat the Lords Supper; or (as it's rendered in the Margin) Ye cannot eat, etc. The Verb substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If I may not partake with other of God's People, nor they with me, surely I must be suspended; for what is Suspension really, but non-Admission?  
By what hath been delivered, I hope it will appear, that the Sacrament is a discriminating Ordinance, as to the point of receiving; and that Suspension is not an human invention, but a divine institution, which (as other Ordinances) may be dispensed with love and humility, if the dispensers thereof be wise, holy, and humble persons, that make conscience to judge themselves more than others; and when ever, by virtue of their Office, they are called, to try and judge others.  
Sundry other arguments for the divine right of Suspension or Abstention, See in Mr. Collins his Vindic. etc. The ground, why I pitched upon the two forementioned Arguments, was, because I apprehend they come nearer the point, not only in their scope, but also in the very letter. Now, lest the Reader should think we go alone, or have only some few inconsiderable persons to abet us in this cause, I shall take a little pains to evidence the contrary. And first (besides the declared Judgement of the Church, in ancient Councils, and modern Synods, of which before) let us consider the testimonies of the Fathers, divers of which are cited by Gerhard, in this matter of Suspension from the Sacrament.  
To begin with Justin Martyr, in his Apology for the Christians, Hoc alimentum apud nos appellatur Eucharistia, quod nulli alii participarelicitum est quam veram esse doctrinam nostram credenti, & lavacro propter remissionem peccatorum & regenerationem abluto, &, ita ut Christus tradidit, viventi.  
Basil. Lib. 2. de Bapt. Cap. 3. Probat, quàm periculosum sit, si quis non repurgatus ab omni inquinamento Corporis & Spiritûs, edat Corpus Domini, ejusque sanguinem bibat.  
Chrysost. Homil. 3. ad Ephes. Cum tali puritate accede semper; sine hac ne praesumas unquam: Regem utique non audeas osculari, siquidem os tuum olet graviter; et regem Caelorum impudenter oscularis, anima tua vitiis olente, & c?  
Augustin. de Eccle. dogmat. Cap. 53. Habentem adhuc voluntatem peccandi, gravari magis dico Eucharistiae perceptione quam purificari. Yea, he says further, Persons unreformed, receive unto judgement; that they are rather corrupted then healed, rather killed then quickened, by receiving the Sacrament. Serm. Dom. 1. Advent. Tom. 10. Sure then, he thought not, receiving did convert.  
Hesychius. Lib. 6. in Cap. 22. Levit. Polluti non sunt admittendi, nec mundati prohibendi. This he explains afterwards to be moral pollution, which is a bar to the Sacrament till repent of.  
Chrysostom. Homil. 83. in Matth. professeth, He had rather lose his life, then admit an unworthy person to the Sacrament.  
Cyprian, Serm. 5. de Lapsis. from 1 Cor. 10. 21. and 1 Cor. 11. 27. declaims vehemently against those, who come from Idol-Feasts, or, under the power of moral pollution, to the Lords Table.  
Author Sermonis de Coenâ, thought to be Cyprian, hath these words: Inter Dominicae Coenae convivas, animalis homo non admittitur; Quicquid caro et sanguis dictat, ab hoc coetu excluditur, etc. I pray, what is the animal-man, but the natural man? 1 Cor. 2. 14. I hope then it's not my singular opinion, That persons unconverted ought not to receive. What was the opinion of Calvin, Beza, and their Followers, is well known; therefore I shall not trouble my Reader about it.  
Let us descend to the Lutheran Churches, of whose consent with us, in this particular, Gerhard (a person of great learning and industry) gives a satisfactory account, in his 5th. Tom. treating of the Lords Supper, cap. 21. his words are these, Neque verò omnes Christiani promiscùe admittendi ad Sacram coenam, sed juxta regulam Paulinam, 1 Cor. 11. Next he shows who ought not to be admitted, and 1. Such as either cannot, or will not, examine themselves; particularly, Heretics, notorious sinners: And here he argues from the analogy of the Passover, and from 1 Cor. 5. 11. Persons excommunicated, possessed, that are deprived the use of reason, that exeroise infamous Arts or Trades; shows in what cases deaf and dumb persons may be admitted; upon what account Infants were admitted to the Sacrament, for 600 years together in the Primitive times, and produceth Chrysostom, professing, That he had rather lose his life, then admit unworthy persons to the Lords Supper. He notes further against Bellarmine, that the Hussites admit to the Sacrament Infants of six weeks old: And for my part, I believe, that upon the account of unworthiness, there is less exception against an Infant, then against a grossly ignorant and scandalous person.  
Cap. 22. Gerhard hath these words, Sedulo providere debet Ecclesiae Minister, ne quis indignè, hoc est, sine verâ poenit entia & fide hoc Sacramento utatur. Whence its evident, he judges them unworthy who want true faith and repentance: 
See Sect. 232 of the same Chapter.  Who do not try themselves, that is, who do not acknowledge their sins, do not seriously grieve for them, do not judge themselves, have not a serious purpose of amendment and walking regularly; that are not reconciled to their neighbours. In the same Chapter he grants, that 1 Cor. 10. 20. is valid, to prove, that they who have fellowship with Devils, ought not to partake of the Lords Supper; and shows out of Lyranus, and by comparing other Texts of Scripture, that the Cannot there, must be understood of a moral impossibility.  
Yea, lastly, the very Papists themselves are strongly against Mr. Humphrey his free Admission: I shall produce only Aestius and Biell.  
Aestius upon 1 Cor. 11. 27. shows first who receives unworthily, to wit, not only he who comes irreverently, as Mr. Humphrey would have it; but also he, Qui affectum gerit aut reatum peccati mortalis. And though their distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial be corrupt; yet, seeing they conclude, he is in mortal sin, who 1. Affects sin. 2 . Is not duly humbled and contrite. 3 . Is unpardoned. See Biel, Lib. 4. Distinct. 9 Quaest. 2. It's evident, they must needs conclude, that none in the state of nature can receive worthily: Yea, Aestius, in the forequoted place, notes, that he who comes to receive with a spirit of enmity against God, yet unreconciled, is guilty of high Treason against our Lord Jesus Christ, and deserves to be puninished as Judas, who betrayed Christ, and those who spit upon him, bound, and crucified him. Further, upon 1 Cor. 11. 28. he shows, 1. That every one is bound first to examine himself, whether he be a fit guest; and if he find he be not, he must labour to be such a one, by purging his Conscience from sin which makes him unworthy of the Lords Table. The Council of Trent, Sess. 3. Cap. 7. besides Contrition, requires Sacramental Confession (where it can be had) of all sorts, before they partake of the Lords Supper, which they ground partly upon that precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 28. and partly upon an Ecclesiastical Custom. It seems they were not for Mr. Humphrey his free Admission, but judged, that before Receiving, satisfaction should be given to the Church; though in determining what that satisfaction must be, they declined to Superstition and Tyranny.  
In the ancient Lyturgy, the Minister, before the Sacrament, cried out, Sancta Sanctis. See other testimonies of the Fathers, cited there by Aestius, and several arguments he uses, to prove, that no natural man ought to receive the Sacrament. Upon 1 Cor. 5. 11. the same Aestius hath these words, His verbis excommunicationis poena significatur; minor tamen ea quâ superius plecti voluit incestum illum: Where he also citys Augustine, as referring the place to a lesser degree of excommunication, which may fall upon him who is a Brother, and so a Church-member.  
And upon 2 Thess. 3. 6. he expressly saith, Haec excommunicatio, non à consortio fidelium, sed tantùm à Sacramentis Ecclesiae removet hominem. And, upon verse 15. of this Chapter, Excommunicatio hujus loci non separabat hominem ab Ecclesiâ, ut, membrum ejus, et proinde fidelium frater, esse de sineret, etc. By which its evident, they held, that positive Suspension was 1. A degree of Excommunication. 2 . That it did not unchurch a man. 3 lie. That it was a bar to the Sacrament. Our Suspension (which yet Mr. Humphrey cries out of) is but negative, and so not a Church Censure, but an entreaty to forbear, till fitted by competent knowledge, etc. to receive.  
Biell upon the Sentences, Lib. 4. Dislinct. 9 Quaest. 1. Effectus Eucharistiae non est prima gratia quâ justificatur impius, sed illam praesupponit. Effectus enim manducationis Eucharistiae est gratiae augmentum, quâ anima Deo gratae nutritur et crescit in gratia, ut ad perfectionem perveniat. The Papists then acknowledge, the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance.  
In the second Question he shows, that divers, by coming to receive, sin mortally; and withal, that in some cases, if a man be scrupulous, and fear he is under the guilt of mortal sin, he must lay aside such a scrupulous Conscience before he receive, but must not receive against Conscience. He shows also, out of other Schoolmen, in what cases a Minister sins, if he admit such to receive; and instances (as the Lutherans) in divers sorts of Church-members that are not to be admitted; and concludes, that, Nulli danda est Eucharistia qui non potest habere devotionem, nec fidem actualem. And for the instance of Judas (Mr. Humphrey his great foundation for free Admission) both Lutherans and Papists, though of his mind, that Judas did receive; yet, look at it, as no ground at all, for the free admission of all intelligent Church-members. I hope Mr. Humphrey will be more charitable, then to say, that Councils, Fathers, the Reformed Churches, Lutherans; yea, divers Papists, put their hands over their eyes, and sinned against Light, because they were not of his mind, that Judas his admission (suppose he were admitted to receive) is a solid ground for his free Admission.  
For fuller satisfaction in this particular, let the Reader consult Mr. Collins his Responsoria Bipartita, Cap. 13. where he makes it out by authentic Testimonies, that Suspension, as distinct from absolute Excommunication, hath been the constant judgement and practice, of the Servants and Churches of Christ, in all Ages.  
Cap. 14. Mr. Collins takes pains, to good purpose, to clear from the writings of the Ancients, the several degrees of persons not excommunicated, yet, suspended from the Lords Supper.  
And for those of the congregational way, that they are no enemies to Suspension, as distinct from the greater Excommunication; Read what Mr. Collins notes in his 13 Chapter, pag. 153. of his Responsoria or Vindiciae, etc. in these words, For our dissenting Brethren, it is their practice, when once they have admonished an offendor; to suspend him from the Sacrament till he repent, or, be wholly cast out of the Church. At this time, in this City, is one who hath been suspended these twelve Months, if he be not lately restored nor excommunicated.  
Page 91. and 92. Mr. Humphrey allows public Church-tryall, upon conviction; and private trial, upon charitable suspicion, as, Job 1. 5. This ingenious acknowledgement, I shall (with Mr. Humphrey his leave) improve for his conviction.  
And 1. If the instance of Job be sufficient to warrant private judgement, why may not the instance of the suspected woman, Numb. 5. warrant public Church-tryall upon suspicion?  
2 . If Governors of Families may privately try Children and Servants under their charge, and improve their Authority, to keep from the Sacrament such Children or Servants, in case they be ignorant or scandalous; why may not Church-Officers (who are Stewards of God's House) do the like to those who are under their charge, as Parents, etc. may, to those under their charge?  
3 . How was Jeremith set as a Watch-Tower amongst God's people, to try their ways? Jer. 6. 27. How was Timothy sent upon suspicion, to know the faith of the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 3. 5? Why was Ephesus commended, for trying the false Apostles, Rev. 2. 2? Why must Deacons be tried, and that upon charitable suspicion, 1 Tim. 3. 10? If it be objected, The neglect of their trial is more dangerous: Answ. True, therefore more care must be had in their trial; but, Magis et minus non variant speciem: Nor doth their trial exclude the trial of private Christians; which, if neglected, may prove as dangerous to the Church, as the neglect of trying Public Church-members, if the multitude of private Christians be compared with the paucity of Church Officers. Nor can the trial of all, of its own nature, prejudice any, but is very conducible to the Edification of Rulers & People.  
Page 92. Mr. Humphrey A judgement of probability, as to fitness and unfitness, may be solid, as to advice and counsel; but, not as to be a rule of admission and suspension.  
Ans. 1. Then by Mr. Humphrey his own grant, Church-Tryall of every Church-member is warrantable, in order to advice and counsel. If so, why doth not Mr. Humphrey persuade the people to submit to such trial, which, we are verily persuaded, would soon put an end to the controversy. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant, that too many will not admit trial upon any terms. 2 . What if upon trial in order to advice and counsel, the party tried, be found grossly ignorant or scandalous? Is he not, ipso facto, upon such discovery, made by trial, visibly unworthy above suspicion? And must the Church, notwithstanding this apparent unworthiness, admit such an one? Yet, even here, our ordinary course is, rather to advise and counsel, then to suspend. And if upon scandal proved, they testify their repentance, we dare not refuse them, or, if upon conviction of gross ignorance, they desire to be further instructed, we doubt not, through God's mercy, in a month or two, to instill so much knowledge, as may stand with truth of grace, and so make them visibly worthy; leaving the secrets of the heart to God's judgement alone, unless hypocrisy break out visibly afterwards. What he adds, page 92. and 93. either it hath been already answered, or makes not against us; since Suspension is no prejudice to the firmness of Excommunication, but either a degree of it, (if juridically passed) a preparative to it, or a charitable prevention of it, by bringing a person to himself and his duty; and, happy that Church, who by such an incision, can for ever forestall excision. We think, as well as Mr. Humphrey, It were a wretched Interpretation to say, the Church could not bear evil persons only at the Sacrament; but, it's a good Interpretation to say, She cannot bear them at the Sacrament, though not only there: For, after Suspension, the Church hath patience, to see if that will amend the Offender; if not, She may proceed to Excommunication. So that his censure of me, page 63. he builds, partly upon his own misreport of my words, both, as to the matter and manner of expression; partly upon his own mistake, who makes Sacramental trial (as we hold it forth) the cause of divers miserable effects, of which, it's only the occasion; but the proper causes are, the ignorance or pride of too many, not only Refusers, but even Tryers and Judges.  
Mr. Humphrey. There cannot be expressed more bitterness to a fellow-Minister; etc. (if he would know it) than to number me in the company of Korah, Sanballat, and Tobiah.  
Ans. How unjustly Mr. Humphrey loads me with bitter censoriousness, the Reader will easily judge, if he please but to peruse my Text, page 66. My words are these, He takes no notice how many are admitted, etc. who bless God for the care our Builders take, in purging and repairing God's House, and the new Jerusalem, how ever opposed and discouraged by Sanballat, Tobiah, and other Samaritans. And I wish too many, I hope, real Jews, did not too much correspond with them. I am sure Mr. Humphrey, by this unhappy Book of his, hath done Sanballat and Tobiah more service, then either Nehemiah or Ezra; the Lord forgive him.  
Here 1. is not one word of Korah. 2 . Half an eye of charity will easily see, that in those expressions, I looked at Mr. Humphrey as a true Jew, rather than a Samaritan. 3 . Yet with grief I declared my apprehension, that by his Treatise of free Admission, he hath done service to Samaritans rather than to true Jews. This is my judgement still, not only of Mr. Humphrey, but of the godliest under Heaven, who some way or other, first or last, by error or practice, are too subservient to Sanballat, 1 Cor. 3. vers. 12, to 15. And herein I am far from excepting myself, being the weakest of ten thousand. If Mr. Humphrey his Tenet be erroneous, sure he hath done Sanballat service: If his Tenet be true. I confess I have done Sanballat service, in opposing it. Let Mr. Humphrey or any make this good, I shall thank them for their pains and be the first shall put fire to my neigh and stubble. I hope the pious and judicious Reader will not count this bitter censoriousness; no nor Mr. Humphrey neither, upon a second review. I cannot judge Sacramental trial a truth, but I must needs judge the opposite Doctrine an error, and by consequence, that they who promote it, do work for Sanballat, as to that act; however, as to their persons, they may be true Jews. Let Mr. Humphrey say as much of me, I shall not think him censorious at all, much less bitterly censorious.  
Indeed page 65. I speak these words to Mr. Humphrey, Let him take heed, lest in this rash censure he be not like Korah and his Company. Yet 1. I hope, not every one that doth something like Korah, is presently of Korah's company. Nor, 2 . did I say he was of Korah's number or company, only, I ventured to Item him, that in rash censuring, he be not like Korah, etc. 3 lie. In my best apprehension, his rash censure is too like the clamour of Korah, etc. Numb. 163. And 1 Korah affirms, that all the Congregation was holy (just as all our Congregations are cried up to be holy, yea, every member of our Congregations.) 2 . That Moses and Aaron took too much upon them, and lifted up themselves, etc. (as too many judge the Presbyterians, though I must not say Mr. Hamphrey doth so, for fear I should be thought censorious) Let the Reader consult Mr. Humphrey his Vindication, page 20. and his rejoinder, page 91. and I hope he will judge more charitably of my former Item, than Mr. Humphrey doth.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 94.  And should I now return him his own language, page 61. See you not here, how the vizard of piety falls off, and his breath and pen savour rankly of pride? Should I say, If this do not smell of sublime Pharisaisme, I beseech you what doth? For my part, when he can even wish the earth might open and swallow me, I sire the Lord to open his eyes, to see the rents he helps to make, to swallow up the Church, etc.  
Ans. 1. Doth not a godly man's Unchristian censure, make the vizard of piety fall off, and his breath and pen smell rankly of pride in that act? Those words Mr. Humphrey left out of his charge, against the Letter of my Text; by omission of which, the Reader might conceit I censured his person as a proud hypocrite, which uncharitableness I desire to adhor. The reason why I concluded, those words of his savoured of pride and hypocrisy, see in my Bar, page 60. and if it be not solid, let the Reader censure me, for so condemning that passage of Mr. Humphrey's. Proportionably, may not some acts of a godly man savour of sublime Pharisaisme? 2 . Far be it from me to wish, The earth might open and swallow him: Let Mr. Humphrey show but such a wish in all my Book, I shall heartily ask God and him pardon; I know of no such expression, I abhor it, and shall abhor myself for it, if any such bitter passage slipped from me, I desire Mr. Humphrey to convince me, or to clear me. 3 . I desire as hearty as Mr. Humphrey, that God would open mine eyes, to see where I make any rents in the Church: Surely, either Mr. Humphrey or myself must be guilty of this sin; he thinks, I am; I think, he is; haply, both of us may be too guilty, by our inordinate heats: We cannot tell how to debate and convince each other, but we must be angry. And truly, when the Shepherds are so hot in divifion, the Flocks cannot be very firm in union. Yet waving passion on both sides, as extrinsical, yea, prejudicial to our cause; that party who promotes and stickles for error, helps by rents to swallow up the Church. Mr. Humphrey charges me, I him, with Error, about Sacramental trial; let the Reader weigh Arguments and Answers on both sides, and then judge, who is the Rent-maker, and Church-swallower.  
Mr. Humphrey. 
Pag. 96.  I pity Mr. Drake's poor excuse, telling us, that the Pharisees judgement, Luk. 18. was private and without trial; as if a thing, for being the more public, were the less evil; and when he judges himself worthy, and many unworthy, he asks this Question. Yet, how do we think ourselves better than others?  
Ans. 1. The Pharisee's judgement was private, as to his Call or Authority. 2 . It was rash, without trial had; so is not the judgement of Church-Officers, who are called by Christ to judge, and proceed according to evidence, from the party himself, or from sufficient witness. Mr. Humphrey leaves out this latter, and plays with the ambiguity of the word Private, to make my sense ridiculous.  
2 . How do I judge myself worthy, who was not admitted to the Lords Supper, but upon the same account, upon which (if regularly) Mr. Humphrey himself was admitted to be a Minister; namely, upon trial and examination by Church Officers. Doth Mr. Humphrey judge himself worthy to be a Minister, because with the Presbytery of Ministers, he tries candidates for the Ministry; and, upon evidence of insufficiency, he with other assisting Ministers, judges some of those candidates not yet fit for the Ministry? Surely (if any) they who make themselves the sole judges of their own Sacramental or Ministerial worthiness, are the persons that judge themselves worthy.  
Mr. Humphrey. Mr. Drake will a●…mit none to Christ's Table, unless converted already.  
Ans. Dr. Drake hath no such word, nor any such intention, his whole discourse being for the admission of all Church-members, who are in the judgement of charity converted, whether they be really converted or no. In the same place he finds fault with my Interpretation, of Christ's calling not the righteous, but sinners, Luke 5. 31, 32. and says, it must be taken in regard of the effect, not tender of his grace.  
Ans. 1. If so, then Christ doth not call proud Pharisees effectually: What then doth Mr. Humphrey think of St. Paul? was not he a proud Pharisee, yet called effectually? If he say, Paul was not called effectually while he was proud; True, no more was he called immediately to saving repentance, till he was legally humbled. As therefore Christ called not Paul to Evangelicall repentance effectually, till he was legally humbled; so he tendered not saving grace immediately to him, as proud, but as legally humbled, which is a middle thing, between a proud Paul and a converted Paul. Christ tenders grace mediately to the proud sinner, immediately to the humbled sinner, Matth. 11. 28. nor doth he call the proud sinner effectually, till humbled, and by humiliation. Christ's Call then, doth as truly respect the tender as the effect; he tendering grace orderly, as well as calling to grace orderly.  
Mr. Humphrey, page 97. The third was a sweet place, John 8. where, who doth not see, how importinent Mr. Drake is, about opening that Text, as if he could not distinguish between a proof and illustration, etc.  
Ans. 1. Who sees not how impertinent Mr. Humphrey is, in charging, but not proving, me to be impertinent: Let my Text speak for itself against this charge. See my Bar, page 68  
2 . I had thought that illustration, à paribus & similibns (if pat and pertinent) had been argumentative.  
3 . In this very particular, Mr. Humphrey intended not only an Illustration, but an Argument; else, what mean those words, page 20. of his Vindication, To give weight to this (discoursing on his third Reason,) remember three passages of our Saviour's. Now the last of those three, is the instance of the Adulterous woman, John 8. Mr. Humphrey cannot be ignorant, that Illustration, as such, affords only light; but as Argumentative, gives weight. Himself affirms, that his illustrations give weight: who sees not then, they must needs be Argumentative, and have somewhat of the nature of proofs? If therefore Mr. Humphrey be pertinent in his illustration, Dr. Drake cannot be impertinent in his charge, wherein also he looked at Mr. Humphrey his three illustrations, only, as so many amplifications. See my Bar, page 66, 67.  
4 . Take that instance in Mr. Humphrey his declared sense, it makes against those, who are forward to censure others (See Mr. Humphrey his rejoinder, page 97.) which we all agree to be very sinful, but impertinently applied by him against Sacramental trial. I wish his own illustration may open his eyes, to discern his own forwardness to censure others.  
Mr. Humphrey. Page 98. If Sacramental trial were once proved a precept of Christ, I would yield to Mr. Drake in every particular.  
Ans. The profession is very ingenious, and gives some hope, that ere long, Mr. Humphrey will be more favourable to Suspension, then at present he seems to be.   

Sect. IX.  
Proceed we next to the matter in Controversy betwixt us, about Mr. Humphrey his fourth Argument, drawn, as he says, from the vanity, formality, and impossibility, of selecting people to this Ordinance.  
Mr. Humphrey. Page 101. What Dr. Drake hath to say against this Argument, is barren. (You must suppose my ground is barren, because it will not bear Mr. Humphrey his corn) In general he says. 1. In the rule of Admission, they go not by the truth of grace. It is well he is brought to confess this, which so often otherwhere, he thinks himself bound to pry into.  
Ans. 1. We think ourselves bound to look after those trials, which are 1. Negative. 2 . Sensible; as gross ignorance, heathenish profaneness, visible impenitency, which is walking in a tract or course of any scandalous sin, or falling into some foul abomination, which argues at least the tyranny of fin. By such effects as these, we may safely judge a person Evangelically unworthy, without prying into his heart, or into God's secrets, which is impossible for the Creature to do, and sinful to attempt it: Did Peter pry into Simon Magus' his heart, when he said, I perceive thee to be in the gall of bitterness, etc. Acts 8. 32? Or did Philip pry into the Eunuch's heart, when he put him to it about the reality of his faith, Acts 8. 37? If Mr. Humphrey will condemn us for the like practice, our comfort is, we have good warrant to bear us out, and good company to suffer with us, under this imputation of his. In vain therefore, page 101. of his rejoinder, doth Mr. Humphrey labour to set me against myself, by comparing page 117. of my Bar, (How many outwardly pious are there, who, upon trial, might easily be uncased to live in some known sin) with page 73. of my said Bar (That truth of grace in the heart, is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper) there being a sweet harmony, but no dissonancy between those two assertions; The former holding forth, that we judge of men by what is visible, of the Root by the Fruit, according to our Saviour's rule, Matth. 7. 16. The latter showing, that we judge not of persons by what is invisible; but, as sin, or grace appear visibly in any, so we judge. Were I sure Judas had no grace, yet, if he were knowing, and walked orderly, I could not suspend him. Again were I sure Peter had grace, yet, if he walk disorderly, he ought to be suspended, till his repentance be evident as well as his fall, 2 Thess 3. verse 6. 14, 15. Further, let the Reader take notice, that, however Mr. Humphrey, page 102. is pleased to favour me with a jest, for denying, that Profession in his sense, is the rule of Admission; yet, he only says, but proves not, That such profession is the ordinary road of Christians; a Tenet contrary to Scripture, to Antiquity, and the late, as well as present practice of our Church. (Here let the Reader know, that Mr. Humphrey takes a piece of Profession, namely, Baptism, and coming to Church, for a sufficient ground of Admission to the Lords Supper.) We deny not, that complete Profession is enough for Admission; but, such Professors must have 1. Competent knowledge. 2 . Suitable conversation, besides initiation by Baptism, and attendance upon the public Ordinances; otherwise, like Agrippa, they will be but half Professors. As knowledge and pious carriage will not make one a complete Professor, unless he be Baptised and attend ordinarily upon the public Ordinances. So Baptism and attendance upon the public Ordinances will not make a complete Professor, unless competent knowledge, and pious conversation, be superadded. When a half hour is an whole hour, than an half Professor may go for an whole Professor.  
Mr. Humphrey. Page 102. Christ tells us of no medium, while he divides all his guests into the Called and Chosen, Matth. 22. 14.  
Ans. Doth not the Parable expressly mention two sorts of Guests called, besides those that were chosen? 1. They, who made light of the very Call, verse 5. 2 . Such as came, and were not discerned by the very Servants, yet wanted the Wedding Garment, verse 11. and what are these last but medium participationis, so much decried by Mr. Humphrey. 1. Were not they Professors who slighted the Call? (unless he will say, that the Jews and Pharisees, against whom the Parable was directed, were not Professors) 2 . Was not this their slighting visible to the Servants? Compare verse 7. and Luke 14. 21. And doth it not thence necessarily follow, that there are some Professors, that vifibly reject the grace of the Gospel; some, that cordially accept thereof? And between both these (as a middle of participation) are they, who friendly accept of grace offered, and visibly walk up to it, as did he that came without the Wedding Garment, whom neither the Servants, nor the other Guests, discerned, but only the Master of the Feast. Withal the Reader may note, that the Feast in this Parable is not the Lords Supper (this Parable being delivered by Christ, before the Lords Supper was instituted) but the offer of Christ, and the grace of the Gospel in general, which is openly slighted by some, accepted by others, and by some of these feignedly, by others cordially. Some Professors reject Christ offered both outwardly and inwardly; some accept him both outwardly and inwardly: Between both these (as a middle of participation) are they, who accept Christ outwardly, but reject him inwardly, as do all cased Hypocrites. It's evident then, that Christ, in this Parable, owns a middle of participation between both extremes.  
By the way take notice, how again, page 103. Mr. Humphrey is pleased to put off my instance of Children with a jest, which at good earnest will be too hard for him: His wit and mirth may tickle the Reader, and make his Books the more vendible. But I shall not tyre the Reader, with repeating what I have said formerly, in order to the vindication of that instance.  
For that other Argument of mine, to prove Mr. Humphrey his Principle lose, because it will open a door for the wickedest varlets: Hear what Mr. Humphrey says to it, page 103. He should say in plain terms, it is a lose Principle, because it is not his Principle, and then he had hit it.  
Ans. What is this to the eviction of my Argument? May not I as well return, Mr. Humphrey should say in plain terms, his admitting pell-mell is a good and warrantable practice, because it is his practice, and then he had hit it: What weight can such froth bear, in the balance of right Reason and Religion?  
D. Dr. If profession be Mr. Humphrey his ground, how dare he excommunicate any Baptised person, though most wicked?  
Mr. Humphrey. I answer, As the Priest durst shut up the Leper from the whole Congregation, because of God's special command.  
Ans. And with us, persons are suspended from the Lords Supper, as they were suspended from the Passover, by God's especial command, 1 Cor. 10. 21. May I forfeit a right to all Ordinances, and may not I forfeit a right to one Ordinance? Was not the Incestuous Corinth a Professor, even when excommunicated? That he was Baptised, Mr. Humphrey will grant; that he was kept from Hearing, or any other Ordinance, but actual receiving, Mr. Humphrey cannot prove. He was then a Professor, even after excommunication, though not a Church-member till received again, upon testification of his repentance. If therefore profession be enough for admission, then, even persons excommunicated ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper. In persons at age, profession must precede Church-membership, and may continue, after a person is cut off from Church-membership, unless he openly renounce Christianity, which, I believe, few excommunicated persons do.  
D. Dr. Did he never hear of real and visible worthiness? Mr. Humphrey. Page 104, and 105. I confess I have heard of the visible Church, Saints by calling, Professors, etc. But this visible worthiness, as distinguished therefrom, I have not leightly read of, but in him; and look at his expression and his meaning therein, as exotic to the Scripture.  
Ans. 1. Let Mr. Humphrey show me the term visible (as applied to the Church) in Scripture if he can; I am assured he cannot. 2 . The thing of visible worthiness, the Scripture warrants, as distinct from Church-membership; for which, take these Texts, 1 King. 1. 52. If he will show himself a worthy man, etc. But, if wickedness shall be found in him, etc. Is not worthiness shown, visible worthiness? and contra, Is not wickedness found in a man, visible unworthiness? Again. Matth. 10. 11. Inquire who is worthy in a City. Surely, Christ sets them not to inquire who had truth of grace, that were (as Mr. Humphre phrases it) to pry into God's secrets. Nor doth he bid them inquire barely, who were professors, by Church-membership, since the whole City, or the greatest part thereof, were such, as being Jews, to whom only the Apostles were sent, Matth. 10. verse 5, 6. It must needs then be a worthiness of accepting the Gospel, and of suitable pious walking, that the Apostles were to look after, and not to lodge in profane, but in religious families; which worthiness might be found out by inquity. And if this be not visible worthiness, I pray what is? Once more, Luke 7. verse 4, 5. The Elders of the Jews testify, the Centurion is worthy: Surely they were no merit-mongers, nor would Christ have acted upon such an account: He had then a worthiness of meetness, and this worthiness was visible, by his love to God's people, in building them a Synagogue. That this Centurion was Circumcised, Baptised, or a Church-member, I think Mr. Humphrey will not assert; I am confident, he cannot prove it. Yet, here is worthiness, and visible worthiness, in one, that was neither Baptised, nor a Church-member. The like may be said of Cornelius, Acts 10. 22. From all which, I conclude, by Mr. Humphrey his leave, that visible worthiness, as distinct from Church-membership, is not exotic to the Scripture.  
In the close of this Section, after some flourishes, at which he is excellent, I perceive, that my anatomising of his Onion (which I hoped might open his eyes, and make him weep) hath put him into an angry (I will not say, spiteful) distemper; I had rather such words should drop from Mr. Humphrey his pen, then from mine. And because he cannot justly quarrel with my words, therefore he is pleased to put a sense upon them, As if I censured him, and all of his mind, to be opposers of the Church; and the wicked; and my party, only to be the godly, pag. 106.  
A sad charge, and very uncharitable, in reference both to my words and meaning. My words are these, page 75. of my Bar: The best use therefore that can be made of his pield Onion, is, to draw tears from his own, and others eyes; for those extravagant discourses of his, whereby he hath as much as in him lies, troubled the Church, hindered reformation, strengthened the hands of the wicked, and sadned the hearts of the righteous, etc. These are my words, and 1. Have I in them spoke any more, than the very truth? 2 . Is here one word, charging him, and all that are of his mind to be wicked. Thirdly, doth not this discourse of M. Humphrey sadden the Godly, and make the wicked rejoice? I uttered not these expressions by rote (as he is pleased to upbraid me) but deliberately, and with grief and Sympathy. Fourthly, what is there of spite, or of the Spider sucking poison, in those expressions of mine? As for Antiquity, I wonder how in the same page Master Humphrey can pretend to it, which (if he know any thing of Antiquity) he cannot be ignorant is against him. I see the man is galled, and cannot bear the gentlest Item of reproof, but presently throws malice and spleen in the face of the reprover. Truly Sir, what I spoke was not by rote, nor in passion. I am of the same mind still, what ever bitter misconstructions you are pleased to make of those words of mine. Indeed I looked at him, and all that vent themselves for his lose principles, as troublers (I did not say opposers, though even this word is not culpable, if rightly, and candidly understood) of the Church in that act; but I neither looked at all of his mind as ungodly, nor at all of our minds as Godly. I am far from limiting piety to a party in his sense, but desire rather to sit down and mourn, that Godly men are so accessary to, in the making, and abetting of parties, both against faith and charity.   

Sect. X.  
In the tenth Section by instance of the , etc. M. Humprey labours to make it out that every Church-member ought to receive. The answer is easy. As all circumcised persons were to eat the passover, yet divers in some cases might not receive at such, or such a time, so all Church-members are to receive the Lords Supper, but not till they be prepared. If all were bound to receive every Sacrament, than were it a sin for any at any time to forbear, and a sin to persuade any to forbear. Which I believe Master Humphrey will not assert, as that which is Heterodox, and may prove a dangerous snare. If any be kept from the Lords Supper, generally they may thank themselves, as might those Jews, who neglected to purify themselves for the passe-over. For an additional proof he produces humane testimony. And 1. he quotes Mr. Perkins, pag. 109. and 110.  
Answ. 1. That all Church-members ought to receive we deny not, if rightly understood, as above, that is, they ought to examine and prepare themselves, and so to receive, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Secondly, that in order hereunto all must make conscience to fit themselves, Mr. Humphrey confesseth, page 110. Thirdly, that any aught to receive hic & nunc, when unprepared Mr. Humphrey cannot prove. Fourthly, that Mr. Perkins is not of Mr. Humphrey his mind herein, to me seems more than probable, because in the third Proposition cited by M. Humphrey he concludes, Every one is to receive according to the laudable custom of his own Church; But it hath been, and still is the laudable custom of the Church of England to try persons at age before they receive. We shall not deny the Sacrament to any that will receive it, according to the laudable custom of the Church of England.  
Pag. 110. Note. 1. If M. H. be Judge, his words are oracles, my answers are trifles. Secondly, Poor infants are a mighty rub in his way; they make him complain now the ninth time. God knows how to perfect praise out of the mouths of Babes and sucklings. Thirdly, he frights me with two terrible Thorns, but tells me not what they are, haply to make them more formidable. I guess they are the Thorns he put in the hand of infants and idiots; which upon trial I have found to be but painted Thorns; but being turned upon himself, they prove real Thorns; No wonder the man complains more than seven times. Fourthly, he tells the Reader, I say, and say on. Haply the Reader might suspect I said nothing, unless Mr. Humphrey had spoke out for me. I thank him he will honour me so far as to be my Crier. Fifthly, he finds fault I am too fine, yet suspects I am not in good earnest. Truly Sir, I hope I affect not finery but seriousness. I part not those actions Christ hath joined, nor will join those which Christ hath parted. As the Covenant, so the Seals are applicable to all conditionally and mediately; but the Covenant is not absolutely, and immediately applicable to any that are visibly out of Covenant; and therefore by proportion, neither the Seals of the Covenant. The Covenant is conditionally, and mediately, Mark. 16. 15, 16. even to Heathen applicable, yet I hope M. Humphrey will not admit Heathen to the Sacrament: His instance of ipso jure excommunicate will not help him as hath been formerly showed. For 1. if such a person must be suspended before excommunication, than suspension is a distinct ordinance from excommunication by Mr. Humphrey his own grant.  
Secondly, if Christ's universal (do this) be limited by Paul's exception (put away from you such a person) than its further evident that Christ's commanding all Church members to receive is limited by Paul's exception, that a Brother, or Church member, if a railer, a drunkard, unclean, covetous, etc. must not be admitted to the Lords Supper, as being ipso jure excommunicate: and withal that any sin in visible Dominion makes a person ipso jure excommunicate, as covetousness, railing, fornication, etc. though not capital; and then I pray why may not ignorance in dominion suspend as well as scandal.  
His amplification from Math. 5. 23, 25. makes rather against than for him. Since its evident by that Text. First, that moral pollution, as malice (till removed) suspended a man from Sacrifice. Secondly, that moral (as well as Levitical) pollution may suspend a man from instituted, but not from natural worship. Sacrifices and Sacraments are instituted worship, prayer, and hearing are natural worship. A Zimri is bound to hear & pray, be he never so bad, not to so offer Sacrifice, or receive the Sacrament in statu quo. The law of Creation binds to natural worship, which no unworthiness of the Creature can dissolve. Hence the Lord dispenseth much in, and about instituted worship, not so in natural worship, 1 Sam. 15. 22. Jer. 7. 22, 23. Hosea 6. 6. Math. 12. 4, 5.  
Thirdly, what if the Sacrificer will never be reconciled, must he notwithstanding be admitted to offer? Our Saviour says he must first be reconciled & then offer; Paul says, he must first be prepared and so eat; surely than he must not offer till reconciled, nor receive till prepared; And, if his malice and unpreparedness be visible, he may and must be suspended. Fourthly, from Mr. Humphrey his own grant, If there be many occasions of forbearing a duty, and unpreparedness be a just occasion and a grand occasion; then, as this unpreparedness should occasion my forbearing; so, if visible, it should occasion the Churches suspending of me; and such is visible ignorance or prophaenness in any Church-member. If he may forbear upon just occasion, why may not the Church or any particular member advise him to that which is lawful; If he must forbear, why may not the Church, or any particular member advise him to his duty; and in case he will act against his duty, why may not the Church use her power to suspend him from that unlawful act? I make myself no more Lord over Gods command by telling my Brother this is not his duty, than by telling him, this is his duty. In both I make myself Lord of God's command if my advice be contrary to the affirmative and negative precept; in neither, if my advice be consonant to the rule.  
Mr. Humphrey, pag. 112. To hold it is not a man's duty to receive while unregenrat; this reaches the semper & loses the bands of God's commands.  
Ans. 1. It reaches the semper only conditionally, as legal uncleanness might haply reach the semper in order to the passover, and as excommunication may reach the semper in case the person excommunicated continue obstinate. Secondly, How doth it lose the bands of God's command, when Gods command is none shall receive till rightly prepared. If the truth of the promise offering Christ to all conditionally be not loosed though no unregenerate person partake of Christ, than the bands of the precept commanding all conditionally to receive are not loosed, though no unqualified person receive till Doom's day. The reason is clear, because neither command nor promise are absolute, but conditional till the condition be performed. Thirdly, As to particular persons, the command of suspension is a spur to conversion and practical holiness; And since none continue in impenitency but by their own desault, they may thank themselves who thereby make the command of abstention or detention perpetual. Fourthly, Yet by presence at the Sacrament the Christ-murtherer may behold the Corpse bleeding, see his own condemnation sealed and both hear & see Christ offered conditionally, though he neither receive nor touch the Sacramental Elements. But to press an impenitent and scandalous person to receive in order to the sealing of his own condemnation as Mr. Humphrey asserts, pag. 113. to me seems a very uncouth opinion and contradictory to Mr. Hums phrey his doctrine for suspending of persons ipso jure excommunicate, who (upon such an account) ought of all persons to receive, in order to the sealing of their own comdemnation, and the more effectual promotion of their own conversion.  
Dr. Drake, an unregenerate man sins in all his duties, yet he must do them; but there is not par ratio in order to a receiving. 1 Because it is not his duty.  
Mr. Humphrey, pag. 113. If receiving be not the duty of an unregenerate man, then must regeneration be an essential antecedent to the Sacrament; But so it is not: For 1. Then baptism was not administered validly to many by the Apostles, Acts 8. 13. etc.  
Ans. 1. I might note the impropriety of that expression essentially antecedent. Nothing is essentially antecedent to any thing, but it's constitutive principles; and we do not make regeneration a constitutive principle of receiving the Sacrament. Secondly, if by essential here he mean necessary, we grant regeneration a necessary antecedent in order to the person receiving, and that by virtue of the precept; as purity was a necessary antecedent of receiving the Pass over. Thirdly, where as he infers, That then the baptism of many was not valid, I deny his consequence, since in many things, Quod fieri non debuit factum valet. Secondly, because however, the person to be baptised, being unregenerate ought not to offer himself to baptism, yet this reaches not the Minister that is to baptise him, unless his unregeneration be visible. I may not offer myself to partake if unregenerate; but the Minister may admit me coming, if he have charitative grounds to judge me regenerate. The same answer will satisfy his second objection, for baptism is valid where there is no essential faylure; if the person baptised be a visible Saint, the person baptising be authorized by Christ, and the Element be rightly applied according to Christ's institution; in a word, if Christ's form of baptism be observed Math. 28. 19 but this may be done to a person unregenerare, and is valid being done, though the Catechumenus sin in offering himself, if unregenerate; but need not be baptised again when once regenerate. 
Acts 8. 37.   
It will also satisfy his third objection: A Minister may in faith administer, either of the Sacraments to others besides himself, since the rule he is to proceed by is not holiness as real, but as visible; & where he hath a charitative ground to judge any to be regenerate, he both may and aught to baptise such a person, in case he offer himself to be baptised regularly.  
For his fifth objection, that then no doubting Christian can himself receive, for he cannot act in faith so long as he is not fully persuaded of his own regeneration.  
Ans. 1. It's a fallacy to argue from the necessity of regeneration to the necessity of the clear & full evidence of regeneration. He that hath truth of grace, sins neither materially nor formally in receiving; provided he be not wanting to himself in due examination and preparation. Secondly, if a doubting Christian cannot act in faith, than no man in the world can act in faith, since the best of Saints are more, or less pestered with doubting, and that both in the faith of assent, of adherence and of evidence. Thirdly, he may as well doubt whither he sin in abstaining as in receiving, since some comfortable hopes of grace encourage him to receive, as some dark fears on the other hand discourage him. Fourthly, if evidences for grace be predominant, the contrary fears should not discourage him. Fifthly, if hopes be balanced with equal fears, or overbalanced with Symptoms of unregeneracy, his surest way is to apply himself to some faithful and experienced friend, or Minister, upon whose advice he may comfortably approach, or forbear the Sacrament for that time. Yea, this advice is very safe and useful, where any one doubt about my spiritual Estate ariseth, which by a diligent self-scrutiny cannot be resolved; It being dangerous in point of doubts (as well as in other cases) to keep the Devil's counsel. For a brief, yet full resolution of the case about persons to be suspended, I refer the Reader to the larger catechism of the Assembly of Divines, where they handle the Doctrine of the Lords Supper: where also they do positively affirm, That such as are found to be ignorant and scandalous, notwithstanding their professions of the faith, and desire to come to the Lords Supper, may, and aught to be kept from that Sacrament by the power which Christ hath left in his Church, until they receive instruction and manifest their reformation. I hope it's no presumption to say, That such a Testimony for suspension from so many Reverend, Learned, and pious Divines will balance, if not preponderate the opposite Testimonies produced by Mr. Humphrey, were they as full to his purpose as his heart could desire. But I trust to make it appear (which in part is done already) that those eminent persons by him quoted are rather friends to our suspension than to his free Admission.  
If yet it be objected; I, but will not this Doctrine of doubting Christian's admission to the Sacrament, be a precipice to unregenerate persons, who upon sleight and trivial evidences will conclude themselves in the state of grace, and so rush upon the Sacrament unworthily?  
Ans. 1. It's no more a precipice to them than all other parts of the Gospel are: Offer promises, Hypocrites are forwardest to catch presumptuously at them; thunder out threaten, Hypocrites will put them off with a wet finger; bind them with precepts, Hypocrites have an hellish art to cut, or break this Gordian knot which they cannot untie fairly, Psal. 2. 3.  
Secondly, This is a precipice not of Gods, but of their own, and the Devils making, who are willingly thereby deceived, and so catch both at promises and Sacraments, writing and seal, to their own destruction. To prevent which mischief (as much as lies in man) cautions are an useful boundary in order to the promises, and suspension in order to the Sacrament; which though it cannot keep away all Hypocrites, yet it serves to uncase divers, and to make all Church-members studious of competent knowledge and outward reformation, a blessing highly to be prized in every reformed and reforming Church.  
Mr. Humphrey in his vindication, page 24. Let our Independents answer, why do you allow a Syntax in the whole service of God besides; and being in a quae genus of Anomalaes' and Heteroclites, only at this Ordinance.  
Dr. D. My answer hereunto, see pag. 79. and 80. of my Bar. Indeed I looked at those words of his as a challenge to both parties. To which the first part of his answer in his rejoinder, pag. 116. is so modest, that I think myself bound to note it with approbation.  
Mr. Humphrey. For the Later branch, that the Independents scruple not a free admission of their own Members, etc. lb.  
Ans. 1. Note his own words, whither they turn away any before excommunication, I cannot say, but guess so. The expressions are ingenuous, but do a little thwart his former assertion. He that speaks only by guests cannot assert that which he speaks to be a truth. Secondly, though some separated assemblies own divers of our Congregations as true Churches, yet will they not admit divers (not only of our Church-members, but also) of our Communicants, upon this very account, because they apprehend them not so visibly worthy; An apparent Testimony to me, that they with us measure the subject of Sacramental Admission, rather by visibility than by Church-membership. Especially, considering withal, that one main ground of their first separation from us was offence taken at the promiscuous Admission of Church-members to the Lords Supper: Upon which account those who feared God among the Presbyterians were the more zealous for Sacramental trial, that by reformation in this particular they might prevent further separation; and if it might be, reduce our brethren of the Congregational way by removing that unhappy stumbling-block.  
Mr. Humphrey, ibid. Mr. Drake tells them, They are beholding to me for my too favourable opinion of you.  
Ans. Mr. D. says, The Independents are much beholding to him for his favourable opinion of them. He doth not say, they are beholding to him for his too favourable opinion of them. I will not utter what I guess to be Mr. Humphrey his design in crowding in the adverbe too, but I apprehend by that addition he was not too favourable unto me.  
The next question in debate is, how we can baptise the Children of Church members, & at the same time turn away their parents from the Sacrament of the Lords supper?  
Mr. Humphrey, pag. 117. I will not infringe what Mr. Drake hath said pag. 82, 83, 84. I wish it may be maintained. But as for those who never took notice, or not approved of any other ground of their baptism, but as they are immediately born Christians of such as visibly profess Christ according to my terms the right which the Parents derive upon their Children unto baptism must be acknowledged to be in themselves unto the Sacrament, unless there be a manifest impediment to retrench that right, or the present enjoyment of it by excommunication, distraction or infection.  
Dr. Drake. Ans. 1. He granting my conclusion, that the Children of all Church-members (be they suspended or not) may be baptised, his exeption is impertinent as to us, who hold and approve other grounds of admitting Children to baptism than the right they have to it by their immediate Parents either as Professors or as Church-members: Nay, were both the immediate Parents excommunicated we shall not refuse to baptise their Children, provided any person of trust will undertake for their education in the Christian faith into which they are baptised. The right a Child hath to baptism by his immediate Parents is a good right, but not the sole right. See more in my barrel, pag. 81. 87.  
Secondly, should I retort the question upon Mr. Humphrey, how can he allow baptising the Children of divers Church members, and yet discourage those very Church-members from the Sacrament? He that discourages from the means discourages from the end, Mr. Humphrey discourages from Sacramental trial, the means, Ergo. Here indeed we come to the very hinge of the controversy which Mr. Humphrey, pag. 117. and 118. states bewtixt us thus.  
Mr. Humphrey, the substance of the whole comes unto thus, that the Parents must have a further right to show than what they have common with their Child to this ordinance. And here indeed lies the very point of our difference: I hold it is Church-membership (where there is none of our former yielded impediments) that gives an immediate outward right to the Sacrament. He holds a man must be first tried if he be visibly worthy, and it is that alone can give him admission.  
Ans. In my Bar, pag. 81. I proved, that Church-membership is not the adequate foundation of receiving, because the all Church-members should be admitted to the Lords supper: But all Church-members ought not to be admitted, Mr. Humphrey himself being Judge, to wit Infants & Idiots; to which I may now add out of Mr. Humphrey persons ipso jure excommunicate, all which he grants to be Church-members, yet is pleased to suspend them from the Lords supper. If the Lord hath excluded them let Mr. Humphrey show the Decree of Heaven by some express place of Scripture. Where hath God said in terms, Infants, Idiots and persons jure excommunicate shall not receive. If it be, because they cannot prepare themselves rightly, nor discern the Lords body, no more can ignorant, and scandalous persons in statu quo: therefore say we, either exclude all or none. If he say, the inability of Infants and Idiots is natural, but that of intelligent Church-members is moral.  
Ans. 1. Natural inability doth not exclude from all ordinances, instance in Circumcision then, baptism now, the word preached, etc. Secondly, that natural inability excludes from the Lords Supper is more than Mr. Humphrey can prove, unless he make it out by consequence. Thirdly, the inabiliby of persons jure excommunicate is moral, yet their suspension Mr. Humphrey allows; and why not the suspension of other intelligent Church-members also, who are morally unable as well as they. If yet he say, Persons jure excommunicate are suspended to avoid scandal, upon the very same account say we, must ignorant and scandalous persons be suspended. Object. Persons jure excommunicate are suspended in order to excommunication. Ans. So may ignorant and scandalous persons be also, if they shall wilfully persist in gross ignorance, or scandal, though of an inferior allay; yet we had rather use suspension to prevent, than to prepare for excommunication. The issue of all is this: That either Mr. Humphrey must show express Scripture for his Limitations, or else admit our Limitations also, which have as good warrant from Scripture as his: were I of Master Humphrey his mind, that Church-member-ship gives an immediate right to the Lords Supper (see pag. 118. of his rejoinder) I should rather undertake to maintain the Admission of Infants, Idiots; yea, persons jure excommunicate, and with more probability of argument, than he doth his free Admission, which yet excludes a great part, if not the greater part of Church-members. If he be for free Admission, why doth he limit it; if he will needs limit it, how is it free; yea, why doth he condemn us for that of which himself is guilty, if it be an error? We grant, all Church members ought to receive, if there be no impediment, natural, or moral; this Mr. Humphrey grants also, yet in one and the same breath as it were blames us, for doing that which himself allows; you see how the stating of the question for himself overthrows his conclusion for free Admission. Now let us see how he states it for us, in the latter branch.  
Pag. 118. of his rejoinder Mr. Drake holds a man must first be tried, if he be visibly worthy; and it is that alone can give him Admission.  
Ans. We hold: 1. That it's the duty of every Christian, or Church-member, to be willing, and ready to be tried by any, upon just occasion; yea, though it may prove prejudicial to their outward man, 1 Pet. 3. 15. Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. Secondly, That they are more bound to submit to trial by those, who are over them in the Lord, who must give, and therefore take an account of their Souls, Heb. 13. 17. Such are Superiors in Family, Church, and State. 3 lie. The Time, Frequency and Manner of trial, as to Persons, Method, etc. (as in sundry other parts of worship) is not expressly determinded in Scripture, no more than how often the Sacrament shall be received; but is lest to Christian prudence. Fourthly, That as this trial doth, especially respect the Sacrament an Universal, Spiritual, and effectual Ordinance, containing the Letter and Spirit of all other Ordinances, so the fittest time for this trial in Christian prudence is judged (by wiser and better persons than Mr. Humphrey and myself) to be before the Sacrament, or between the past and succeeding Sacrament; which as an help to self-examination may very much through grace promote our Sacramental preparation.  
These things premised, we say: 1. That every Church-member is bound to submit to Church-tryal, by virtue of the fifth Commandment; by virtue of the general precept aforementioned, 1 Pet. 3. 15. and by virtue of that principle of spiritual self-love, which either is, or should be in him. Secondly, That real worthiness gives a person a right before God to either of the Sacraments, and that abstractedly from Church-member-ship, or Church-tryal; upon which account he may desire and demand them, or either of them as his due orderly; first baptism, and afterwards the Lords Supper: there being in a right sense (as Mr. Humphrey notes) par ratio utriusque Sacramenti. That intelligent person whom I will admit to baptism, I will also admit to the Lords Supper, Acts 8. 36, 37. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. Believing with all the heart (which is real worthiness) gave the Eunuch a right to baptism; who yet thereby was not admitted a Member of any particular Congregation, (as Children, or grown persons are with us) and whither be joined himself to any, or no, is questionable. Thirdly, That visible worthiness is necessary as the fruit and sign of real worthiness; just as profession and confession is a necessary companion, or consequent of faith and grace within, Rom. 10. 9 both being in effect one and the same thing. Such was the Eunuches deportment and profession of his faith before Philip baptised him. It's agreed on all hands, that no person really (that is habitually and actually) worthy must be denied the Sacrament; as all Jews, if clean, were to eat the Passeover. The question is how the Priests then, and how Church-Officers now should put a difference between clean and unclean, between worthy and unworthy: That both were to do it doctrinally is agreed: That both were to do it practically is evident by the rule, Numb. 9 Secondly, by practice approved in Scripture, 2 Chro. 23. 29. Acts 9 26, 27. and by theirs, and our Church-Discipline, together with their lesser degrees of excommunication, answering ours of suspension; Demonstrative proofs of cleanness and worthiness, were, and are very difficult (if not impossible) to them and us. As therefore they did, 1 Sam. 21. 4, 5. so must we rest in topical and probable evidences; such are with us competent knowledge, verbal and real profession confirmed by our own observation, or by sufficient Testimony. Proportionably, gross ignorance, or scandal appearing by due trial, observation, or Testimony, as above, are topical arguments of real unworthiness, and in our Saviour's judgement amount to knowledge, Math. 7. 26. Church-Officers than must put a difference, not only Doctrinally, but also practically between clean and unclean, worthy and unworthy, denying those privileges at present, to persons visibly unclean and unworthy, which otherwise were their due to enjoy. An Executor, or Administrator is not bound immediately upon demand to give Legacies bequeathed to any Legatee, till he have at least probable evidence that the party demanding is a Legatee, and qualified according to the conditions annexed to the Legacy by the will of the Testator. In like manner Church-Officers, who are Christ's Administrators, and Overseers must not look at every one as a Legatee, who says he is so, yea, though he be a Member of the household; nor can look at those, who are grossly ignorant, or scandalous as Legatees in statu quo, since they can neither examine themselves, nor discern the Lords body in the Apostles sense. Let the Reader here take notice. 1. That we hold not that trial is absolutely necessary for every Church-member: where persons are well known to be men of knowledge and piety, there trial is requisite only in a prudential way, least suspected persons should presume, upon their Admission in this manner, to challenge the like favour. The end of Trial being discovery, what need we try that which is well known? Only such do well to submit to trial (among other grounds) for good examples sake, & to prevent exceptions that otherwise will be taken. Secondly, That we hold not that trial gives admission (it being indifferent to Admission, or Suspension) but discovery of Sacramental worthiness in order to Receiving, to which he had a right by real worthiness: As discovery by trial, or otherwise gives a Legatee, the enjoyment of that Legacy to which he had a right by the will of the Testator. Mr. Humphrey therefore is not so accurate in the stating of our opinion as he would make the world believe: Since. 1. Our rule of trying, who are worthy is not (in our judgement) universally obligatory, but may admit a dispensation. Secondly, Because we hold not that trial alone can give a Church-member Admission to the Lords Supper, but approbation upon trial, or otherwise. All which laid together, discovers the vanity of his insulting in the following words, pag. 118. For the one now, look over Mr. Drake, and you shall find still whensoever he falls upon this thing, he has nothing against it, but that silly reason (from the unintelligent) so often repeated. Had he any thing else would it not be alleged? and has he nothing else and will now be captivated? For the other, look over the Scripture, and see if he can produce you any precept of God for it. If he has none, will his own word go? while he has so little against us, and no Text for himself, his skirts are discovered and heels made bare.  
Ans. 1. Mr. Humphrey is no Oracle; nor is a reason silly, because he says so; nor is that reason (from the unintelligent) silly (however he looking through the Spectacles of prejudice apprehend it so) as hath been else where proved. Secondly, Is nothing alleged to confute his free Admission, but the reason drawn from the unintelligent? Let the Reader peruse my Bar from pag. 81. to 87. (besides other places) & then judge how much Mr. Humphrey his passionate assertions are to be credited? Thirdly, Will he have us produce Scripture to prove his fancies? We hold not its trial alone will give Admission, will he blame us for not proving that which we hold not? Fourthly, It hath been proved. First, That unworthy Church-members (though intelligent) ought hot to receive. Secondly, That all must submit to trial upon just occasion. Thirdly, That they who upon trial are found unworthy are to be suspended. Fourthly, We believe that they who refuse trial without any sufficient ground given for that their refusal, ought also to be suspended. Our reason is, because by such an Act they appear to Church-Officers as sinners against light, which makes a person as to them actually unworthy, how ever he, or she may be habitually worthy. Fifthly, We can produce as good Scripture for our Limitation, as Mr. Humphrey can for his Limitation. Here may I not speak to the Reader in Mr. Humphrey his own words by way of retorsion? Look over all the Scripture, and see if Mr. Humphrey can produce you any precept of God for suspending the unintelligent, and persons jure excommunicate (understand me of express Texts, for if he fly to consequences, let him not blame us for using the same mediums, which we judge valid as well as an express Text) if he has none, will his own word go, etc.  
Mr. Humphrey, page 119. I do willingly yield to all our known bars (under the unintelligent and excommunicate) the Church has allowed; but am fully persuaded that this Bar, Mr. Drake would not set up otherwise, has no foundation in the Scripture, etc.  
Answ. Mr. Humphrey his preswasion is no Demonstration; or if it were, certainly in all equity, the same privilege should be granted to our persuasion: what follows thence but an absurdity and impossibility, that there are, or may be two contrary Demonstrations in order to that which is every way one and the same, as if there could be one Demonstration to prove Sun hath light, and another Demonstration to prove the Sun hath not light.  
Secondly, He yields to all our known bars, etc. Why so? 1. Because the Church allows them: And hath not the Church, both in former ages, and doth it not in this age allow also the Bar of of visible unworthiness. Secondly, Because his allowed Bars have a foundation in the Scripture, not to my Bar as he is pleased to phrase it. 
1 Cor. 11. 28.  Ans. The same, or like foundation, that his Bars have, our Bars have; his Bars are founded, either upon inability to examine owns self, as in the unintellent, or in visible unworthiness, as in persons jure excommunicate; our Bar hath the same foundation, to wit, 1. Inability to examine owns self, 2 . scandalous living.  
Here, to Evade, Mr. Humphrey is fine, and subtle, pag. 120. making a distinction where God makes none. He distinguisheth between unintelligent persons that are bound to get knowledge, and unintelligent persons that are not bound to get knowledge; and then tells us the former may be suspended, the latter not. A stout affirmation, but where is his proof, or Demonstration? Where hath God said, that persons naturally unintelligent shall be suspended, but persons morally unintelligent shall not be suspended? Let him produce a Text of Scripture for it, if he can; if he cannot, will you believe Mr. Humphrey upon his bare word? We easily grant its the duty of all visibly unworthy to get knowledge, etc. not so of Children and fools: but doth it follow thence, that the former, though grossly ignorant, must be admitted, because it's their duty to get knowledge, the latter must be suspended, because it's not their duty to get knowledge. Mr. Humphrey his foundation is the precept of actual examination, 1 Cor. 11. 28. in order to receiving. Infants do not, cannot examine themselves, and therefore must be kept away says Mr. Humphrey. On the other hand: 1. Ignorant persons do not, cannot examine themselves, and therefore must be kept away, say we. Here to evade, Mr. Humphrey, tells, us, the former are not bound to examine themselves, and therefore must be suspended, the latter are bound to examine themselves, and therefore must not be suspended. Here we call for a proof, and for lack of a better must accept of M●. Humphrey his assertion, a sufficient proof indeed to fancy & affection; but if weighed in the balance of Scripture and solid reason, it will be found lighter than vanity. If actual examination be required, as is evident by the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, etc. then defect of actual examination is an Apostolic Bar. This is Mr. Humphrey his foundation to exclude Children. Examination is required, Children cannot perform this duty, therefore they must be suspended. We infer, ignorant persons cannot examine themselves, therefore they also must be suspended. There's not one tittle in this Text, or elsewhere, to exclude those who are naturally unable, and to admit those who are morally unable: Nay, if any, the latter are rather to be excluded than the former: we believe that both are to be excluded, the former as negatively, the as privatively unworthy: And for further confirmation dare appeal to Mr. Humphrey, if he will be true to himself. He grants that intelligent Church-members, if jure excommunicate may be suspended. This we grant also: Only the ground of his grant, if solid, is the same with ours, namely, by shame to bring the person suspended to repentance, to satisfy the godly, and to be a good example unto others. See pag. 22. of his rejoinder. These are some, though not all of our grounds for suspending the ignorant and scandalous. Will Mr. Humphrey allow these grounds of suspension for some intelligent Church-members, and not for all. If this be not strange partiality, I pray what is?  
As for what he adds, pag. 120. As for infants and the distracted, we know signs cannot have any real work on them.  
Answ. 1. What if they cannot, is this a sufficient ground to deny them the signs, then let Mr. Humphrey turn Antipaedobaptist.  
Secondly, Though the sign cannot work, cannot God work by the sign as an instituted antecedent, or concomitant of Divine operation? Otherwise Children are baptised in vain. There is better ground for applying signs to persons naturally unintelligent, than to persons morally unintelligent. I can baptise a Child that is naturally unintelligent, not so a person at years of discretion, who is morally unintelligent: And if there be par ratio utriusque Sacramenti; then he, who is not to be baptised (because of his gross ignorance) at years of discretion were here then unbaptised, aught upon the same account to be denied the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though formerly baptised.  
Mr. Humphrey, If I should do the Church service In submitting to this way only as humane, than I shall do God service, to oppose it as divine, and not let it sit in his Seat, as a necessary antecedent to this ordinance.  
Answ. 1. Where an humane order is pressed as a divine ordinance, I may and ought so far forth to oppose it, and shall do God good service therein, so my opposition be regular. Yet secondly, at the same time in some cases I may submit practically to the same, provided it be in it's own nature indifferent, especially upon declaration of my dissent from it as a divine ordinance; thus Paul opposed, yet practited, Circumcision upon occasion, which then was no divine ordinance, yet was by the Jews pressed as a divine ordinance; compare, Gal. 2. 3. and 5. 2, 3. With Acts 16. 3. Had Mr. Humphrey persuaded people to submit to trial, though not as a divine ordinance, he might have done both God and the Church more service than now he doth. Several judgements may unite in the same practice upon several principles without prejudice to God's worship or the breach of faith and love. I both wish and hope. Mr. Humphrey may be of this mind, we desire unity of practice and shall pray for unity of principles, Philip. 3. 16.  
Thirdly, To submit to trial, or to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks us a reason of the hope that is in us is (in a large sense as a thing commanded) a divine ordinance; the timing of this trial is humane and prudential, in which I hope we may adhere to the judgement of a Parliament and Assembly of Learned and pious Divines, rather than to the judgement of any private Christian or Minister. Hearing and receiving are divine ordinances; hearing at ten in the morning, & receiving every first Lord's day in the month, are humane orders and prudential; yet they who will not hear and receive at times particularly appointed by man, may haply go without word and Sacrament all their days, and are guilty of excommunicating and suspending themselves. Will any be so fond hence to conclude that either the State, Church or Minister hold the timing of the Sacrament to be a divine ordinance, or a necessary concomitant to the Lords Supper by way of special institution? In like manner, that all should submit to trial is a divine ordinance or precept; but that they should be tried before or after a Sacrament, and often or seldom, or but once in all their life, is humane and prudential; and no more a necessary Antecedent of receiving than the timing of the Lords Supper is a necessary concomitant of receiving; yet as he who will not come to receive at the time ordered suspends himself from the Sacramant; so he that will not submit to the time appointed for trial is a self suspender. Submission to trial is a duty, the season of this trial is indifferent; and being agreed upon by a common order or consent ought not to be slighted or opposed by any private Christian or Minister. Let the trial be when it will, it must be either before or after the Sacrament. And if the term Antecedent be offensive, we shall only desire the people to submit to a consequent trial. Pag. 121. Mr. Humphrey is pleased to close this section merrily with a Jury of 12. I envy not his mirth, but wish it may do himself and his reader much good. If it hurt not himself more than me, he will have no great cause to repent of it.   

Sect. XI.  
Mr. Humphrey his sixth Argument is drawn from his innocency in admitting all. And 1. Because he doth but his duty therein. Dr. Drake, This is the main thing to be proved. Mr. Humphrey, The precept of dispensing and receiving is general.  
Ans. 1. The 12. were not all the Ministers of that time. Secondly, That all the 12. did receive is not evident. Thirdly, The adjective all is seldom used in Scripture to note absolute universality; and if in the matter of the Sacrament it be so universal, than Mr. Humphrey his limitation of that universal is erroneous. But of this formerly.  
Secondly, Mr. Humphrey I have no power to turn away any. This Mr. D. accounts most true, but makes lamentable use of it.  
Ans. 1. I say not this is most true, but that I take this assertion of Mr. Humphrey for one of the truest passages in all his book. Secondly, He wrongs me in reporting that I do boldly and openly tell the people, that Christ had not so much power to turn away one of his disciples as I and my Elders have over my people. My words are, that Christ as a Minister had no juridical power to turn away Judas or any other. What power he had as God or as Mediator is not imitable. Thirdly, Though haply a Minister have no power of himself to suspend any or turn him away, yet he may have power over his own act; and forbear giving the Sacrament to a visibly unworthy person, and withal may round him in the ear (if occasion serve) and bid him beware lest taking the Sacrament unworthily, he do eat and drink judgement to himself.  
Thirdly, He hopes the best of all, and there admits all without trial.  
Mr. Drake, So did the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, yet could not bear them that were evil, and tried the false Apostles, Rev. 2. 2.  
Mr. H. while the Church hoped well of them, it might bear with them to do them good.  
Ans. 1. How ever the Church might hope well of them &c. till convinced, yet she did not forbear to try them. I may at the same time hope well, and yet out off an holy jealousy fear evil, yea of an whole Church, much more of any particular person, 2 Cor. 11. 2, 3. May private persons pass a judgement of discretion upon things or persons, and may not public persons pass a judgement of decision? May I upon just occasion try all things, and may I not try all persons? 1 Thess. 5. 21. and 1 John. 4. v. 1, 3. Or can either of these judgements pass without trial?  
Object. I, but then admit them till they be tried.  
Ans. 1. That is, pass them for currant before tried. I may pass some pieces for currant (before tried) upon an honest man's word; but if I have the least suspicion of them, he must not be angry if I try his gold; or should he be angry, might not this anger of his be looked upon as a further ground of suspicion? Secondly, What if they will not submit to trial at all? Must I pass them for currant upon their own word? Doth not their opposing of trial make them the more suspicious? My other answers he passeth as answered elsewhere. Ans. Then I hope those answers of mine are vindicated elsewhere. My instance of the Magistrates trying all, though he also hope the best of all, Mr. Humphrey passeth over with a sleight in these words, pag. 124. And for the Magistrate what follows? Ans. It follows strongly; that hoping the best of all is no bar to the trial of any. This Mr. Humphrey did well to slubber over, because too strong an evidence for us and against himself.  
Fourthly Mr. Humphrey pag. 124. I know God can turn even the worst at this ordinance if he please: This Mr. Drake counts true, but questions his will, and requires of me some promise or precedent for it. For promises we have sufficient, Amos 5. 4. and 2 Chron. 15. 2. Math. 7. 7. Let any show me an exception in particular against this Sacrament, or else these particulars stand good.  
Ans. 1. For that promise Amos 5. 4. The thing promised here is life; this life is initial or gradual: That life initall, or the first infusion of saving is grace premised to every ordinance, as it is to the word preached, doth not appear by this place; and were it true, Mr. Humphrey doth ill to allow the suspension or excommunication of any from any ordinance: The Lord forbidden we should deny the means of initial conversion to any without express warrant from Heaven: therefore we pray for all, that ordinance being a means of conversion by way of impetration, be the persons prayed for present or no. Therefore we preach to all, the word being an instrument of conversion, an immortal seed, etc. Acts 17. 30. Rom. 10. v. 14, 17. and 1 Petr. 1. v. 23, 24. But where is the Sacrament so styled? The Sacraments suppose, but do not work conversion. For the other branch of the text, namely the condition or precept of seeking God. That every one is bound to use every ordinance in order to the seeking of God thereby for imitiall conversion is not proved by that place, which only requires the seeking of God in general, but lays no command upon every person to partake of every ordinance, but only to seek God in those ordinances he is capable of: we must here again distinguish between natural and instituted worship; Those ordinances which are parts of natural worship lie upon all, and are beneficial to many in order to conversion, not so those ordinances which are parts of instituted worship. This is evident in hearing, prayer, Sacrifices and Sacraments, the two former being incumbent upon all at years of discretion, not so the two latter. All are bound to seek God in all estates, as well as in all ordinances, but all I hope are not therefore to get into all estates or to partake of all ordinances. Instance, I am bound to seek God in the Ministry, or in a married condition, if I be in either of these estates, but I hope every man is not therefore bound to be a Minister or to marry. In like manner, I am bound to seek God in all ordinances, if or when I do partake of all, but it follows not thence that I am bound to partake of all ordinances, no more than I am bound to marry or to be a Minister; but if I be in either of these estates I am bound to seek God in them. Here that precept or permission of our Saviour is pertinent though with a little variation of his scope. Math. 19 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The like may be said of the other two promises Mr. Humphrey quotes; yea, of all general promises about Ordinances. 1. I must seek God by partaking of all Ordinances that I am capable of. Secondly, My great design must be to seek God in all those Ordinances I do actually partake of: But it follows not thence that I must partake of every Ordinance whither I be capable of it, or no. Yea, Mr. Humphrey his jure excommunicate proves that all Church-members are not capable of all Church-Ordinances. This is (among others) the exception we make to his alleging the general promises; and which Mr. Humphrey must own, or contradict both the truth and himself. His whole side of Rhetoric following (at which I must confess he is good) will not help him where Logic and Divinity fail him. Therefore I let those flourishes pass.  
Fifthly, I endeavour my utmost de jure that all come prepared. Mr. Drake. This self encomium is unseemly, false, proud, dangerous. Mr. Humphrey, Upon this he reviles me two or three pages.  
Ans. 1. How can there here be reviling when I speak. 1. no more than the truth, 2. ground what I say upon his own express terms, he professing he endeavours his utmost de jure (and that in a series of actions, if he have administered the Sacrament often) 3 . since I say no more of him than I may warrantably say of the Godliest man under Heaven, if he dare make such a boast of himself. Let the pious Reader peruse what I say of this matter, page 92. 94. of my Bar, and judge whither it's a piece of reviling, or a necessary, though sharp reproof. I hope, without offence, I may propound one question to Mr. Humphrey, & leave it upon his conscience. Dare he profess, and stand upon it before Christ at the day of Judgement; That he hath endeavoured his utmost de jure that all come prepared: If not, let him acknowledge Dr. Drake, is his friend, not his reviler, in so seasonable and necessary a reproof; Yet further to clear himself, pag. 125. Mr. Humphrey hath these words, To exhort men to examine themselves, and to warn them of the danger of neglecting their duty, is all the Minister can do de jure; which Mr. Drake himself grants, where there is no Presbytery.  
Ans. If by that exhortation and warning he mean only public exhortation and warning (which to me seems more than probable) this is not all a Ministers duty de jure; what ever a private Christian, as such is bound to, that much more a Minister is bound to: but private Christians are bound to exhort, and warn each other, Heb. 3. 13. & 1 Thes. 5. 14. besides the example of the Apostle, who like a good Minister, did not only teach the people publicly, but also from house to house, Acts 20. 20. made conscience to visit his people to see how they did, Acts 15. 36. or in his own necessary absence could not forbear to visit them by a Deputy (besides his frequent writing to them) 1 Thes. 3. v. 1. & 5. surely in all these endeavours the Apostle did no work of supererogation. And if he did thus, upon whom lay the care of all the Churches, 2 Cor. 11. 28. what should not we endeavour, who are burdened only with the especial care of one Congregation? Let me be bold to ask, Mr. Humphrey. Hath he endeavoured to put all his intelligent Church-members upon the Test. (especially in these apostatising times) that he might know their faith? as 1 Thes. 3. 5. hath he visited them, or exhorted & warned each of them personally, hath he offered to assist them in order to self and Christ discovery? Doth he Catechise the ignorant, either in public, or in private, that thereby they might both get, and grow in knowledge, etc. or doth he offer himself to each of them to do for their Souls these, or the like Offices of Pastoural love? If he say, he doth not think himself bound to this, let him take heed he be not mistaken, since such a mistake (especially if avowed) may prove very dangerous, both to himself and to his people. Besides, than his profession might have run in these terms with far less offence. I endeavour what I apprehend to be my uttermost, de jure. that all may come prepared. But to say, I endeavour my utmost de jure, is (in my poor apprehension) to say I endeavour as much as God's command in its rigour requires of me; which expression seems to me very haughty and arrogant, though it fell from the mouth of a Paul, or Timothy. Doth Mr. Humphrey know (or the learnedst Clerk in the world) the utmost bounds of any command de jure, I mean as to the matter required in it, besides the degree and circumstances enjoined? See Psal. 119. 96. And can he endeavour what he doth not know? If he could, that were but blind obedience. I do not charge him to say, He doth his utmost; but for him to say, He endeavours his utmost, and yet in the same particular to confess his Omissions, is as much as to say, He endeavours his utmost, and yet endeavours not his utmost. Is Mr. Humphrey guilty of omitting no endeavour? Or are not endeavours actions as well, though not as much, as complete Acts? He wrongs me in reporting, pag. 125. That I say, that all the Minister can do (where there is no Presbytery) is exhortation and warning. I believe, a Minister unpresbyterated, aught to try his people himself, and where he finds any ignorant, scandalous, or wilful refusers, he may suspend his own act of giving such the Sacrament, though he cannot suspend them juridically. I believe further, That every Minister ought to endeavour much more than he knows, and therefore by consequence much more than he doth actually endeavour. Indeed, pag. 47. of my Bar I say, That I humbly conceive, that where no Presbytery is settled, that Minister may clear his own Soul, if he do particularly persuade and warn an unworthy Church-member. Secondly, That he cannot juridically, either admit, or suspend such a person; and I hope I am not mistaken in holding, That no Minister unpresbyterated can admit, or suspend any person juridically. But I never said, That such a Minister might not suspend his own Act of giving the Sacrament to such a person; which elsewhere I call Pastoral suspension. This I am forced to add, because I perceive Mr. Humphrey is so prone to mistake, both me and himself: and that through God's assistance I might be a poor instrument to discover to him more pride in these expressions then haply he was ware of. If this be malicious reviling, the Lord send me store of such malicious Revilers.  
Sixthly, Mr. Humphrey, pag. 126. I humbly confess all our sins, desiring true repentance, and a pardon for all our Omissions. This Mr. Drake cannot but approve in me, but would have you note here a contradiction. If Mr. Humphrey have done his utmost de jure, what need he desire pardon for his Omissions? Mr. Humphrey, I answer for my failings, de facto in particular, though I should have done in general what de jure I ought to do; which yet I dare not assume to myself without flying to God's mercy.  
Answ. 1. Note here, Mr. Humphrey confesses he fails de facto, both in general and particular. Secondly, This granted, evidenceth that Mr. Humphrey doth not endeavour his utmost de jure, since he fails particularly in that endeavour de facto, to which by virtue of the precept he was bound de jure, the precept binding not only to all complete acts, but also to all possible endeavours. Is it not a contradiction to say, I endeavour my utmost de jure, yet fail in my endeavour de facto? Dares Mr. H. say and stand by it, That he hath endeavoured his utmost de jure, in that very particular wherein (by his own confession) he failed of doing his duty de facto? If he can say so truly, I dare say he is the best man that ever trod upon God's ground, excepting our blessed Saviour, and our first Parents in innocency. I beseech you, Sir, as you love your own Soul, take heed of pleading innocency where conscience cannot but cry guilty: We acknowledge your charge, That when we have done all we can, we are but unprofitable servants; yea, though we had done (which is impossible in statu quo) the uttermost de jure, both as to endeavour & complete Act. But is not he unprofitable also (if not much more) who says he hath endeavoured all, or his uttermost de jure, and yet at the same time falls short of endeavouring that which they perform de facto, who confess they fall short even of endeavouring in any one particular of all their lives, their utmost de jure? Are not righteous endeavours part of righteousness, and doth not the Prophet expressly say, Isai 64. 6. That our righteousness; yea, our righteousnesses; yea, all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and can Mr. Humphrey say he hath endeavoured his utmost de jure in any one particular? If so, than that endeavour is perfect, and so not an unclean rag: and Mr. Humphrey can bring somewhat that is perfectly clean (namely an endeavour that is perfect de jure) out of that which is unclean, an extraction, I believe, too high for any mortal. Sure I am, Job was of another mind, Job 14. 4. and the Apostle, Rom. 7. 21. Doth not sin dwelling in me, oppose and refract my pious endeavours as well as my complete actions? then sin hinders in every thing, (not as to the doing of my endeavour in sincerity, but) evermore as to the doing of my utmost endeavour de jure. I shall close with this friendly Item, That Mr. Humphrey will gain neither comfort nor honour, either with God, or man, in persisting to avow, that he endeavours his utmost de jure in any one particular. He may fancy what he please of me; but, if I know my own heart, it is not malice, but love to his Soul makes me herein so plain with him. To what he adds, pag. 127. by way of vindication, I answer briefly. 1. There is no necessity to admit all. Secondly, There are other ways to do them good by besides receiving. Thirdly, Hope depends upon faith, and faith upon a promise of doing good. St. Paul says, He that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgement to himself, Mr. Humphrey hopes the contrary. Whom shall we believe, St. Paul, or Mr. Humphrey?  
In the close, pag. 128. He reflects upon me as boasting, because I say of the Godly Presbyterians (of which number I hope I am, though most unworthy) That they go beyond him in their care and endeavour to fit all sorts for the Sacrament. And to make this expression the more odious. 1. He brings me in (against the very Letter of my Text) speaking so of myself in the first person singular. Secondly, As saying, that I far exceed him in fitting all sorts for the Sacrament. Whereas 1. I express it in the first person plural. 2. Say that we go beyond him in our actual care and endeavour to fit all sorts. Is there no difference between fitting all sorts and endeavour to fit them? Yet withal I add. 1. That we fall exceeding short in the very point of endeavour de jure. I hope my Preesbyterian brethren will not think I lay vile expressions upon them in so saying, however Mr. Humphrey charge me so for averring, and proving that he hath not endeavoured his utmost de jure to prepare his people, etc.  
Mr. Humphrey, Ibid. Let our consciences bo free, our scruples, etc. healed, and I have done. Ans. I beseech you Sir, what scruple is there in making a profession of your faith before any? What snare of conscience when we press you to nothing that is against conscience? Did we indeed urge you to acknowledge, that Presbyterian Government is of divine right, or 2. That trial before the Presbytery is built upon jus divinum, or else would not admit you; then might you well complain we lay snares for your consciences, etc. We indeed profess our judgement for both in the affirmative; but we bind not any person under trial to be of our judgement herein. Yea, before trial (if he please) let him profess his judgement in the negative; that shall be no bar to our admitting him, provided be not ignorant or scandalous. Nor shall profession of assent with us about the jus divinum of Presbyterian Government and Sacramental trial open the door for any, that upon trial or otherwise are found ignorant or scandalous. We inquire not whither men submit to trial in point of prudence or of conscience: Our great enquiry is, whither they be Evangelically worthy; or have that competency of knowledge and vacancy from scandal which makes them visibly so: and we think it our duty to bid such, and only such, welcome in the name of Christ.   

Sect. XII.  
Mr. Humphrey in his free admission propounds the command as an argument to prove that all must receive. In my Bar I answer, Christ did not command all to receive, and instance in Mark, Luke, Nathaniel, etc. What says Mr. Humphrey to this pag. 124. of his rejonder.  
Mr. Humphrey. Christ did not command all to receive, because Mark, Luke and Nathaniel were not there; Is not this pretty? Ans. I leave prettiness to Mr. Humphrey, which appears (as else where) so in this pretty answer. But I pray, Sir, Had Christ intended (as you pretend) to make this first administration a precedent for universal receiving, had it not been easy for him to have commanded all his Disciples (whithet sincere or hypocritical) either to receive with himself or in their particular meetings and families, as himself, did immediately after the Passe-over? This Christ did not: nay he did not so much as invite those Jews who were in the house to receive with him, who yet were Church-members as well as the Apostles. Hence we conclude; that Christ's commanding his Apostles to receive is no warrant for all Disciples to receive pelmell. He that commanded them before hand to meet him at Galilee, Math. 26. 32. compare Math. 28. 7.10. and 1 Cor. 15. 6. could have commanded them before hand to celebrate this Sacrament immediately after the Passeover, had he pleased.  
Pag. 25. Of his vindication Mr. Humphrey uses an argument for free Admission drawn from the good of coming namely conversion of the unregenerate. In my Bar pag. 98. I deny the Sacrament to be a means of initial conversion. Mr. Humphrey in his Rejoinder pag. 125. returns. This arguing is palbably weak, (besides the matter untrue) Is it not the unregenerate man's duty because it will not convert him? As though it were man's benefit were the ground of duty, and not God's precept.  
Ans. 1. Here M. Humphrey fails a little in his Logic, mistaking an answer for an argument. Mr. Humphrey himself argued affirmatively from man's benefit to his duty, thus, the Sacrament is a means of conversion, ergo, The unregenerate must receive. I deny the minor, which being not proved by Mr. Humphrey the conclusion falls as to that bottom. Who sees not that here I am not the opponent but the respondent, and that it lies upon Mr. Humphrey to prove the Sacrament (as to its receiving, for otherwise we hinde● none from coming) to be a converting ordinance. But because he refers that to an other place, I shall also refer my answer.  
Secondly, Had I argued on the negative, There's no Spiritual benefit in such an act, Ergo its no duty, the argument had been firm enough being founded upon divine grace which hath inseparably united divine glory and man's Spiritual good in every duty; whence it follows strongly, that if no Spiritual good can accrue by such an act to such a person, than that act is not the duty of that person. Understand me here of persons under Spiritual cure; and withal that this Argument reaches not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
For the instance of Judas; It seems I cannot satisfy, Mr. Humpbrey, nor he me; nor is it much material whither Judas did eat or not. Therefore I pass it. But where he adds in the same page, For 1 corinth. 11. It's manifest, after St. Paul had convinced the Corinth's of their unworthiness, yet their coming together he approves, and that not to look on, but to eat. v. 33.  
Ans. 1. That the Apostle reproved their unworthy receiving is evident: that he allowed none to look on but receivets, or any to receive but persons Evangelically worthy is not evident; the verse quoted proves no such matter, but shows that when persons come to eat they must observe order. Is it probable the Apostle should condemn receiving unworthily and yet allow receiving though unworthily? If receiving, though unworthily, be allowable, then let persons jure excommunicate receive, for they can but receive unworthily.  
Pag. 130. Mr. Humphrey charges me with two Schisms. and 1. For saying that an unregenerate man must examine himself and so abstain. Ans. I say no such thing, if examination be taken in the Apostles sense for the whole work of preparation and as oppsed to unworthiness in the next vers. 1 Cor. 12. 28, 29 The end of examination being self discovery and reformation, these two last must needs be included in it. Let an unregenerate man thus examine himself and I am confident he is bound to receive; so far am I from separating between such examination and receiving. Mr. Humphrey. Nay Mr. D. says, he most be present too, but not eat; which is an other Schism in the Actions. Ans. I believe all may be present without sin, 1. Because I find no prohibition to the contrary, Secondly, because they may receive good by presence, which inclimes me to believe presence is a duty here, as at Baptism. Yet herein I dare not be so peremptory as in the other branch, that all must not eat. When Mr. Humphrey can make out an inseparable union between presence and receiving than I shall be ready both to confess and reform the Schism he charges me withal: till than he must excuse me. But whereas Mr. Humphrey charges me with slander as affirming I say, Let a man eat though he do not examine himself. Ans. I do not remember nor can find this passage in this paragraph, yet haply elsewhere I may have expressed as much and believe it's far from slander, yea should be very glad were I mistaken therein. I shall therefore put it to this issue. Either Mr. Humphrey is of the mind the a man must eat though be do not examine himself: or he is of the contrary mind, for between two contradictions there is no middle. If he be of the former mind than I have not slandered him. If he be of the contrary mind than he is of our judgement, That self-examination abstractedly taken is not enough to warrant receiving. To evidence this, let us compare the two propositions. 1. Prop. Let a man eat, though he do not examine himself. 2. Prop. Let not a man eat unless he do examine himself. If the former be not his judgement, than the latter must needs be his judgement, it being contradictory to the former, and so Master Humphrey is of judgement that a man must not eat unless he do examine himself; namely when he either doth not examine himself at all, or upon examination he finds himself Evangelically unworthy; the end of examination being not only, or principally, discovery, but reformation which therefore must needs be included in Apostolic examination. He that tries only in order to discovery had as good not try at all; yea, such trial will aggravate his judgement, and make him more inexcusable as sinning against conviction, James 4. 17. If now I have slandered Mr. Humphrey, as I am sorry for the material slander, though unwittingly done; so I am not a little glad he is more of our judgement in this particular than I formerly took him to be. But be it what it will, he must either clear me of slander, or accuse himself of error. Yet withal, let me be bold to tell Mr. Humphrey, That he, who says, let all receive, must by necessary consequence say, let those Church-members receive, who do not examine themselves, unless he can make it out that all Church-members do make conscience of examining themselves.  
Dr. Drake, The Sacrament must not be attended on as the word (understand it as to actual receiving) in order to conversion but to edification.  
Mr. Humphrey, pag. 131. we must not receive this doctrine without Scripture, which will wholly dispeople this Ordinance.  
Ans. 1. I hope, in due place Mr. Humphrey wants not for Scripture proof.  
Secondly, In the mean time, is not Mr. Humphrey too uncharitable (as to many other so particularly) to his own Congregation in his sad Prophecy? If the Sacrament must be quite dispeopled, unless it be a means of conversion, them belike Mr. Humphrey, hath no communicants, but such as receive in order to initial conversion. If so then there is not one Godly person in all Mr. Humphrey his Parish, or amongst all his receivers: A censure so uncharitable that I dare not pass it for a world: but hope that among his Communicants there are some who partake in order to edification, I mean that are truly Godly, and receive for growth in grace and comfort.  
Mr. Humphrey, 
Pag. 131.  The Sacrament is not instituted to convert Heathen, for the word is not a sealed word unto them.  
Answ. 1. By way of Concession. Truly if it be not instituted to convert any. 1. Neither is it instituted to convert Heathen; Yet secondly, Prayer and preaching two necessary attendants upon the Sacrament are instituted to convert Heathen as well as any. Thirdly, That a means of conversion should universally be denied to any, who need conversion, is a Doctrine we cannot receive without Scripture. Fourthly, That the word is not a sealed word unto Heathen is soon said, but not so easily proved; cannot a privilege be sealed to me 
* Is not this proposition (whosoever believes shall be saved) a branch of the revealed Covenant? Secondly, It is not sealed at the Sacrament? Suppose now an Heathen stand by at the the Lords Supper, Is the forementioned propositioned sealed to him conditionally, or not? If it be, we have enough. If not, than the Sacrament doth not seal, that the aforesaid proposition is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and so the seal is not as extensive as the writing: for the Covenant says, all that believe shall be saved, but the seal, belike, assures only, that all Church members that believe shall be saved.  unless I eat the seals? Indeed only some few are fit to eat and drink the seals; but who may not hear the Covenant proclaimed, and see it sealed at the Sacrament, yea, to himself in particular conditionally, whither he be a Christian, or an Heathen, whither he receive, or not?  
Mr. Humphrey, 
Pag. 132.  Forbearance of the Pass over was allowed to none but for a month.  
Answ. 1. This is great is dictum; what if a person were unclean not only at the first, but also at the second Passe-over, was he bound to receive the second Passe-over, though never so unclean? Indeed, if a man were clean, and brought not the Lords offering he ran a great hazard; but where is he threatened that forbore, because he was unclean at the second Passe-over? Then belike even Lepers ought to eat the Passeover in the second month. Yet secondly, our case is far better, we having eight or twelve Sacraments every year; and he who is unclean at this Sacrament may receive the next month, or six weeks, if the fault be not his own.  
Mr. Humphrey, ib. His exceptions against the parable, Math. 22. are vain things. Those that murdered the servants were part of them that were invited, and not to be opposed; for the contempt of the feast is the main business intended, as appears by Luke 14. where nothing else is mentioned.  
Ans. 1. I make no exception against the Parable, but against Mr. Humphrey his wresting of it.  
Secondly, True, all those who murdered the Servants were invited to the wedding feast, but were they invited to the Sacrament? Then Heathen were invited as well as any. Herod murdered one of the servants, Acts 12. 1.2. Was he invited to the Sacrament?  
Thirdly, If the contempt of the feast be the main business intended, than the higher the contempt the greater the unworthiness; but such was the contempt of those Murderers who therefore were excluded by the command of the Master, Luke 14. 24. My exceptions then were not so vain as Mr. Humphrey makes them.  
To his two questions I answer; to the first, All refusers are unworthy of God's Ordinances, but I hope he will not count all abstainers refusers.  
To the second, 1. No ungenerate person comes to the Sacrament as preparedly as he can, yea too many make little conscience even of natural preparation.  
Secondly, There is no total omission on the Christians part if he prepare for and attend upon the Sacrament, but is denied actual receiving (whither justly or unjustly) by Church-Officers: 
See Mr. H. his rejoinder 131.  or if he forbear at present out of an holy jealousy of self unworthiness, so he resolve through grace on better preparation against the next Sacrament.  
Thirdly, in divers cases better leave the matter undone than to fail in the manner.  
Dr. Drake, pag. 102. In opposition to Mr. Humphrey, It is neither a certain duty on the Ministers part to admit all, nor on the people's part for all to receive, etc.  
Mr. Humphrey, pag. 132. Let Mr. Drake take heed how he is carried through opposition, lest in opposing Mr. Humphrey he directly oppose the command of Christ. He grants pag. 47. That, where there is no Government settled, the Minister by a due forewarning may clear his soul, but how sadly doth he revers this here, and weap himself again in a fatal cloud? for if it be not his duty it must be his sin, there is no medium for his excuse.  
Ans. 1. I pray Sir, next time be more careful in transcribing my words right, and do not wrong first my text and then myself. I bear no Spirit of opposition to your person, but desire to hate error and love truth in you, in myself and in every one else.  
Secondly, It smells strongly of perverseness that he charges me as directly opposing the command of Christ, when at the same time (if it be an opposition) himself takes the same liberty. Christ says drink ye all of it. Mr. Humphrey says all here must be limited to intelligent Church-members and to persons not jure excommunicate; we say it must be limited to Church-members that are Evangelically worthy. Mr. Humphrey in the same breath (as it were) cries up his own limitation and cries down ours. Hath Mr. Humphrey an especial privilege from heaven to limit Christ's universals? If he have, let us see his Commission.  
Thirdly, should I revers what he charges me to say pag. 47. Supposing it erroneous, Mr. Humphrey should rather be glad than sad at such a reversment.  
Fourthly, I see more need of a candid interpretation on Mr. Humphrey his part, than of a reversment on my part. True, I say there, that I humbly conceive that the Minister may clear his own soul (where there is no Church-governement settled) if he persuade or forewarn one that is visibly unworthy not to receive, but hath no juridical power either to admit or keep him back. But did I there say, the Minister had no Pastourall power, or that he had no power to suspend his own Act? If a drunkard, etc. after admonition will rush upon the Sacrament, let him take it at his own peril; I do not think the Minister is bound either on the one hand to drive him from the Table or on the other hand to deliver him the Sacrament. The Minister than doth neither admit nor suspend him juridically; but suspends only his own Act. If a Minister by his Pastourall power (where no Government is settled) may admit all that are visibly worthy, than he may be the same power suspend those who are visibly unworthy; that is, he may deny to give them the Elements. The Logicians tell us that Contrariorum est eadem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that hath power to admit hath so far power to suspend. Here then, by Mr. Humphrey his leave is a medium. It's neither my duty to admit a drunkard, that is to give him the Elements, nor is it my sin to permit him to receive; that is to let him take the Elements himself. Is not permission a medium between admission and suspension. A Minister unpresbyterated can neither admit nor suspend, but may permit. He can neither admit nor suspend juridically, but may do both Pastourally. Worthy Church-members he must both admit and encourage, unworthy ones he may permit to receive, but must discourage from receiving in statu quo. He hath no juridical and coactive power, but hath a Pastourall and dissuasive power.  
Mr. Humphrey, pag. 133. For his distinction of mediately and immediately; he should have forborn the wound and saved his Salve; for there is none that denies but that every man is to examine himself and prepare as well as come.  
Answ. I perceive M. Humphrey is resolved to cut me out work enough; otherwise he would not have inserted such trivial exceptions. Yet, he is so charitable towards me as to think I make conscience of being at the cost of a Salve where I have wounded any.  
But, I pray, where is the wound? My words pag. 102. Of my bar are these, It's neither a certain duty on the Ministers part to admit all, nor on the people's part for all to receive; unless you understand it mediately; as the getting of assurance is a duty lies upon all; yet not immediately, but first they must get true grace the ground of assurance. So all must come to the Sacrament, but first they must be prepared, All must be admitted to receive, but first they must he visibly worthy.  
Will Mr. Humphrey say, it's the Minister's duty to admit all Church-members without limitation, or that it's the duty of all to receive immediately? Do not his own limitations perclaim the contrary? If therefore any wound be given, Mr. Humphrey is as truly guilty thereof as myself; But it seems, by his own coufession, I am more careful to being a Salve to cure it than he is.  
Mr. Humphrey, Ibid. But whereas he holds a man should examine and prepare himself (suppose as well as he can) yet if they judge him not visibly worthy he must not be admitted: And if he judges not himself really worthy, for his own part, he must not eat; he has stretched a line of division over the Church, a plummet of lead on weak consciences, and wiped the Sacrament as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it and turning it up side down in wiping.  
Answ. Some are notable at Cyclopic Divinity, let the Reader judge whither M. Humphrey be not excellent at Cyclopic Rhetoric, which in stead of illustrating doth obscure his sense and make it ambiguous could we not guess at his meaning by his mewing. Grammar and Logic had been here more useful than Rbetoricke. Doth not the word stretch a linse of division over the Church? See Jerem. 15. 19 Doth it not stretch a plummet on weak consciences? but to regulate them, not to crush them. The Sacrameut indeed is the Dish, Christ the meat in that dish; should not the handmaids of wisdom wipe her dishes clean on all sides so far as lies in their power, that is, purge and keep pure this and other Ordinances? If his meaning be, that by Sacramental trial we cause sinful division, wound the consciences of the weak or grieve them, and make the Sacrament a nullity; this, first is false: Secondly a new dressing of what is elsewhere answered. I pray Sir, be not offended, that we dare not make the Table of the Lord contemptible, that we dare bring no bread to the Lords Table but such, as, upon grounds of charity, we apprehend to be Shewbread, Malach 1. v. 7. and 12.  
I wonder therefore Mr. Humphrey so forgets himself, pag. 133. as to charge me bitterly with censoriousness, but for noting his censoriousness. To which I briefly answer:  
1. What need I quote Chapter and verse in a place so well known, and quoted by himself?  
Secondly, That I charge him with censuring us in a Rhetorical way, did I not therein say the very truth, unless Interrogation be no part of Rhetoric? Doth not M. Humphrey turn the Apostles assertion into an Interrogation, and is that no part of Rhetoric?  
Thirdly, Did I frame any interpretation, but what his words must of necessity carry, unless he will have them speak non sense? He finds fault with us for doing evil that good may come; what is that evil, but want of free Admission, the very same with Suspension in a negative sense? That this is the evil Mr. Humphrey charges us withal is evident, both by the context, and by the whole scope of his book. Let the Reader now judge whither I frame an interpretation, or speak Mr. Humphrey his genuine sense. That Suspension is not a sin, but a duty hath been elsewhere proved; nor are we ashamed, Sir, that you charge us with Suspension as our Act and practice, but think you do us wrong by charging us with this practice as a sin. The Act we confess concerns us, but the guilt must rest upon him, who charges guilt wrongfully. Is not he censorious, who charges me with a sin I am not guilty of? Yet that nothing may be wanting in point of censoriousness, Mr. Humphrey, pag. 134. charges me with spite for forgiving him and praying for him. Lord, how doth passion, and prejudice blind a man to interpret the preatest acts of charity a plece of spite and malice?  
Sir, I find not fault with the terms of giving, or humbly committing your reasons; but that you mistake weight for number, and think you give them by weight, when you give or humbly commit them only by number. For a farewell, Mr. Humphrey, 1. Tells me, I rail at his Arguments, Secondly, Takes his leave with a scoff. Thirdly, To sharpen his Sarcasme abuses Scripture, and so concludes the first part of his rejoinder, whither with that piety and charity becomes a Brother and a Minister, I leave it to indifferent judgements.    

THE BAR TO FREE ADMISSION, FIXED. OR An Answer to Mr. Humphrey his rejoinder.  
The Second PART.  

Sect. I.  
IN the beginning of his second Part, though Mr. H. hesitate about the account of our practice in the matter of Excommunication, yet since he is so charitable as to acknowledge it may be fair, I cannot but look at it as a good beginning in order to a right understanding, and hopes of an happy close. I shall therefore proceed to that wherein we more palpably differ.  
Dr. D. p. 107. of his Bar. In his description of Church-censures Mr. H. omits their main end, which is, the amendment of the party censured.  
Mr. H. p. 146. of his rejoinder. I express it just over the leaf as soon as it is to purpose. Ans. In dispute, and only by the way, I note your description of Church-censures as defective. Logicians tell us that Finis is a necessary ingredient in our description of an action, the end being essential to the moral goodness of actions. This end, Sir, you omit in your description of Church-censures, which your mentioning in the next leaf will not salve. Therefore, by your leave, I was neither blind nor cruel in censuring, unless the Respondents discovery of the faylures of his Opponent against the rules of Logic be malice and blindness; and if so, than a Disputant, because he acts rationally in order to the conviction of his Adversary, is blind and malicious. 
In this I allude only to his own story.  Such Logic is fit for St. Alban executioner, than for a Scholar or a Divine.  
Next, he blames me for extending Church-censures to ignorant persons, or to any other wilful sinners; Yet in the same place grants some Church-censures belong to such, but not suspension or excommunication. Ans. Sir, I extend not Church-censures to ignorant persons simply, but to persons wilfully ignorant: And till Mr. H. can prove such ignorance and wilfulness is not a great and scandalous sin, he doth ill to censure me for saying they deserve a Church-censure, yea some degrees of excommunication if persisted in. If this doctrine would soon leave him destitute of Church-members, as himself confesses, p. 147. Surely his Church is in a very lamentable condition, whose members are (it seems) not only grossly ignorant, but also wilfully ignorant. I do not charge them to be so, but only show them what a slur their own Ministers argument casts upon them.  
Mr. H. ib. Dr. D. challenges all the world to show him proof that persons excommunicated may not be present at any public Ordinance, etc. If he think so learnedly of himself, let him send his challenge to Dr. Hammond, etc.  
Ans. I know far better than Mr. H. or any other, that I have great reason to think very meanly of myself, nor will I stand to justify the manner of expression, which yet had its mitigation or allay, would Mr. H. have pleased to take notice thereof, my challenge being only in order to Scripture-proof. by which I still believe it cannot be made out, that an excommunicated person ought to be kept from all public Ordinances; yea, the Scripture seems to favour the contrary. I dare not compare with that learned Clerk he mentions, or with any other that bears the name of a Scholar or Divine, nor desire to expatiate in controversies, which I look at as the shell, not the kernel of Divinity: Nor was I, or am I acted with malice in coping with Mr. H. in this unhappy controversy which himself (among others whom I honour in the Lord) started against the votes and judgement of a Parliament, assisted by an Assembly of very pious, orthodox, and learned Divines, to the general sadning of eminently godly persons in the Nations, who looked at the Presbyterian Government, and the exercise of it in this particular, for the substance thereof, as most consonant to the rule, as the fruit of many prayers that have long hung upon the file in heaven; and as the great Instrument under Christ to extirpate Ignorance, Error, Profaneness, Schism, etc. and therefore opposed by some maliciously, by others through weakness and prejudice, in which last rank I place Mr. H. however he look at me as malicious. If the Lord shall bless my poor endeavours to convince him, I shall think it abundantly worth my pains, though it be to me a troublesome work in the midst of other weighty avocations. However, I shall submit the issue to God, and sit down in peace, that I have sincerely, though weakly endeavoured to do my duty; and hope some body will be the better by this poor piece, though it must expect to meet with much contempt and opposition.  
Mr. H.p. 147. I shall propose him only that one Text, Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs: Excommunicated persons are generally interpreted to be dogs and swine; the word and prayer are holy things as well as the Sacrament (which yet was not instituted when this precept was first given, and so cannot he primarily intended here) Ergo.  
Ans. 1. All excommunicated persons are not dogs. Even godly men upon just ground may be excommunicated; and I hope children are not dogs.  
2 All dogs are not to be denied holy things. Heathen are dogs, Matth. 15. v. 22. 26, 27. yet may be admitted to the word preached, 1 Cor. 14. 24.  
3 Some persons within the Church are dogs, yet must not be denied the Sacrament, if upon trial it appear they have competent knowledge, and no scandal be objected or proved against them; the Church in censures being bound to proceed, Secundum allegata & probata.  
4 Therefore we must distinguish of dogs: Some are dogs really, but not visibly; such are natural persons undiscovered, (these with due provisions) can be denied no Ordinance. Others are dogs both really and visibly; Such are Heathen, who must not be denied the Crumbs, though they may not sit with Children at the Table. Others are scornful, and malicious dogs, and therefore are in an especial manner unworthy of any Ordinance, and so far as they are visible must be denied  
1 The pearl of private reproof more particularly there intended by our Saviour, who forbids private judging of any, and private reproof of some, unless it be for others sake.  
2 They must be denied that holy thing the Sacrament, which (as the Cabinet of that pearl of price) they slight visibly. But as for public prayers and preaching (unless they be public Affronters and disturbers of the very exercises of these Ordinances, which are means of their conversion, and which do not so much irritate their spleen, as being not particularly and personally applied against them) I see no warrant of Scripture to thrust any dog from them, unless it be known he have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. In this sense Mr. Perkins his Comment upon Matth. 7. 6. I cordially subscribe to, That such dogs as do publicly blaspheme and vent their heresies against the truth, at the very time when it is delivered, are to be forced away from the public Ordinances, or separated from, if the Church want co-active power (Act. 13. v. 45, 46, 50, 51. where you have both the barking, and the tearing dog) as well as they must be denied private reproof (at least for their own sakes) where they scoff at, and oppose it privately. This rule our Saviour seems to explain Matth. 18. v. 15-17. where the remedy rises up gradually with the malady, and neglecting to hear is a degree of Swinish-trampling. But little doth Mr. H. think how he hath prejudiced his own cause by this quotation of Reverend Mr. Perkins, pag. 148. especially where in a Parenthesis, he bids the Reader (Mark that) Mr. Perkins his words quoted there by Mr. H. are these:  
Indeed, if the party be excommunicated for some particular crime, etc. then although he be excluded from communion in the Sacrament and Prayer (Mark that) yet may he be admitted to hear the word to help him to repent, which is the end of all Church-censures.  
Is not Mr. Perkins here clear that some persons excommunicated, yet may be admitted to the word preached, and that in order to their conversion? And what is our suspension in the rigour of it, but an excommunication from the Sacrament, with an admission at the same time to the word preached? Mr. Perkins then is a professed friend to suspension, which is also beholding to Mr. H. for affording it so honourable a testimony. You will say, I but Mr. Perkins excludes such from prayer also. Ans. True, and probably because he looked not at prayer as a converting Ordinance, which had he done, it's not likely he would have been against presence either at Word, Prayer, or Sacrament, by which all that are curable, may receive good, although they do not actually receive the elements.  
5 If the Sacrament be not primarily intended here, because this precept was given before the Lord's Supper was instituted; no more was it primarily intended in the wedding feast, Matth. 22. upon the same account; which yet Mr. H. builds upon as a bottom for free admission. It's enough for our purpose, First, That the Sacrament is an holy thing.  
Secondly, That by Mr. H. his own grant, it's to be denied to some dogs, to whom other holy things are not to be denied, namely, heathen, and persons jure excommunicated, to which last at least he yields it may be denied.  
Thirdly, That upon Scripture-ground it is to be denied to some dogs within the Church, yea to real children. But neither must holy things, nor dogs be understood universally, which both the manner of expression, and our Saviour's reason hint sufficiently, where a pearl is, First, cast away; Secondly, exposed to contempt; Thirdly, exposes the giver to danger, there it's not to be tendered caeteris paribus. An indefinite Proposition is not equivalent to an universal, unless in materiâ necessariâ. He that says absolutely, No holy thing must be given to any dog, doth not only sin against faith, as corrupting the Text, but also against charity, as cutting off innumerable persons from all means of conversion.  
His distinction p. 148. of real & relative exclusion is pithy, pertinent, and well expressed, and may do very much to compound our controversy, if passion and prejudice were on both hands laid aside. We grant;  
First, That an heathen, or excommunicated person, hath no relative interest in any public Ordinance, the former being no Church-member, the latter being cut off from Church-membership.  
Secondly, That all Church-members have both a real and relative interest in all Ordinances in actu primo, or signato, but not in actu secundo or exercito, as a Jew, or a Priest, had right to holy things, but might not at all times act that right, namely, if he were unclean, etc. And if their uncleanness were perpetual, they might for ever be secluded from holy things, as in the case of leprosy, etc. 2 Chr. 26. 21. Proportionably suspension is no bar either to real or relative interest, but only withholds the actual enjoyment of that interest till the party interested be actually fit for that enjoyment (at least visibly) which otherwise would prejudice, but not benefit him. The point of difference between us, and Mr. H. is not real or relative interest, but actual enjoyment of that interest, and that only too as to actual receiving in the Sacrament.  
Mr. H. pag. 149. I hold a man is to be debarred actual receiving by excommunication. Mr. Drake will have him to be debarred without it.  
Ans. I pray Sir, forget not yourself, Do not you hold persons jure excommunicated, may be debarred actual receiving? Consult page 21. of your rejoinder. I hope persons jure excommunicated are not actually excommunicated; therefore Mr. H. will have some intelligent Church-members debarred actual receiving, before actual excommunication, and what is this but suspension? May Mr. H. distinguish between excommunication ipso jure & de facto, and may not I distinguish between receiving ipso jure, & de facto. Grant all Church-members as such, may be receivers ipso jure so they be not receivers de facto, we shall soon put an issue to this controversy with Mr. H. Is there not an admission de jure & de facto, as well as an excommunication de jure & de facto? A person excommunicated de jure, but not the facto, is as truly a Church-member as a person admitted de jure, but not the facto; and if the former may be suspended, notwithstanding his Church-membership, I pray why not the latter?  
By this collation it further appears, That Church-membership even in intelligent persons, is not the adequate reason of actual receiving. A person ipso jure excommunicate, is still externally in Covenant (in Mr. H. his sense) as being a Church-member, and yet may be debarred the external seal thereof; witness Mr. H. pag. 21, 22. of his rejoinder; when Mr. H. can untie this Riddle of his own making, he will teach us to untie the Riddle he puts upon us page 150. where likewise he says, but proves not, That excluding men from the Sacrament doth not bind or retain their sins. This is false, if applied to Juridical suspension, or Pastoral suspension, in some cases.  
Somewhat he would bring there like an argument from a misunderstanding of Matth. 1619 as if there were no censure of the Keys without exclusion from the Church; forgetting in the mean time, his own distinction between the Church and the Chancel. Hath the house of God but one room, one door? or cannot a man be shut out of the Chancel, but he must needs be thereby shut out of the Church? Cannot a Father shut his child out of the Parlour, but he must needs shut him quite out of doors? True, some persons censured must be to thee as heathen, Matth. 18. 17. but must all persons censured be so? Surely the Apostle is more charitable, 2 Thess 3. v. 14 15.  
Page 151. Mr. H. says, That the second degree of excommunication among the Jews called Cherem, may put Mr. Drake to shame, that so blindly asserts the parallel, p. 21. and yet every where denies the matter.  
Ans. Good words, I pray Sir; page 21. and 22. of my Bar, I prove the Antiquity of suspension from the practice of the Jews, and of the ancient Greek Church; as also that with them it was a degree of excommunication, as juridical suspension is with us. I neither assert, nor justify their practice universally, much less their excluding of persons excommunicated from all public Ordinances. Cannot I quote their practice in favour of suspension, but I must needs justify what ever was in use among them in point of excommunication? Such blind imputations, I am sure should shame Mr. H. who it seems cannot distinguish between the improving of an instance or practice, and the owning of all the aberrations that attend upon that practice.  
Mr. H. ib. It's a very fond conceit of Mr. D. to make two degrees of excommunication beneath dismembership, that is, two degrees of putting men out of the Church before they be put out of the Church.  
Ans. 1. Mr. H. should do well to tell the Ancient Church of the Jews, and of the Greeks, etc. that their conceit is fond in making two or three degrees of excommunication before dismembership. It was their conceit before it was mine, nor am I of their conceit in every particular about excommunication, or its degrees, though I will not say their conceit was fond: I leave that work to Mr. H.  
Secondly, What is excommunication (in the very notion of it) but a turning or keeping out of communion: And because turning out of communion is gradual, therefore excommunication must needs be gradual. He that is turned out of any part of communion, is as truly, though not as much, turned out of communion, as he that is turned out of all communion: Sacramental communion is part of communion, from which he that is turned away, is truly turned out of communion as to that particular, and therefore is truly excommunicated, though not dismembered. What ever therefore himself, or others may think of those Texts, 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 2 Thess. 3. 14. is not the Question, but what those Texts do really hold forth, which because they have been formerly handled, I here forbear.  
Dr. D. p. 107. I grant that by excommunication, they are made as Heathen and Publicans, and are in statu quo, no members. Mr. H. page 153. Now how strange is this, That while he cannot deny the excommunicate are dismembered, he should keep such ado to set up a censure which is no dismembership, and make it a degree too of excommunication, which he confesses it is not?  
Ans. Here Mr. H. discovers either gross ignorance, or want of ingenuity. I cannot think him so grossly ignorant of my meaning, as here he seems to be. He cannot but know, that in the former place (which he only carps at) by excommunication, I mean the last degree of excommunication which reaches unto dismembering, not so the two former degrees, which yet are truly called Excommunication, though not in the more famous and rigorous sense. Sir, I deny the excommunicated are dismembered, if excommunication be taken for the lower degrees of that censure; I grant they are dismembered, if excommunication be took for the highest degree thereof. I hope here is no inconsistency or contradiction.  
Mr. H. ib. 
And p. 154.  Excommunication refers directly to Church membership, and consequentially only to the Ordinances; so that a man must be put out of the Church, or else he cannot legally be put from the Communion. Even as the Leper was not kept from the Camp, that he might be kept from public worship, but was kept from communion in worship, because he was kept from the Camp.  
Ans. This is gratis dictum, two degrees of excommunication, at least referring directly to some Ordinance, namely the Lords Supper; from which the party suspended is separated really; the party dismembered is separated both really and relatively. His illustration is as weak as his conclusion, the Leper being kept from the Camp (though not solely, yet) principally that he might be kept from some parts of worship. Take Vzziah for instance, 2 Chron. 26. 21. his leprosy cum: him off not only from Civil, but also from Sacred employments. This is further evident by the practice of Moses, who pitched a Tabernacle without the Camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the Congregation, Exod 33. 7. Doth Mr. H. think a Leper without the Camp might come to that Tabernacle to seek the Lord, as other Israelites that were clean did and might? If his presence would defile the Camp, Num. 5. 3. would it not much more defile the Tabernacle; or was not God's presence more eminently in the Tabernacle than in the Camp? He was therefore kept from the Camp, that he might be kept from communion in some part of worship; not simply from communion in worship, because he was kept from the Camp; for than he might have been admitted to worship in the Tabernacle when it was without the Camp, which is evidently false.  
What Mr. H. notes page 154. of the practice of gathered Churches, it hath been spoke too formerly. For his exception against my reason, à majori, illustrated by the similitude of a Judge: He answers himself, page 155. in these words, I think when a man is relatively deprived fellowship in general, the Church may use mitigation or severity to a real permission of him to some Ordinances (and so perhaps for civil converse) according to prudence, for his edification or destruction. What speak these words, but that the Church may admit an excommunicated person to some Ordinances, who yet by God's command is debarred all Ordinances, if Mr. H. define excommunication rightly? Is not this to set the Church above Scripture, and to allow her power of mitigation where God commands severity? Besides if the Church may use mitigation after dismembering, why not also before it? If she may admit a dismembered person to some Ordinances, why may she not suspend an undismembred person from some Ordinances; yea what in effect is her greater excommunication mitigated, but suspension? To keep to his own terms, That Magistrate who may according to Law inflict a greater punishment, may according to Law inflict the lesser punishment. Proportionably, if the Church may dismember a person, she may suspend him, but both according to Christ's Law, which is the Gospel. That the Church doth it according to Law hath been formerly proved, which therefore I shall not repeat.  
But, I pray Sir, may a Judge mitigate a severe sentence when passed, and might he not before have pronounced a milder sentence? May a Judge after sentence of Confiscation and Death pronounced, mitigate the execution only to confiscation, and might not the same Judge beforehand have passed a milder sentence of confiscation only? In like manner, may the Church after sentence of dismembering admit the person dismembered to some Ordinances, and may not she susspend the same person from some Ordinance without dismembering him? Will Mr. H. mitigate after the sentence of dismembering, and may not we mitigate before the sentence of dismembering? May he break a poor man's head, and then give him a plaster, and may not we prevent both the fraction and plaster by a little scratch? (such is suspension to dismembering, especially as managed by us) If therefore suspension be an offence or injury, it's an error on the right hand by too much mildness. I pray Sir, forgive us this wrong. I am glad the Presbyterians, who were looked at as a company of rigid fellows, are now at last found guilty (as it seems) of too much lenity and moderation.  
Mr. H. p. 155. Suspension is null without dismembership; insomuch that if a Jew were under Niddui (which was their lowest degree) if unabsolved, his children might not be circumcised: And why not, but that they reckoned him no Church member?  
Ans. 1. The assertion is gratis dictum: and, 1. If we look at negative Suspension, that is not null without dismembering, instance in unintelligent Church-members. 2. Nor is positive Suspension null without dismembering; instance in persons jure excommunicate, who (he grants) may be suspended, yet its evident they are not dismembered.  
2. His confirmation drawn from the practice of the Jews is weak, it being not probable that he who might teach ordinarily in the Church, was dismembered from the Church. 3. In denying Circumcision to the Males of a person under Niddui, the Jews were wife above that which was written, supposing the father had been dismembered by that degree of Excommunication, and that because the child might have been circumcised in the right of his mother or grandfather, etc. To me, it seems probable, the Jews might deny Circumcision in the aforesaid case, out of prudence, the more effectually by that means to humble and bring in the Patent: But I see no Scripture warrant for it, and therefore may here use the words of our Saviour, From the beginning it was not so, Mat. 19 8. This may be a sufficient Therefore for Mr. H. his Wherefore.  
Fain would Mr. H. run away with a mistake, That Excommunication by the Scripture is referred still to Church-membership, and not to the Sacrament. But I must crave pardon for my not running along with him in that opinion. Excommunication is directly opposite (not simply to Church-membership, but) to Communication or Communion, a term given especially to the Sacrament. Which Communion, because it is gradual, therefore its opposite Excommunication must needs be gradual also. Cannot a member be deprived communion, unless it be cut off? I had thought a Ligature as well as Excision, might have deprived my finger of communion with my body, and might prove far better physic than Excision or Mutilation. If the Ligature of suspension will cure, its cruelty (in my poor judgement) to cut off a Member. A Brother in Scripture phrase is a Church-member, though under a Church-censure; compare 1 Cor. 5. 11. with 2 Thess. 3. 14, 15. If so, than all Church-censures rise not up to dismembering. This I note the rather, because page 152. Mr. H. confesses, that divers of the learned apply the forequoted Texts to Excommunication. What is our suspension, but denying a Church-member some part of communion?  
Mr. H. p. 156. God forbidden but we should put a distinction between sins that stand not with sincerity, and that stand not with public profession. I do not think the detection of a man living in any known sin that contradicts the one, aught to excommunicate him: but the open conviction of such sins which are notoriously scandalous, and obstinate, bringing discredit on the Church, and contradicting the other.  
Answ. 1. By concession; a difference must be put between sins that stand not with sincerity, and that stand not with profession caeteris par●bus. This we do by suspension and dismembering: But Mr. H. will have no Church-censure applied to them who live in known sins that contradict only sincerity; whence it follows, that by his doctrine, known hypocrites must enjoy all Church-priviledges, as well as persons of known integrity.  
2. Note here, Mr. H. grants the Church may know a man's heart, and particularly that he is an hypocrite, which yet flowing from my pen, was by him declaimed against, as a prying into God's secrets; though we profess to know the heart only as Mr. H. doth, namely, by the fruits, when a man is known to live in fins that contradict sincerity.  
3. To me it is a paradox, how the open conviction of living in any known sin, should not be notoriously scandalous, bring discredit on the Church, and contradict public profession especially if continued in obstinately; which I wish were not the case of too many Church-members. The Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 5. 11. That a Church-member who is covetous, a railer, or extortioner, is to be censured as well as he that is a fornicator, an idolater, or a drunkard. Doth it not discredit the Church, that any Church-member, convinced of gross ignorance, and continuing therein obstinately after the use of means, should still be embraced and honoured as a Church-member? He that will make a profession of he knows not what, doth he not by that act contradict his very profession, before all to whom his ignorance is known? should any profess learning, and be known at the same time to be grossly ignorant of the very Alphabet, were not such profession ridiculous, and a contradiction of itself, especially if continued in wilfully after sundry means used to put him upon and promote him in learning?  
Mr. H. ib. As for the Antiquaerist he quotes here of his side so magnificently, and so often, Mr. Prin tells us, it is himself. Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth, etc.  
Answ. These words, as they are impertinent, so they discover too palpably a spirit of Cavilling, Page 105. of my Bar, I have this passage, Eating, 1 Cor. 5. 11. is extended to Sacramental, as well as domestical eating, as is cleared by the Antiquaerist in his answer to Suspension suspended; to which therefore I refer. Now, I pray, Sir, what do these words import of quoting the Antiquaerist magnificently?  
2 How doth it appear the Antiquaerist is myself? I grant Mr. Prins testimony is valuable, where he speaks upon his own knowledge; but may not Mr. Prin be misinformed? And if 1. There be no vaunting expressions. And 2. The Antequaerist be not Dr. Drake, is not Mr. H. guilty of a double flander? Nor do I think it expedient to inform him in this particular, who is so apt to make a bad use of his information.  
From the same spirit flows that Aspersion, p. 156. There are many precious Christians herein made weak, which yet are not to be slighted with Mr. Drake, but tenderly to be satisfied.  
Doth not Mr. H. here reflect upon me; as if I slighted many precious Christians, and were not tender about their satisfaction? yet forgetting himself, in the very same page he quotes those expressions of mine, which show I was far from slighting them. Thus out of the Eater comes meat, and the slander carries its own confutation in its mouth; yea, himself assents to two of my conclusions about that particular: To the first absolutely. To the second conditionally: about which, to cut off ambiguity and dispute, I pray Sir, take notice, That in that place, under presence I include receiving, though I did not express it. But how the Assertion is superstitions, as expressed in my own terms, I may haply understand hereafter, if Mr. H. will please to inform me; by which information, I trust he shall soon bring me to reformation. I would not that my heart, hand or tongue should wittingly be abettors of Superstition.  
Mr. H. p. 157. The third is much amiss, and equivocal. They partake of those sins they should have reproved, and do not, but not of any sin in their receiving, any more than in their hearing and praying. Such words as these are subject to do hurt, as if it were our duty simply to keep one another from God's service, and that this were the only eminent piece of piety; when it's certainly our duty to excite, call, provoke them to, as counsel, fit and prepare them for the attending all Ordinances.  
Answ. The conclusion Mr. H. lays load upon is this, They partake in their sins, who do not their duty to reform them, or keep them from the Sacrament otherwise. Here 1. He doth me wrong in leaving out those expressions which render my sense clear and fair. My words are these, pag. 109, of my Bar, 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 reform. As Mr. H. quotes my words, I grant there is much ambiguity; to instance in one, and a gross one. The Reader may apprehend, that I am of opinion, that if the Church keep unworthy persons from the Sacrament, she is not bound to do her endeavours to reform them. A conceit far from my thoughts and expressions, if entirely and candidly represented. Mr. H. makes my sense worse, as if I were of the mind, that its our duty simply to keep one another from God's service: yea, that this is the only eminent piece of piety. A flander so gross and absurd, that the very naming of it is sufficient confutation.  
2. Those words of Mr. H. (They partake not of any sin in their receiving, more than in their hearing and praying) are erroneous. For clearing whereof note, we may sin two ways about our duty: 1. In the matter. 2. In the manner: Proportionably two ways I may partake of other men's sins: 1. If I do not instruct and warn them about their duty, both for matter and manner, where I am called so to do. 2. If I admit them to do that which instatu quo they are bound to forbear, and I am bound in my place to endeavour to keep them from. To apply this, I sin not in the matter by admitting any to prayer or hearing, provided they be not disturbers, etc. but I sin in the very matter, by admitting some to receiving, who ought not to be admitted; else how can persons jure excommunicate, be denied the Sacrament? we preach to, and pray for, and with, the vilest malefactors that are ready to be sacrificed to Justice, but dare not admit them to the Lords-supper, till they testify their repentance. It's evident then, I partake more of sin in admitting some to the Sacrament, than in admitting them to prayer or hearing. In the former I may be guilty, both in matter and manner, not so in the latter, but only in the manner. We acknowledge it our duty, and profess it our practice, to excite, call and provoke all intelligent Church-members to receive; and to counsel, fit, and prepare them for the Sacrament: but too many care not to come, and divers who affect to come, are extremely unwilling to be counselled, fitted and prepared by us as they ought. Hinc, hinc, illae Lachrymae. We wish all Professors were worthy Receivers, we charge all to make conscience to fit themselves, we offer ourselves to help to fit them, and cordially admit those who are visibly fit, waiting upon others, till God give them real and visible fitness, but till visibly fit, we dare not admit them.  
Page 157. Mr. H. thinks I wrong him, by charging him with self-contradiction. Let the Reader compare my Bar, page 109. with Mr. H. his vindication, page 32. and then judge. I but he spoke those words only secundum quid, not simpliciter.  
Ans. His peremptory delivery of them both negatively and affirmatively, insinuates strongly that he spoke them simpliciter.  
Mr. H. ib. But how do any of these ends concern them, as to their own act of receiving?  
Ans. By them he means either the parties censured, or the Congregation. I think Church-censures, and particularly suspension, do much concern them both: the party censured, to bring him to repentance; the best of the Congregation in order to their satisfaction, who are much offended by the admission of persons visibly unworthy; and the whole Congregation, who by the suspension of any are warned to take heed of his sins, left they be suspended as well as he: as also to prevent that guilt which would defile them, should they consent to his admission, whom they know to be unworthy. Such consenters are they, who after due admonition in private, do not give notice to the Church of a person they know to be unworthy; as also those Church Officers, who admit him in the like case. As Church-members, we are bound in the use of all lawful means to prevent one the others sins; Receiving is a sin in persons visibly unworthy; therefore Church-members, as such, are bound to prevent it. Some acts are essentially sinful, which never can be done by any; some are accidentally sinful, by the manner of doing; some are relatively sinful, when done by a person uncapable, as when a private person takes upon him the office of a Judge: Here judging is not essentially evil, for than none might judge; nor upon the supposition is it accidentally evil, as to the manner of judging, for the private person may pass a right judgement: but it's relatively evil, because a private person takes upon him the work of a public person; and such judging we truly say is evil in fieri, though it be not essentially evil. In like manner, a person receiving, who ought not to receive; sins in the fieri, as to the act of receiving, though the act of receiving be not a sin essentially, but only relatively. I hope all persons must not practise all affirmative precepts: to judge and preach are duties, must all men therefore judge and preach? Are not the very acts of judging and preaching sins in some persons? They are not so essentially, but relatively when men who are not called undertake these works.  
Mr. H. p. 158. It is indeed the great fallacy here that misleads many, when they plead our duty of watching over others, etc. they wind it all in still in order to the Sacrament, as if they were to be done merely in reference unto it, when as they are each of them distinct duties, and the neglect of, or doing one, is no ground or hindrance of the other.  
Ans. The particulars Mr. H. mentions are,  
First, Watching over others.  
Secondly, Not partaking in their sins.  
Thirdly, Getting the scandalous to be censured.  
Here first, by way of concession we wind them all in, in order to the Sacrament, but not merely in reference to it; That is Mr. H. his fallacy wherewith he would fain deceive the Reader. Whereas we make use of all three in order to private communion, and in order to dismembering, as well as in order to suspension.  
Secondly, True, They are each of them distinct duties; but its false, That the neglect of, or doing the one, is no ground or hindrance of the other. For first, Omission of the one (whether it be by neglect, or otherwise) is a ground for the omission of the other.  
I must not reprove my neighbour, unless I first watch over him, it being a sin to reprove blindly, which he must needs be guilty of, that observes not;  
First, The sin.  
Secondly, The person committing that sin. He that watches not, is it any wonder if he mistake either the fact, or person, or both?  
Secondly, It's false, That doing the one is no ground of doing the other; for I must watch over others, that I may reprove and admonish (as well as encourage) them, lest I partake of their sins: And I must take heed I partake not of their sins upon this account among others, that I may be the fit to reprove and admonish them, and more effectually instrumental to get the scandalous censured; since fellow delinquents will never be forward to call each other to account. Is it not more probable the entire part of the Church will call the corrupt part thereof to account, rather than the corrupt part will call itself to an account? we grant the three forementioned duties are distinct, but are they not therefore copulative? Distinction I hope is no enemy to union, whether in a way of co-ordination or of subordination. By all it appears, there is a subordination of duties, as well as of sins: And as some sins cannot be committeed without other previous sins; so some duties cannot be performed without other foregoing duties, of which nature is the act of receiving, in order whereunto self-examination is ever necessary; and Church-examination also where it may regularly be had; or at least in its room Pastoral-examination.  
Page 158, 159. Mr. H. falls ironically upon me, as if I took a great deal of pains seemingly to confute him, when I only speak his part for him. The bitter scoffs wherewith he here closes this first Section, instead of returning an answer, discover both the weakness of his cause in that particular, and the impotency of his passion. But to the matter itself. Mr. H. in his second part undertakes to answer several objections against free Admission to the Sacrament. The first Objection you have p. 30. of his Vindication. The Objection is this,  
This Doctrine will take away the use of the Keys, and excommunicate excommunication, etc.  
Page 31. Mr. H. tells us, This Objection is grounded upon three false surmises, and particularly page 31. he says, This Objection surmises a most near and essential relation between excommunication, and the communion, as if it were a part of it, etc.  
In answer hereunto, page 110. of my Bar, I say and prove, That this objection infers or surmises no such mad consequence, as Mr. H. is pleased to fasten upon it. It lay now upon Mr. H. to prove that the objection doth surmise such a mad inference, else his own surmise must needs be false, and absurd. But of this not one word, only being convinced his own surmise was irrational and could not be made good, he smothers the truth, flouts me, and flams the Reader, instead of giving an answer, or confessing his mistake. We both agree the thing surmised is very absurd; yea so absurd as Mr. H. is ashamed to own his own Brat, of which he alone is the Father, but the objection is not the Mother; and thus he is doubly guilty of slandering, 1. The Objection. 2. His Antagonist.   

SECT. II.  
IN vindicating the second Objection Mr. H. gins p. 159 by way of denial and distinction, in these words. It is not visible real worthiness up on trial, but visible relative worthiness, or external Covenant-relation gives a man a right to, and is the ground of Admission.  
Ans. Mr. Collins, p. 90. of his vindication answers him. Visible relativ worthiness (according to Mr. H.) is men's being within the external Covenant, baptised, and in the Church, and this gives them a right, etc. I always thought this had been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Whether all baptised persons may be admitted to the Lords Table though ignorant and scandalous, if not cast out of the Church; or whether if such, they ought to be suspended?  
We say, They ought to be suspended; and argue from, their real unworthiness and incapacity visibly appearing, to our duty in denying the Sacrament to them. What says Mr. H. to this? says he, They are not unworthy relatively, though they be visibly unworthy really. Strange language say we, what spells it? says he, they are baptised, and not excommunicated. If this be not petere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I know not what is; for we brought our argument to prove, That a visibility of real unworthiness made a relative unworthiness: So that Mr. H. says, this in short, They are not unworthy, because they are not unworthy. Thus far M. Collins. Nor is it material whether worthiness and unworthiness be visible upon trial, or otherwise upon which account, haply Mr. Collins took no notice of that expression. It's enough to our purpose, that visible worthiness is the rule of Admission, & contra. When Mr. H. can show us a better way of discovering worthiness or unworthiness, than by trial of Church-members, he shall have us both thankful and pliable to his direction.  
Page 160. Mr. H. makes light of that place, 1 Pet. 3. 15. which proves its the duty of Christians to submit to trial.  
And first, He says it's nothing to the Saerament.  
Ans. If I must always be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in me, then surely at, or about the Sacrament, unless Mr. H. can prove that to be no part of time. I had thought that semper had included all parts of time.  
Secondly, He says, That place speaks clearly as to the defence of our hope in case of persecution.  
Ans. I grant it speaks more particularly to that case, but not exclusively: If I must give an account of my hope when demanded maliciously, much more when demanded charitably; If to open enemies, much more to friends, and those who are over us in the Lord; If when it may cost me my life, much more when it contributes directly to my edification and comfort.  
Secondly, He tells us, Hope is taken here objectiuè for Christian doctrine, not subjectiuè for the truth of grace we would inquire into.  
Ans. First, He that professes his hope objectively doth therein profess it also subjectively, since the object, principle, and act of hope are infeparable, and therefore as they cannot be, so they cannot be professed, the one without the other. The notions indeed are distinct, but the things themselves ever go together. 
My meaning is, That hope cannot be in actu exercitu, but it must flow from a principle, and tend to an object.   
Secondly, The very application of this distinction is contrary to the Text; The Apostle bidding us be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mr. H. says not so, but of the hope that is without us; whom shall we believe, St. Peter, or Mr. Humphrey? Hope objective is without us, hope subjective is within us; which last must needs be meant here by the Apostle, yet not excluding the former, they being both inseparable, as the act and object. And what I pray is hope subjective, but the grace of hope, which therefore the Apostle calls us to give a reason of, against Mr. H. his gloss. It's a contradiction to say, I hope objectively in the word of the Gospel, and I do not hope subjectively in the word of the Gospel, and all one as to say, I hope in Christ, and yet I do not hope in Christ.  
Mr. H. adds, But suppose he urge it as an office of common charity, doth all this follow upon it straight? etc.  
Ans. As every Christian is bound to do all offices of common charity in his place, so proportionably every Christian is bound to accept of all offices of common charity where he needs them. If every Christian be bound in his place to reprove, admonish, etc. then every Christian is bound proportionably to submit to reproof, admonition, etc. Trial of Church-members being (as Mr. H. here confesses) an office of common charity, every Church-member must make conscience to submit to it, and bless God that those who must ere long give an account to God of their souls, do make conscience to take an account of their souls. For the scoff he is pleased here also to favour me withal, I look at it as the scum of his little pot soon hot, by which he prejudices himself more than me.  
Mr. H. ib. When Christ says, Do this; how dares Mr. D. say, Do it not?  
Ans. When Mr. H. can prove Christ bids all Church-members (be they never so unworthy) to receive, Mr. D. will not dare to forbid them. But Mr. H. forgets that this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Mr. H. Instead of examine, and so eat, Mr. D. commands, Let a man examine, and so not eat.  
Ans. Instead of examine, and so eat, Mr. H. commands, Let a man eat, ●hough he do not examine.  
Secondly, Take examination in the Apostles sense, and then Mr. D. never says, Examine, and so eat not.  
Mr. H. his instance, That by the same argument, we may say, Let a man so pray, therefore he must not pray, holds not water;  
And that first, because Prayer is a part of natural worship, to which all are bound, not so to receiving, a part of instituted worship.  
Secondly, Because Prayer is a means of conversion, not so receiving. 
Upon this account, even heathen are bound to pray, not so to receive the Sacrament.   
His arguments to convince my Assertion of weakness, are these, p 161. First, Because affirmatives, are not exclusive.  
Ans. It hath been proved that some affirmatives are exclusive, that is, I must not do the matter unless I observe the manner. Thus a Jew might not eat the Passover, unless he were clean. A Christian must not reprove, unless by good observation, or sufficient information, he know the party, to be reproved, guilty.  
Mr. H. his second argument is, Man's impotency cannot annihilats Christ's authority.  
Ans. True, but man's malice or wickedness may render him uncapable of some privilege and duty; Faith of evidence is a duty, as well as a privilege, but of this duty and privilege a natural man is uncapable in statu quo.  
Dr. D. If the visibly unfit will thrust in, it is the Church's duty not to let them murder the Lord of glory.  
Here Mr. H. calls for Scripture-proof.  
Ans. That proof is given him above, therefore I forbear to repeat.  
He tells us, ib. That the former assertionis an occasion of separation.  
Ans. That particular Congregation, which wilfully and totally neglects her duty, admitting all pellmell, gives just occasion of secession in point of Sacramental communion to other Congregations that make conscience of their duty, about which matter yet there had need be very great caution.  
True, as Mr H. notes p. 162. A natural man sins in praying, hearing, etc. yet must pray and hear. But there is not par ratio in receiving, as hath been formerly showed. Many things, though good materially, are sins relatively in such a person, and not only because they are done in an evil manner, as for a private person to do the work of a Judge. Proportionably, a person may be uncapable of one Ordinance in statu quô, who in the same state is capable of other Ordinances; But of this formerly.  
A perjured person will not be admitted to swear, and shall the same person be admitted to the Sacrament upon the bare account Church membership? which (as a relation to such a Corporation) supposes worthiness in a person, or at least, that it should be in him; but is neither his worthiness, nor the efficient cause thereof, unless you refer it to the impulsive cause, since Church-membership is or should be a special motive and spur to habitual and active worthiness, and is an aggravation of the want of either. Indeed if Christ did bid all Church-members receive, then receiving were not morally impossible to any, though never so bad, but this is the question begged, nor can M. H. prove that indefinite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be an universal, if applied to Church-members, as such. Understand me here rightly, Christ bids all Church-members prepare, and so receive: But where doth he bid them receive, be they never so unprepared? It is not then bare Church-membership makes me capable of the Sacrament.  
M. H. p. 163. A man may be Evangelically unworthy, yet receive worthily in his kind, t●…gh not worthily in the Apostles sense. This is full of sweetness, etc.  
Answ. If by the latter worthy receiving, he mean a partaking of the Sacrament upon due examination, with a sense of my own unworthiness, hungering after Christ, and mercy, etc. what is this but a receiving worthily in the Apostles sense? All such, and only such, as come thus affected in truth, are worthy Receivers, and receive worthily in an Evangelical sense, though haply they may judge themselves unworthy, not only Legally, but also Evangelically. He may as well say, a person may discourse learnedly, and yet not be learned, as say a person may receive worthily, and yet not be a worthy receiver. If M. H. hath any other sense that is not Apostolic, he must pardon us, if we do not receive it. An unworthy person may do a worthy act, but he cannot act worthily. Receiving is very comfortable to weak Christians, but what comfort can hypocrites or profane persons expect from it?  
M. H. ib. That man is to be accounted to receive worthily, that makes an effectual use thereof according to his own condition, whether regenerate or not.  
Ans. 1. Suppose this were true, would it not exclude most Church-members? what natural man of an hundred makes an effectual use of the Sacrament, according to his own condition? Are not all natural men apt to conclude from their very receiving, that they are in a good estate? Is this an effectual use of the Sacrament, according to their condition?  
2. Suppose in receiving, he be convinced of his ●…d estate: is receiving, backed with such conviction, a receiving worthily? We ask a proof for this new and strange doctrine. That which is common to worthy and unworthy receivers, cannot be a receiving worthily: of this nature is receiving backed with conviction, common to good and bad, elect and reprobate: and which coming alone, is so far from making a person worthy, that it increases and aggravates his unworthiness.  
3. Suppose he were converted by receiving, (which we deny) it follows not thence, that he received worthily, though it would follow he received worthiness. As at the word preached, a natural man hears unworthily, at that very Sermon which converts him, the very moment before his conversion; so at the Sacrament, the same person receives unworthily the very moment before his conversion, supposed to be wrought by receiving, since worthiness must be wrought in me before I can act worthily.  
Page 164. and 165. Mr. H. only words it, crying out, Oh what a burden and weariness is it? What everlasting troubles and difficulties will it create, that Church-officers should be bound to try the sincerity of every receiver, and that both they, and other Church-members must be accessary to the guilt of unworthy receivers, if they do not their endeavour to reform or discover them? and here again, he asks for Scripture-proof, etc.  
Ans. 1. By way of concession. I believe indeed a threefold trouble discourages many Ministers.  
First, The trouble of pains must be taken.  
Secondly, The trouble of offending those who are averse to trial, upon which account they may as well forbear the work of preaching faithfully, Matth. 15. 12, and 1 Cor. 1. 23.  
Thirdly, The trouble and fear of losing their salary in whole, or in part. To such I must commend the practice of the Apostle, Gal. 1. 16. and entreat them to take heed of consulting with flesh and blood.  
As for weak and tender Christians, Sacramental trial can be no matter of offence to them if they be rightly informed.  
2. Suppose the burden were never so intolerable. Acts 15. 10. It's a burden of Christ's laying on, and therefore must be born; The difficulty of duty never discourages, where faith eyes the promise; Heb. 11. Be willing to bear the gates of Gaza at God's command, and he will give thee Sampsons' strength. Admirable is that of the Father, Domine, da quod jubes, & jube quod vis. Nothing is difficult to faith and love, Matth. 11. v. 28 29. and 1 Joh. 5. 3.  
3. Experience proves the contrary, that this burden is not intolerable (through grace) in those Congregations where Sacramental trial is held up.  
4. By trial we pry not into men's hearts, but only by the fruits appearing judge of the tree.  
5. It hath formerly been proved, That its the duty of Church-Officers, and Church-members to watch over one another in order to the reformation, or discovery of unworthy persons, who by the Apostle are called roots of bitterness, etc. and therefore must be narrowly pried into, Heb. 12. 15. Here every Church-member is commanded to play the Bishop, lest by neglect of this duty many be defiled. The word in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; yea by neglect of this prying I become accessary to the gall of wormwood, which this root of bitterness in Christ's Garden bears. Jos. 7. v. 1. 12. It cost the Children of Israel dear, because they went not upon a privy search for Achan, till they were well whipped to it; and much dearer would it have cost them had they refused to play the Bishops in order to the visitation of that accursed person and family; who yet was a Professor, a Church-member, and a circumcised person.  
When we plead for ourselves as more favourable than Mr. H. because we suspend to prevent the greater excommunication, etc. He tells me with a scoff, That our suspension is as severe as the greater excommunication. I pray take special notice of his reason for this assertion, page 165. because M. Drake holds, A man cannot be debarred any Ordinance, but actual receiving, in the greatest censure.  
Ans. 1. I believe no person, be he Church-member or not, is to be debarred presence at any Ordinance, provided he be not a disturber of the Administration.  
2. It's false, that suspension is as severe as the greater excommunication, dismembting being far more severe than denial of the Sacrament. In good things, relatives are privileges as well as absolutes, otherwise Justification and Adoption were no privileges. Of this nature is Church-membership, which the greater excommunication deprives a man of, not so suspension.  
3. His reason to confirm his assertion is weak, since, 1. Suspension (as generally administered by us) is not an act of severity, but of mercy. 2. Yet where it is an act of severity, the greater excommunication is far severer, as denying not only an absolute, but also a relative privilege. To cast a person out of family (though he be permitted to be a retainer) is more severe, than to deny him the use of any one particular dish upon his master's table. His flouting similitude, brought to supply the place of a serious argument, is impertinent: Had the man by falling from an house only lost a Limb, or put it out of joint, the good woman might with reason and charity have said, What a mercy is it he had no more harm? But then the similitude had not been to M. H. his purpose. Against next time, let me entreat M. H. to produce a fit similitude, lest he lose both his labour and credit by the Application.   

SECT. 3.  
MR. H. comes to the third Objection, Holy things, to holy men.  
Dr. D. Some outwardly holy thing may be administered to those who are not outwardly holy.  
M. H. p. 166. What then? therefore may it not be administered to those who are outwardly holy?  
Ans. In some cases an Ordinance may be denied him who is outwardly holy, and yet at the same time be administered to him who is outwardly unholy. That may be denied a dog within the Church (till he testifies his repentance) which is not to be denied a dog without the Church, to wit, reproof, instruction, etc. Acts 13. 46. An Heretic blaspheming, may be denied presence at the Ordinances, unto which at the same time an Heathen may be admitted, yea, and invited.  
To what he adds in the same page, I say, when M. H. can give me an instance of obstinate profaneness in any professor, that is not sufficient to excommunicate him, I shall return an answer to his ambiguous and lose question. To his other exception, I answer, it's gratis dictum, that excommunication makes a man no professor, because it makes him no Church-member. He may as well say, that expulsion out of the University makes a man no Scholar, or uncapable to profess learning. Nothing can make a man no professor, but his own voluntary act, renouncing the practice and profession of piety. Here note by the way, that Church-membership and profession are all one with M. H. True, any course of profaneness doth virtually contradict profession, but only universal renuntiation contradicts it formally.  
In the same page, to slur me, he baffles the Reader with the ambiguity of the term, Visible Saint. For unfolding of which mystery observe, M. H. his Visible Saint, is a Church-member, though visibly a Devil incarnate; my Visible Saint; is one that doth not contradict his relation and profession by gross ignorance or scandal: to this Visible Saint, visible interest in the Covenant is sealed, not so in our judgement to M. H. his Visible Saint. This at once salves the contradiction he would fasten on me, and shows withal, that the same thing is not strength in me, and weakness in Mr. H. The other supposed contradiction, that a man may be a professor, and yet contradict his profession, hath been cleared a little above. M. H. forgot the distinction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when he charged me here with a contradiction.  
Page 167. He says right, all in a Church-state, etc. are to be admitted, unless such as the Scripture gives ground to except. But he rambles woefully in the minor, asserting that the Scripture allows no bar to any, unless the unintelligent and excommunicate. In the same page he flouts me, as if bare confidence were my fundamental argument, and all: because I say, page 121. of my Bar, That I am confident the Oxthodox Interpretation of those places which Mr. H. quotes, p. 40. of his Vindication, will never open the Chancel-door to grossly ignorant, or profane Church-members.  
Answ. Let the Reader but turn to those places where Church-members or professors are said to be in Christ, to be bought by him, to be sanctified with the blood of the Covenant, etc. and observe whether those places do not make rather against, than for their admitting to the Sacrament; since of the same persons it is said, in the same places, that 1. They are taken away, cast forth, and withered. 2. That they deny the Lora that bought them. 3. That they trample upon the blood of the Covenant, etc. And think you its Christ's mind, that such should be admitted to the seals of the Covenant?  
Page 168. M. H. quarrels with me for denying that a visible historical faith gives a right to the Sacrament (if solicary) yet in his answer closes with me, and acknowledges, that the faith which admits a man to the Sacrament, must be a faith accepting the true God, etc. And what is this but faith of adherence, without which historical faith is but the faith of Devils, and renders a man most unworthy of the Sacrament in an Evangelical sense.  
Dr. D. Then the excommunicated have a right, for they have historical faith.  
Mr. H. How vain is this? who knows not that the state of the question supposes us within the Church?  
A. Either Church-membership alone, or historical faith alone, or both together, give a right to the Sacrament. If the first, than Church-members, though destitute of historical faith, have a right to the Sacrament. If the second, than one who is not a Church-member may have a right to it, which Mr. H. confesses to be absurd. If both, than the Church upon just ground may inquire after the one as well as after the other; since I may be a Church-member, and not have historical faith, or may have historical faith, and not be a Church-member: And if the Church may inquire after faith of assent, which is secret, why not also after faith of adherence? I think this is to the purpose, though not to M. H. his purpose, and will soon overthrow his free admission. Besides, it's not excommunication simply takes away my right to the Sacrament, but a just excommunication, otherwise man's wickedness may rob me of my right to Christ's Ordinance, which is impossible. My right to the Sacrament depends more upon my faith, than upon my Church-membership; nor do I simply forfeit my right, because the Church excommunicates me, but the Church ought to excommunicate me, because I forfeit my right, which forfeiture the Church takes by excommunication: When therefore visible faith is contradicted by visible profaneness, that man hath visibly forfeited his right to the Sacrament, and the Church by suspension or excommunication, doth but take the forfeiture. True, he may in some sense have jus ad rem, but he hath not jus in re, till he make up the breach by visible faith and repentance; yea, though a man have true justifying faith, yet by gross scandai he may visibly contradict his faith, and so forfeit his jus in re. Withal, it will be very hard for M. H. to prove, that Simon Magus had only historical faith: The will follows the last dictate of the understanding, and so far forth as I assent to Christ's sufficiency and willingness to save me, there is some propension in the will to rest on him for salvation, though in hypocrites usually the assent is but opinionative, and the adhesion is but presumptuous, Mich. 3. 11. As the assent is common or saving, so is the adhesion. Only a Devil, or he that is under the power of Despair, or that hath committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, assents to the Gospel without adhesion: in which case also, though there be an assent about Christ's sufficiency, yet there is a dissent about his willingness, which if partial, causes doubting; if perfect, despair. Withal, as profession of faith, not contradicted by ignorance or scandali, gives a right to Baptism, so doth it to the Lords Supper: And were Baptism to be iterated (as the Lord's Supper is) those persons whom we baptised in their infancy, we would not baptise, when at age, if they were then grossly ignorant or scandalous.   

SECT. 4.  
THe fourth Section is spent about that Objection, The Seal is set to a blank, if all be admitted. In the very entrance Mr. H. is pleased to charge me with confusion, and ungrounded confidence, and it must be so because ipse dix it. Were the suffusion, in his eye cured, he would see clearer; confusion is oftener in the eye, than in the object.  
Next, page 170. Mr. H. tells us, he holds, No persons within the Church are visible blanks.  
Ans. Are there none in the Church visibly destitute of saving grace which is the writing of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3. 3? There were such in the Primitive times, witness the second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle of Judas, etc. I believe our Churches will scarce vie with theirs for visible holiness and purity. Nay to come closer to Mr. H. are not many of his jure excommunicati visible blanks?  
Mr. H. ib. When I say the Sacrament is not a seal of faith, I mean it still as the thing sealed, (to wit, on God's part.)  
Ans. If the grace of faith be not part of the thing sealed, than God doth not promise in the Covenant degrees of faith to his people; then we cannot pray for degrees of faith, the promise being the foundation of prayer; then the Sacraments do not confirm and strengthen faith, for they confirm nothing but what is promised. But all these how absurd?  
The weakness of this his assertion will appear further by his reason annexed; The Sacrament is not an appendix to faith, but to the Gospel.  
Ans. As if faith promised were not a part of the Gospel as well as other graces promised.  
Faith is considerable first, as promised, and so it's a branch of the Covenant unto which the Sacrament is an appendix.  
Secondly, As wrought, active and growing in us, and so it's the execution, or making good of the Covenant. Faith promised and sealed, or the promise of faith sealed in the Sacrament confirms faith inherent.  
First, By way of security as a seal doth the belief of any Covenant.  
Secondly, By way of exhibition or conveyance, as an Indenture sealed and delivered, doth convey and make over an estate.  
In the Sacrament the promise of degrees of faith is signed and sealed to faith of assent, but exhibited and conveyed to faith of adherence, the whole Covenant, and every branch thereof being signed, sealed, and delivered in the Sacrament to the worthy receiver. Faith of Assent acknowledges the Covenant as true, faith of Adherence receives the Covenant as good.  
Page 171. After some distinctions premised, about the conditions, benefit and tender of the Covenant, Mr. H. hath these words, God engages not by the Sacrament to give man faith; if he did, every Receiver should have it.  
Ans. first, We thank Mr. H. for this principle, which strongly evinces the Sacrament is no converting Ordinance. No Ordinance converts, unless God engage to convert by it, and if God engage not to give faith by the Sacrament, than God engages not to convert by the Sacrament. The principle is sound, and our inference is evident, and make much for us, and against Mr. H.  
Secondly, Mr. H. his Argument to confirm this principle is very weak; and by proportion, we might as well argue, God engages not to convert man by the word preached; If he did, than every hearer should beconverted, doth he not know that though an Ordinance be converting, yet still God reserves to himself his own liberty of converting, when and whom he pleases, the Ordinances being not natural, but arbitrary means of conversion in the hands of God.  
Page 172. while Mr. H. would seem to be more accurate by way of distinction, he falters woefully; and tells us, That the Sacrament confirms not faith formaliter, but only consecutive and improperly, as putting us upon the exercise of faith, and thereby strengthening the habit.  
Answ. 1. By concession, the Sacrament confirms faith consequentially. Yet,  
2. It's true also, that it confirms faith formally, by ratifying those promises which assure the increase of faith, as well as of other graces; which promises are a special part of the Covenant. Mat. 13. 12. Our Saviour tells us, He that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance. Is this promise a part of the Covenant, or no? I presume Mr. H. will not deny it: If it be, then increase of faith is formally sealed in the Sacrament, or else the promise itself is not formally sealed. If by formaliter he mean immediate, as may seem by the opposite branch consequenter, we grant the promise in that sense is confirmed formally, that is, immediately by the Sacrament, and faith mediately: the promise of saith is confirmed immediately, faith inherent is confirmed mediately by the promise ratified by the Sacrament; and that not only by putting us upon the exercise of faith, which may be done by the bare promise, without a seal, but 1. by giving faith greatersecurity by the seal annexed to the promise. 2. by conveying farther degrees of faith to the worthy receiver, upon his acting of faith in the Sacrament, spiritual habits being confirmed not only naturally, by their acts, but also supernaturally by divine infusion, their growth being suitable to their birth. Initial faith is infused, not acquired, gradual faith is got both by infusion and acquisition.  
M. H. ibid. Whatsoever God doth properly ratify by way of seal, he attests the truth thereof; but he doth not attest the truth of our faith by the Sacrament; ergo, The Sacrament is not the Seal of our faith.  
Answ. 1. It's enough to us that God attests the truth of the promise by the Sacrament, and the promise undertakes for degrees of faith, as well as for perseverance in it; therefore to every worthy Receiver, the Sacrament doth formally and properly seal increase of faith.  
2. God in the Sacrament doth attest by consequence to the truth of the worthy Receivers saith.  
M. H. ib. The Sacrament is common to Hypocrites with Believers, therefore it cannot ascertain any that he hath grace.  
Ans. 1. It's common indeed in use and practice, but whether so by divine institution is the Question.  
2. The thing itself that is common cannot ascertain, but the right use of it may. Neither Providences nor Ordinances evidence grace of themselves, but only the right use of either, or both of them. The Worthy Receiver gets evidence of grace, not simply by receiving, but by worthy receiving.  
M. H. ib. The Sacraments are not seals, because they confirm our faith (which is the error) but they confirm our faith because they are seals. And page 173. It's derogatory, I think, to say the Sacrament is only a metaphorical or tropical seal; whereas indeed it is a very proper formal seal to the Covenant, Rom. 4. 11.  
Answ. 1. Here are dictates indeed, but what proof? Dictates charging error upon others; but where is conviction? M. H. should blush to be so excessive in dictares, so defective in proof, who himself is so apt to censure others for the same fault, and too often without a cause.  
2. What is a seal, but an instrument of confirmation annexed to a Covenant? and is not the Sacrament such a thing? And if faith be a branch of the Covenant, is not the Sacrament a seal of faith, because it confirms faith?  
3. Let us spell out M. H. his meaning in those words of his, The Sacraments confirm our faith because they are seals.  
If they confirm faith because they are seals; I pray, what or whence is their sealing? Is not their sealing-vertue in its very formality a confirming virtue? And have they not this confirming or ratifying virtue from divine institution? If he mean the latter, we easily agree the Sacraments are seals, because God instituted them to be such, which makes nothing against us; if he mean the former, he speaks a mere tautology, telling us the Sacraments are seals, because they are seals, and confirm our faith, because they confirm our faith; and so by making only a flourish, abuses both me and the Reader; unless his meaning be the same with ours, That the Sacrament confirms faith promised, formally and immediately, but faith inherent consequentially and mediately: but then it's still a truth in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at least, That the Sacraments are seals, because they confirm our faith, as well as its a truth in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That they confirm our faith because they are seals by divine institution.  
4. He trifles in opposing tropical to proper, as if that were not proper which is tropical. It's not proper indeed, as to the first notion or intention (the first and second intention being not formally the same) but its proper enough as to the thing intended or signified. Do not we hold against the Papists, that the Sacramental words, Hoc est corpus meum, are proper enough as to the sense, though they be tropical as to the terms. The Scripture indeed calls Circumcision a seal: but where doth it deny it to be a tropical seal? or where doth it say, that a tropical seal is not properly a seal? A seal in its native signification, is a bodily substance graven, and so apt to make a sensible impression of itself in a fit subject. Will M. H. say, the Sacrament is a seal in this native signification? he will not be so absurd. Then it must be a seal tropically; yet properly also, because it hath the essential use of a seal, namely, to confirm and ratify, which is all we contend for, and M. H. opposes, but in vain.  
M. H. p. 173. If confirming or strengthening a man's faith, were enough to denominate it a seal: Then 1. Acts of grace should be the best seals. 2. Then all other Ordinances should be seals too. 3. Then Baptism should be no seal to infants. 4. Then shall both the Sacraments cease to be seals, when they are admitted who have not true faith.  
Answ, 1. By concession, acts of grace are the best seals. He that is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, is better sealed than he that is sealed only with the Sacrament, Eph. 1. 13. & 5. 30. where you see a seal is applicable to persons, as well as to a Covenant.  
2. It follows not that therefore all other Ordinances are seals, though they confirm faith, because it's not every kind of confirmation makes a seal, but a confirmation by way of authentic ratification, which makes a deed good in Law, or more good in Law than otherwise it would be.  
3. That Infants, who before Baptism have initial grace, are not confirmed by Baptism (by degrees of grace superadded) is a truth M. H. will not be easily able to confute: yet withal, Baptism is truly called a seal as to them, because of its aptitude to ratify the Covenant to them, as well as to elder Christians, though they for lack of maturity cannot apprehend its ratifying virtue. Hence  
4. It follows, that neither of the Sacraments cease to be seals, though persons without faith be admitted to them, they being denominated seals from their aptitude to confirm, though the effect of confirmation do not follow. A deed sealed is authentic in law, though some concerned in it, give not credit to it.  
We grant, that faith of Assent is confirmed by the Sacrament as a seal, but are not of M. H. his judgement, p. 174. That a true historical assent, and particular faith of evidence, are not divided in the regenerate (if he mean as to their exercise) since, 1. In divers regenerate persons there is faith of assent, and of adherence too, yet without particular faith of evidence; otherwise we must hold, there is no true faith without assurance, and thereby weaken the hearts and hands of many true nathanael's. 
Understand me here of sensible assurance.  2. Historical faith is a direct act, faith of evidence is a reflex act, and the direct act may be divided from the reflex act, yea, often is divided from it. Withal, though degrees of grace are not properly conveyed by the Sacrament as a seal, yet they may be conveyed by it as an instrument, the Sacrament being (as M. Perkins well describes it) a sign to represent, a seal to confirm, and an instrument to convey Christ and all his benefits to believers.  
M. H. ibid. No faith of particular evidence can be confirmed by the Sacrament as a Seal, but what is confirmed to me already by my experience.  
Ans. There is a twofold experience, one real, the other sensible: The Sacrament confirms nothing, but what is confirmed to me by real experience; but it may confirm to me, that which is not confirmed to me by sensible experience, at least prevalently. How many come doubting to the Sacrament, but return with evidence? No true faith, but gives real evidence by its acts, yet may be so overborne by unbelief, as the true believer may be rather oppressed with doubts and fears, than comforted with evidence, as conceiving those acts of faith to be but a fancy. His inference therefore is but weak, the Sacrament being tropically, yet properly, a seal both to the Covenant, and to faith.  
M. H. page 175. My part of the Covenant is the condition which God doth not seal; if he did, my business were at an end; for then all were to come hither for it.  
Ans. 1. God seals all he promises, and nothing but what he promises: To the Reprobate he promises not the condition, and therefore seals it not: To the Elect he promises the condition; namely, initial faith; and to the regenerate he promises all the acts and degrees of faith, as well as of other graces, Ezek. 36. v. 26, 27. John 6. 44, 45. which M. H. must grant, unless he will profess himself an Arminian or Pelagian. God undertakes in the Covenant of Grace for the Believers part, as well as for his own part. Now, what is promised in the Covenant, is sealed in the Sacrament; therefore it's sealed in the Sacrament, that he who hath true faith, shall act it, and increase it.  
2. Yet it follows not hence, that therefore all must receive, the Sacrament being not an Instrument of working initial, but gradual faith; and though it do seal in general, that all the Elect shall believe, yet that seals nothing to my especial comfort, till election break out in my effectual vocation. M. D. then is not at a loss, since  
1. Faith may be promised in the Covenant, though men cannot be in Covenant effectually without faith.  
2. Initial faith is never promised upon condition we do believe, but gradual faith: otherwise there would be progressus in infinitum.  
M. H. p. 175. The Sacrament seals not the absolute Covenant, or the everlasting engagement between God and Christ.  
Answ. This is gratis dictum: I had thought the Sacrament had sealed the whole Covenant of grace, and so the absolute Covenant: It seals that Christ's blood is shed for many, as well as for those believers, that at present partake of it, compare Matth. 26. 28. and Luke 22. 20. Christ from eternity contracted with the Father for many: In time he shed his blood for those many: This himself tells us is signified and sealed in the Sacrament; And what is this but the absolute Covenant?  
That the conditional Covenant is sealed (though not solely) we deny not. But that we are to take sealing for conveying or exhibiting, is a new light of Mr. H. p. 176. this is to confound distinct offices and uses of the Sacrament, and to fight against sense and experience.  
True, the Sacrament signifies, seals and conveys, but its signification is not its sealing, nor is its sealing its conveying. Let a Bond or Indenture be signed and sealed, there is no conveyance till it be delivered. Therefore some of the Sacramental actions do both signify, seal, and convey the Covenant; they signify and seal the letter of the Covenant, they convey as instruments the good things promised to believers; yea, that very act of faith, whereby a worthy receiver apprehends Christ at the Sacrament is wrought in him instrumentally by the Sacrament. This one thing rightly considered, will shake universal admission, for though all may be admitted to see the Covenant signed and sealed even to themselves conditionally; yet how can Christ's officers convey the Covenant instrumentally to any, unless they have a charitative evidence that Christ hath conveyed it to that person particularly?  
Mr. H. ib. A moral instrument acts not Physically. To speak freely in this sense of obsignation, the Sacrament doth no more sanctify us than glorify us, etc.  
Ans. 1. It's enough for us it acts really as an Instrument; I hope a moral instrument, is a real Instrument, though it be not a physical Instrument, otherwise the Devil was not an instrument of our first patents fall.  
2. We say, The Sacrament is an instrument, because its an arbitrary means in the hand of God to convey the benefits of the Covenant gradually to the worthy receiver, the Lord at the Sacrament in a especial manner giving him delivery and seisin; as by delivery of a bond, there is not only a conveying of parchment, writing and seal, but also and principally of the good things specified in that Deed, which are not conveyed by writing, signing, or sealing, but only by delivery.  
Withal, Mr. H. may as well say, The word preached doth not sanctify gradually, because it's not a physical, but a moral instrument. Both Word and Sacrament are real Instruments of sanctification; the word both to the regenerate and unregenerate, the Sacrament only to the worthy receiver, I mean quantum ad praesens.  
Page 177. Mr. H. charges me to be censorious, but why, or in what nè gru quidem. Is not this really to prove himself censorious? Further, we grant the tenor of the Covenant is sealed to all present (that is, the good things of the Covenant are conditionally sealed to them) whether they receive or no, which therefore is no argument to prove free admission, but only free presence or attendance at the Sacrament.  
But whereas he adds ib. There can be no seal to a blank so long as there is truth and writing in the Gospel.  
This in some respect is a truth, but not to the purpose: Did I ever affirm the seal was put to a blank as to the Gospel sealed? We grant there is no real blank at the Sacrament, but there are many personal blanks. The seal of the Sacrament, and of the Spirit should ever go together, and how can I seal him with the Sacrament, whom I have ground to believe the Spirit hath not sealed. Hence principally flows evidence in the Sacrament, because the Spirit together with the Sacrament seals the worthy receiver, and doth not only seal to him. In Circumcision, not only the Covenant, but also the person was sealed, Gen. 17. 13. Rev. 7. many persons were sealed: The promise secures not only good things for believers, but also believers for those good things, 1 Pet. 1. v. 4, 5. and what the Covenant holds forth, that the Sacrament seal.  
True, as Mr. H. notes p. 178. God hath commanded us to baptise all Infants within the Church, and to admit all visible Saints, all which yet have not the benefits of the Covenant exhibited in a right sense?  
But what is this against us who are bound in charity to judge or hope they are real Saints, till they contradict this judgement of charity by visible profaneness, etc.  
2. True, Christ submitted to the Sacraments, and there that was sealed to him of which he was capable, as to Adam in innocency; but neither Adam in innocency, nor Christ, ever needed pardon, and as by Adam's fall the Covenant of works was broken, so had Christ finned in the least, the Covenant of grace had been broken.  
3. True, Christ was baptised to fulfil all righteousness, but is it a fulfilling of righteousness to receive unworthily?  
4. True, As relative grace is sealed to the worthy receiver, so relative judgement is sealed to the unworthy receiver. But 1. Relative judgement is sealed to some unworthy persons whether they receive or not. 2. For my part, I shall neither counsel, nor easily admit any to murder Christ, and thereby to seal relative judgement to themselves.  
5. True, To some unworthy abstainers the Sacrament is a savour of death. But I hope Mr. H. will be more charitable than to assert that all who abstain at present are unworthy abstainers.  
Mr. H. ib. By way of inquiry I question, how Gods establishing his Covenant by way of seal does import this exhibition of the effectual benefits to those he seals?  
Ans. 1. It must convey them necessarily, if sealing and exhibition be all one, as Mr. H. makes them to be, p. 176.  
2 With us, Gods sealing of the Covenant, doth not always import exhibition of the benefits of the Covenant, we holding that sealing and exhibition are two distinct Sacramental actions. The Covenant may be sealed to all present, though divers of them receive not, but the benefits of the Covenant are exhibited to no receivers, but those who are Evangelically worthy.  
His inference p. 179. hangs upon the premises like a rope of sand: Therefore Mr. Drake must affirm here, that God seals to a blank (which he most desperately doth) or that this Objection comes to nothing.  
Ans. Here indeed are rash and desperate expressions. Mr. D. never said, God seals to a blank as to the Covenant, but he says, Mr. H. pleads for sealing to a blank as to many receivers.  
2. The Objection stands good, because divers Ministers who admit all pellmell (and amongst them Mr. H. professedly) seal to personal visible blanks where Christ hath given them no such Commission.  
Mr. H. ib. A scrupulous Christian may receive the Sacrament as a sign, though haply he cannot receive it as a seal.  
Ans. This scrupulous Christian is Evangelically worthy, or not. If the former, he both may and must receive it as a sign, and as a seal; yet withal he must endeavour to get his doubts resolved. If the latter, then being present, he may learn by the Sacrament as a sign, though he do not receive it as a seal.  
Mr. H. p. 180. Here is Mr. Drakes great error, to confound the outward and inward Covenant, the external and internal sealing.  
Ans. Here is Mr. H. his great error, to mistake union for confusion. Mr. Drake thinks, that on the receivers part, the inward and outward Covenant and sealing should go together, and that he who wants the inward seal should not dare to meddle with the outward seal. He doth not confound the inward and outward seal, as Mr. H. doth sealing and exhibiting, by making them all one, but unites the inward and outward seal together in point of duty on the receivers part.  
Mr. H. ib. If the seal be set to a blank until God's Law is written in the heart, than no mortal can apply the seal to any, seeing that cannot be discerned by any.  
Ans. This is a mere non sequitur. A Minister may without sin set the seal to a blank, where in charity he is bound to judge or hope that person is no blank; and this he is bound to hope of all that have competent knowledge, and live without scandal. The receiver must act by the rule of reality, the Church by the rule of visibility. I do not then contradict myself when I say, p. 72. of my Bar, That truth of grace in the heart is not the rule of our admission. Grace real is the rule of an intelligent Church-members receiving, but grace visible is the rule of the Church's admission, whether it be real, or no.  
Mr. H. ib. Now I pray note it, If Mr. D. apply these texts, 2 Cor. 3. 3. Heb. 8. 10. (which speak only of the inward writing) to confirm the Objection, that the Seal is set to a Blank if all be admitted, than the world must know that the truth of grace is his rule, or else the new Covenant written in the heart is not truth of grace with Mr. Drake.  
Ans. 1. It's apparent by my text, I brought the forequoted places for illustration, not for proof of the Objection, Mr. H. therefore might well come with an if; But what if Mr. Drake did not bring those places to prove the Objection, let the Reader consult my text, p. 123. of my Bar, where he will easily perceive Mr. H. his foul play with me in this particular, who to fasten an absurdity upon me would fain confound the rule of Admission with the rule of Receiving. Mr. H. cannot be ignorant that our principles are these:  
Real Blanks must not receive, visible Blanks must not be admitted by the Church; and that the scope of th● Objection was to dispute against the admission of visible, not of real personal Blanks.  
Mr. D. 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.  
M. H. p. 180. In what a sad case hath be brought himself through his former error, when he must lay this for his foundation, That God who cannot lie, may set his seal to a visible Blank? If the Minister who is God's Ambassador seals to a visible Blank, it is such an heinous sin, he says, as murdering Christ; and yet does he affirm that God sets his seal to a visible Blank without scruple. It is no wonder the man deals so coarsely with me, that uses such rude and uncivil language towards God.  
Answ. Such absurd and unreasonable imputations as these, make it too suspicious, that M. H. disputes rather for victory, than for truth. I hope he will not dare to say in cold blood, that those expressions of mine vent any thing of rude language to God; but that in the very letter, as well as in their sense, they give unto God the glory of his Sovereignty, who is not bound (but where himself pleaseth) to the rules by which he binds his creatures.  
Object. If it be irregular in the Minister to seal to a visible Blank, why not in God also? If the Minister murder Christ by sealing to a visible Blank, how is God free, who doth the same thing?  
Answ. The Minister is guilty, because it pleased God to make it murder, by consent in him to seal to a visible Blank: but who can give law to God, and make it murder, by consent in God, to seal to a visible Blank? It's murder in me to take away my neighbour's life at pleasure: I hope M. H. will not infer, that therefore its murder in God to take away any man's life at pleasure.  
Object. But doth not God by sealing to a visible Blank, testify that such a person hath truth of grace?  
Answ. Absurd. When God knowingly and professedly seals to Blanks, how can it be imagined that his design in sealing is to testify they are no Blanks. God indeed by sealing to a Blank, binds that Blank to labour for the writing; but it's contradictio in adjecto to say, that sealing to a Blank, makes that Blank no Blank. It's not the seal, but the writing, makes a paper or parchment no Blank: nor is it the seal of the Sacrament, but the writing of the Spirit, makes a Church-member a real Saint, or an Epistle of Christ, 2 Cor. 3. 3.  
Object. But then why may not the Minister by sealing to a visible Blank, bind that Blank to labour for the writing, as God doth? (Understand a sealing here by way of admission; for otherwise the Covenant is sealed in the Sacrament conditionally, not only to the receivers, but also to all present, yea, though they be very Heathen, who yet are not sealed by receiving the Sacrament.)  
Answ. Because he hath no warrant to seal to that Blank in that manner; the rule being, that persons must 1. Be Church-members. And 2. Visibly worthy, before the Minister seal to them by admission. But who can bind God to this rule?  
Object. But is not this the very language of the Sacrament, Christ is thine, etc. And how can God seal this to a person that hath no part in Christ?  
Answ. The natural language of the Sacrament, as well as of the Covenant, to whomsoever it is proclaimed, is, Christ is thine, etc. This gift is mine, 1. By way of tender. 2. By way of acceptance. That Christ is theirs by way of tender, God seals by the Sacrament to all present, whether they receive or not. That Christ is theirs by way of acceptance and possession, God seals to no receiver, but the worthy receiver. The Sacrament says to all present, Christ is thine conditionally, and by way of offer; but to the worthy Communicant, it says, by way of evidence, Christ is thine, as sure as the outward elements are thine, being received by thee; and that because he performs the condition of believing; which condition yet is promised in the Covenant, and wrought instrumentally in the Sacrament, which acts faith objectively as a sign and seal; but effectively, as an instrument, faith apprehending Christ through the Sacrament, as the eye doth an object through a Perspective-glass; yea, the Sacrament doth not only clear the object, but also strengthens the visive faculty of the soul, by drawing a fresh supply of visual Spirits from Christ the head.  
My meaning (in all hath been said) is, that God, by the Sacrament applied to any, doth not testify to such a receiver, that he hath truth of grace; though by receiving, every Communicant be obliged to act grace: But the Minister, by giving the Sacrament to any, testifies his persuasion, or hope, that such a one hath truth of grace; which persuasion, or hope, is grounded upon that competent knowledge and good affections (accompanied with immunity from scandal) that he finds, upon trial, or other good evidence, to be in such a Communicant.  
Page 181. M. H. doth only make a flourish by abusing the homonymy of a visible Saint.  
To which I briefly answer, A person may be said to be a visible Saint two ways: 1. Relatively, as he is a Church-member, born and bred in the Church. 2. Absolutely, as he walks up visibly to his profession. Now, that God would have all relatively visible Saints (which are M. H. his visible Saints, though they be absolutely visible Devils) admitted, is 1. Against the truth. 2. Against the practice of the ancient and modern Church. 3. Against M. H. his own profession, since persons ip so jure excommunicate, are such visible Saints, yet he allows their suspension. That root of bitterness, Heb. 12. 15. was relatively a visible Saint, as being a Church-member; but absolutely he was a visible Devil. The Lord keep me from giving my vote for the admission of such visible Saints.  
M. H. ib. It's M. Drakes error to say, there are any visible Blanks in the Church, for how then can we baptise all children? A visible Blank is one visibly out of Covenant: But to be in a Church-state, is to be externally or visibly in Covenant, etc.  
Answ. 1. Then its M. Drakes great error to say, there are any visibly profane in the Church.  
2. We baptise all children in the Church (among others) upon this account, because none of them are visible Blanks; knowledge we expect not from them, nor are they guilty of any scandal. Besides, we look at their foederal holiness in either of their Parents, 1 Cor. 7. 14. or in their grand Parents right, who may undertake for their Christian education, etc. 2 Tim. 1. 5. But of this formerly.  
3. The same person, at the same time (though not in the same respect) may be visibly in Covenant, and visibly out of Covenant. Instance in a known Witch, she is visibly in Covenant in M. H. his sense, as a Church-member, till excommunicated; yet visibly out of Covenant in our sense, as visibly renouncing Christ and Religion. They who visibly break the Covenant, by lying in visible impenitency and unbelief, are visibly out of Covenant in an absolute sense, though at the same time they are visibly in Covenant in a relative sense, as not being excommunicated. Such were many of the Israelites, who are called the holy people, Dan. 12. 7. and God's people, Hos. 4. v. 6. 8.12. and 11. 7. yet Hos. 1, 9 Ye are not my people; and Hos. 2. 2. Your mother is not my wife. These seeming contradictions are easily reconciled, by distinguishing between God's people relatively and absolutely considered: They were God's people by external Covenant-relation, as are all Church-members: they were not God's people by an external holy carriage, suitable to their external holy relation. Such Loammies, though in some sense Ammies, we dare not admit to the Sacrament, till by visible repentance their name is made Ruchamah, and Ammi, Hos. 2. 1.  
M. H. p. 182, In case any make a forfeiture, which M. D. says the Church ought to take; its manifest than he must be excommunicate, that is, put out of a Church-state, or external Covenant; for while he stands de jure entitled as a member, it is a manifest wrong to suspend him the Symbol thereof.  
Answ. 1. The Church takes the forfeiture in part, by suspension: but that she must take the highest forfeiture at the first bout by excommunication, is both false doctrine, and uncharitable doctrine.  
2. Note here from M. H. that among Intelligent persons, some are Church-members de jure, others only de facto. 
This is hinted from those expressions of M. H, He stands de jure, entitled as a member; and again, here our distinction of ipso jure dismembered and de praesenti dis-tituled, must do its service. ibid.  Next, that he is not for the Admission of all intelligent Church-members de facto, unless they be also Church-members de jure; whence I infer from his own principles, that Church-membership and intelligence, are not the adequate foundation of Admission to the Sacrament; but there must be somewhat else which makes him a Church-member de jure: And this is the very thing we contend for. The point of difference is now brought to a narrower compass; and could we but agree about the character of a Church-member de jure, our controversy would soon come to issue. Now Church-membership being a relation, it must needs have a foundation. The foundation of Church-membership de facto in intelligent persons, is Admission to that Society; the foundation of Church-membership de jure, is that which encourages the Church to admit such a person: And what is this but competent knowledge and piety visible? This is evident in the Catechumeni, who stood upon their trial before they were made complete Church-members; nor did the Jews easily admit any for Proselytes, till upon good evidence of their faith and piety. This foundation then failing, Church-membership de jure must needs cease; and this is the very case of grossly ignorant and scandalous persons, who therefore being not Church-members de jure (at least, if they obstinately persist in those sins) ought not to be admitted to the Sacrament.  
M. H. ib. The bare elements do not confirm the Covenant, but the elements, as instituted to that use: But they were instituted to be eaten and drunken; therefore those that are present, must receive too, etc.  
Answ. 1. By concession of the first branch, the confirming virtue of the Sacramental elements depends upon divine institution: but have they a confirming virtue only as received? Do not the elements set apart by the Minister, in the name of Christ, signify and seal that branch of the Covenant, that Christ from eternity was set apart by God the Father for man's redemption? Do not the elements broken and poured out, signify and seal Christ's Body broken, and his Blood shed to ratify the Covenant? And is not the Covenant hereby confirmed to all present, even before they receive, yea, though divers of them do not receive at all?  
2. To the second Branch I answer also by way of concession, in part. The elements were instituted to be eaten and drunk: But that therefore all present must eat and drink, is a mere non sequitur. The Institution is kept entire, if a competent number do eat and drink, though all present do not receive. Divers waiters might be in the room at the celebration of the first Sacrament, but Christ bid the Apostles only to receive.  
M. D. They confirm the faith of the worthy Receiver; therefore none but Evangelically worthy may partake.  
M. H. He may as well argue thus, Baptism confirms the faith only of those that understand it: Therefore Infants may not partake of it. The word and prayer confirm faith, therefore none but the regenerate may hear and pray. This is no consequence; for whatsoever ordinance can confirm faith, may beget it.  
Answ. To the first Branch I answer, by denying that Baptism confirms the faith only of them that understand it. For,  
1. Baptism may confirm the habit of faith in Infants regenerated before Baptism, though it cannot confirm the act of faith, which they are not capable of.  
2. It may confirm as an instrument, though it cannot confirm faith in them as a sign or seal.  
3. Baptism applied to Infants may confirm faith in the same persons when they come to years of discretion, though in their Infancy it should not confirm: and therefore it is not to be denied to Infants. If persons Baptised in Infancy, could never be capable of the confirming power of Baptism, than the argument were strong, that they should not be Baptised.  
To the second I answer, If the word and prayer did only confirm faith, than the inference had been solid: but such is the condition of the Sacrament.  
To the third I answer, A posse ad esse non valet consequentia, That which camconfirm faith, may beget it, if God please to appoint that Ordinance to beget, as well as to confirm: But this is the question in dispute, Whether God hath appointed the Lord's Supper to beget faith.  

Page 182, 183.  M. D. They confirm judgement to the unworthy receiver.  
M. H. And I pray now what is become of the Blank? p. 183.  
Ans. The Blank is still where it was, namely, at the Lords Table, and may thank Mr. H. his free admission for it. Let the Reader here note Mr. H. his perverse dealing with me, who still turns the Argument to a real Blank, when I applied it only to a personal Blank. His distinction about confirming faith formaliter & consecutiuè hath been formerly answered, 
P. 184.  which therefore I pass.  
Mr. H. ib. To seal to faith is nothing else but that it seals conditionally, which answers the whole Objection.  
Ans. 1. If this be good Logic, than the Sacrament seals as much to unbelief as to faith, since it seals judgement conditionally to unbeleef, as well as mercy conditionally to faith.  
2. It's absurd to say it seals conditionally to faith: It seals indeed mercy conditionally to a person that hath not faith, and judgement conditionally to a person that hath faith; but it seals absolutely mercy to faith, and judgement to unbeleef. I pray upon what condition doth the Sacrament seal mercy to faith? Is not faith here the very act of believing? And doth the Sacrament seal grace to believing upon condition of believing? True, it seals mercy to a person upon condition of believing; but to say it seals mercy to faith upon condition of faith, how absurd? and all one as to say, it seals to the condition upon condition of the condition; would not here be progressus in infinitum?  
3. After all, This answer doth not satisfy the Objection: For whether the Sacrament seal conditionally or absolutely to faith, still it is a seal of faith, and to faith; and still it seals to a Blank, supposing the person receiving be unregenerate, which is the Blank the Objection looks at.  
Mr. H. ib. Here is his constant error; for the writing the Sacrament seals to, is not the inward Covenant in the heart, but the outward in the Gospel.  
Ans. 1. By way of concession of the last branch, That the Sacrament seals to the outward Covenant, and in that respect never seals to a Blank.  
2. By denial of the first branch, That the Sacrament seals not to the inward Covenant or writing: For 1. It seals to it by way of obligation, binding all Receivers to the inward Covenant as the condition. 2. It seals the outward Covenant and writing to the inward; the good things promised to faith and grace. 3. It seals the inward Covenant or writing by confirming faith of evidence, and this, by ratifying the signs of grace upon record in the Covenant, which signs are the touchstone of faith; the Sacrament assures the Scripture trials of Faith are good, experience assures those signs are in Peter, the conclusion is Peter's faith of evidence which depends upon the major, sealed by the Sacrament, as well as upon the minor, confirmed by Peter's experience. 4. To the believer it seals the inward Covenant; namely, the condition not only by way of obligation as a duty, but also by way of security, as a privilege, assuring him of future actings of faith, of growth, and of perseverance. Hereby it appears the great error is on Mr. H. his part, who asserts, That the Sacrament seals not to the inward writing or Covenant.  
Mr. D. How can the Minister say, This it the blood of Christ for the remission of sins to the unmorthy?  
Mr. H. As Christ said the same to Judas.  
Ans. 1. What is this but a begging of the Question. Let Mr. H. first prove that, Christ said those words to Judas, and then make as much of that instance as he can.  
2 Suppose Judas did receive, doth not Christ immediately and particularly note him as a person of whom he meant not those words, and who should have no part and interest in his blood or pardon, Luke 22. v. 20, 21, 22. If Mr. H. will press our Saviour's example for Judas his receiving, why doth he not likewise press the same for the public and personal nomination and uncasing (at the Lord's Table) of every Judas that is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, and who had better never have been born if he repent not unfeignedly of his betraying of Christ, such rugged work undertaken by him would soon open his eyes to see the justness, equity, and expediency of suspension.  
Mr. H. p. 185. Mr. D. confesses God doth not attest our faith.  
Ans. Mr. H. abuses me by mangling my words. I say, page 128. of my Bar, God doth not in terminis, attest my faith at the Sacrament. The Sacrament ratifies only what the Covenant holds forth, but the Covenant doth not hold forth, Thou Peter or John by name hast true faith, and art in the state of grace, no more than it holds forth, Thou Peter and John by name shall rise at the day of judgement. But it were absurd to say, the Gospel doth not attest John's resurrection, because it doth not say particularly, Thou John shalt rise; and it is as absurd to say, The Scripture doth not attest John's faith, because it doth not say particularly and nominally, Thou John believest.  
" Dr. D. The Seals may be applied before all, not to all.  
Mr. H. ib. He that looks on shall be sure to be damned if he eat not Christ spiritually, and to be saved if he receive Christ spiritually, whether he partake of the elements, or not; And what then becomes of all this dreadfulness that is laid upon our consciences, with a bare touch not, taste not, handle not? This actual receiving then serves but to affect us the more solemnly with our condition, and be a more serious obligation by the outward, to that inward eating, whereby alone we look to be saved.  
Ans. 1. By concession; We are saved only by eating Christ spiritually; yet withal, we may be damned by eating Christ Sacramentally, if we eat him not worthily; therefore his condition who eats Christ Sacramentally, but not spiritually, is worse caeter is paribus, than his who wanting faith to eat him spiritually, forbears to eat him Sacramentally. He that kisses Christ, and betrays him, hath more to answer for, than he who betrays him without a kiss. The higher profession we make of love to Christ, the worse is our sin in murdering him; but he who receives, makes an higher profession of love to Christ, than he who at present forbears, as fearing he doth not love Christ, and believe savingly in him; therefore an unbelieving receives, sins more than an unbelieving abstainer; and here lies the dreadfulness laid upon our consciences, though Mr. H. is pleased to put it off lightly.  
2. Again, by concession: Actual receiving serves to affect and oblige us more solemnly to the inward eating; whence it follows, that he who eats outwardly, but not inwardly, sins more caeter is paribus, than he who eats neither inwardly nor outwardly, because the former sins against a greater obligation, as M. H. well notes; which therefore makes for us, and against himself.  
M. H. ib. & p. 186. M. D. is notable, The Sacrament he counts not a seal properly, but figuratively to the Covenant itself. I pray mark it. So in the former leaf, he concludes it tropically a seal: now read but a few lines further in the very same page; and he tells us, As it confirms the Covenant, it confirms faith: and if this be not to seal in a proper formal sense, Theologically, I know not what is. Is not this pretty? The Sacrament is not a proper formal seal, but figurative and metaphorical; and yet▪ if it does not seal in a proper formal sense, he knows not what does, M. Drake does often tell you of my contradictions, when he only goes about to make them, but I need not tell you he hath any.  
Ans. Let the Reader but consult my Text, p. 129. of my Bar, and he will easily perceive how M. H. abuses first myself, and then his Reader in this particular.  
1. Therefore note, That by proper in the former branch, I mean a literal seal in the Grammatical sense, as is evident by my explication of myself in the forequoted place, of purpose to prevent this captious mistake, in these words, In a proper sense a seal is an artificial thing fit to make a visible representation or impression. In this sense, I say, the Sacrament is not properly a seal: For 1. It is not an artificial thing. 2. It makes not a visible impression either upon the Covenant, or upon the receiver. Let me ask M. H. is the Sacrament a literal seal? I have heard (in this sense) of a golden or silver seal, etc. but never of a Breaden seal.  
By Proper, in the latter sense, I mean a real seal, in opposition to a feigned and counterfeit seal, or the picture of a seal. This is known by the effects: hence we prove the Sun to be fire, because it hath the effects of fire, though it differ much from our culinary fire. Now the main effect and use of a seal being to confirm and ratify, and this being the proper effect of the Sacrament, we conclude, that the Sacrament is properly a seal, though it be not literally a seal.  
2. M. H. mistakes grossly, in opposing tropical to proper; whereas tropical and figurative is not opposed to proper, but to literal. Christ is properly a vine, yet tropically a vine; but not literally a vine. He is the true bread, Joh. 6. 32: His flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed, ver. 55. Surely that which is true bread, that which is meat and drink indeed, is properly so, yet it need not be so literally, it being enough, that it is so tropically and metaphorically. The mistake of this distinction, was the ground of that Capernaticial error, John 6. 63. of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, and is the ground of M. H. his topical mistake, and perverting of my present Text.  
M. D. Nor will his instance of Circumcision help him, which was applied to none but visible Saints, etc.  
M. H. That is the whole Jewish Nation, Josh. 5. v. 3. 6.8. when of age, without examition and profession, which declares both that all Church-members are visible Saints, and that that alone gives a right to be admitted.  
Answ. 1. It's evidently false, and against the very letter of Scripture, that all the Jewish Nation were circumcised at Gilgal, see Josh. 5. v. 5, 7. the text tells us, that only they who were born in the wilderness by the way, were circumcised; the rest having been circumcised in Egypt.  
Object. Were not all who were born in Egypt, destroyed in the wilderness?  
Answ. No such matter, but only those who were twenty years old and upwards at their coming out of Egypt, Caleb and Joshuah only excepted, compare Numb. 26. v. 64, 65. and 14. v. 29, 30. and 1. v. 2, 3.  
2. That all these were not only visible Saints, but eminently visible Saints; should M. H. deny it, the Scripture would convince him, Deut. 4 v. 3, 4. Josh. 24. 21. Judg. 2. 7.  
3. That the Israelites circumcised at Gilgal were not at all examined, nor made any profession of their faith and piety, is more than M. H. can prove; his argument for it at best is but negative, because it is not recorded Josh. 5.  
4. That they did make profession of their faith before this circumcision, is evident enough by another place, Deut 26. 17. and that probably within a week before they were circumcised; and divers times the whole Nation were put upon it to make profession of, and engage for God and Religion, Josh. 24. and 2 Chro. 15. and 34. v. 32. 33. which last is the more remarkable, because it was done just before the Passover, that answers out Lords Supper. So Ezr. 10. and Neh. 10. and 11. and particularly its noted, Ezra 6. 21. that not simply all Church-members, but such as had separated themselves from the filthiness of the Heathen, to seek the Lord, did eat the Passover; which is also remarkable in Hozekiahs' Passover, where moral pollution was looked at as a greater bar than Levitical pollution, 2 Chron. v. 18.— 20.  
5. Whither will not men fall when once they are sliding, if God leave them to themselves? We had though before, M. H. had been only for free admission of persons baptised unto the Lord's Supper, now he is for the free admission of all persons at years born in the Church (of Christian parents) unto the Ordinance of Baptism, without either examination or profession. Here he falls an Ace below the Anabaptists, who will not admit the Children of Christian Parents to Baptism, without profession of their faith, etc. must we indeed baptise the children of Anabaptists, Quakers, Ranters, etc. being at age, without any trial of their faith and piety, without any engaging of them to profession of Christ, or obedience to him? All this laid together, will abundantly discover the vanity of M. H. his conclusion, and prove, that bare Church-membership is not enough for admission to the Lords Supper.  
M. H. ib. To the simile that follows, I have spoken, and I refer you to M. Calvin, who pleases himself with it, in showing the same point; to wit, Sacramenta non desinere esse testimonia gratiae Dei, Licet impiis quoque porrigantur. Just. l. 4. cap. 14. sect. 7.  
Answ. 1. His similitude I convince of weakness, page 130. of my Bar; to which it will be hard for M. H. to speak to purpose argumentatively, though I know he can speak fluently. The similitude I grant is good, if rightly applied; at which application (I hope I may speak it without offence) M. Calvin is better than M. Humphrey, and he is far enough from applying it to M. H. his purpose.  
2. We deny not what M. Calvin asserts, That the Sacraments are testimonies of God's grace, even when they are offered to the wicked. The essence of an Ordinance is not changed by man's wickedness: But what is this to the justifying of their practice, who offer the Sacrament promiscuously; against which Calvin is so zealous, that he calls it, 1. An ataxy, or disorder. 2. Sacrilege. 3. A profanation of the Sacrament. 4. A prostitution of the holy treasures. 5. A gross injury done to God. 6. So great an evil, that after all means used in vain to redress it, a Minister may warrantably forsake such a people as incorrigible, yea, ought not to stay with them. All this you have in one Epistle, page 438. and 439. of calvin's Epistles, printed at Geneva, An. 1617.  
M. D. How dare a Minister by word and seal apply the Covenant of grace to those that visibly reject it?  
M. H. 
Page 187.  Unto this M. D. shall first answer, p. 84, of his Bar, Though they transgress, they do not renounce the Covenant. 2. They are members of the visible Church till excommunicated. Well, now let him come to speak about the Sacrament, p. 131. All who are visibly in the state of nature (says he) are visibly out of Covenant. I pray mark it; if natural men be members of the visible Church, how are they visibly out of Covenant: If they are visibly in Christ, how do they visibly reject Christ?  
Answ. 1. I have answered this cavil formerly by comparing the Prophet Hosea with himself, and with other Scriptures.  
2. Experience proves that some Church-members do in the very letter reject the Covenant, instance in Witches; therefore my first assertion must be understood indefinitely, not universally.  
3. Were not the Jews visibly in Christ as God's professed people? yet they rejected Christ visibly in the letter before Pontius Pilate, Acts 3. 13. Do not Arrians also visibly reject the Deity of Christ?  
4. The same person may own Christ one way, yet visibly reject him another way: Thus too many who own Christ by profession, reject him by profaneness; attend upon him at the Ordinances, but renounce him in their conversation. Here is no contradiction, as M. H. would make the Reader believe. Does he think that Christ is not at all renounced, unless he be universally renounced?  
M. H. ib. So long as the Lord owns a people in Covenant, the Minister may apply the outward seals of it: But while men are Church-members, the Lord does own them outwardly as his people.  
Answ. The Minister may own them as God owns them; but God so owns a people professing his Covenant, as at the same time he disowns them breaking his Covenant, as hath formerly been showed; therefore so may a Minister own them as Church-members, but not as worthy Church-members, and fit Gommunicants.  
M. H. ib. So long as men are not excommunicate, I see no reason why Christ may not be offered Sacramentally, as free as verbally, to work them to repentance.  
Answ. 1. Why then doth not Mr. H. allow the suspension of persons jure excommunicate, who are not yet actually under excommunication?  
2. When he can prove that Christ received sacramentally, works repentance and conversion, than he speaks something to the purpose for free admission. For his similitude of a sealed pardon here repeated again: we grant, as the pardon is offered to all conditionally (which general includes every particular) so it's sealed in the Sacrament to all conditionally, whether they receive or no. But what is this to their receiving the sign, who visibly reject the thing signified? As the Promise, so the Sacrament, is offered to all, if they will believe and repent; but unbelievers and impenitent persons, must neither partake of the promises, nor of the seals.  
M. H. p. 188. Absolutely the Sacrament seals no man's interest, as M. D. vainly imagines.  
Answ. 1. If it seal not the believers interest absolutely, than the best Saint can take no solid comfort by the Sacrament. This vain conceit of M. H. like the Philistims earth, would stop up the well of comfort to God's isaac's.  
2. Therefore, a thing is absolute two ways, 1. When without condition. 2. When the condition is performed: but the condition of faith is performed by the worthy receiver; therefore the Sacrament seals his interest in Christ absolutely.  
M. H. ib. When other means will not work upon them, there remains excommunication, and let that content him.  
Answ. 1. Were M. H. serious in this particular, he would not be so favourable to gross and affected ignorance, which by his rule must neither be suspended nor excommunicated; and how then shall that damnable sin be cured?  
2. If there can be content in so sharp a remedy, we are content with excommunication as the last refuge, provided all other means be first used, among which we look at suspension as a very considerable one, how ever M. H. is pleased to overlook it.  
M. D. The Sacraments are Gods seals, as relating to God's Covenant, etc.  
M. H. p. 188. A good confession. Then they are not Gods seals, as relating unto faith, and instituted formally to ratify faith. They are not seals of faith for righteousness, etc.  
Answ. Is not this strange Logic? The Sacraments are Gods seals, as relating to the Covenant, therefore they are not Gods seals as relating unto faith. He may as well argue, Isaac was Abraham's son as relating to the promise, therefore he was not Abraham's son as relating to his faith: or, Isaac was a child of the promise, therefore he was not a child of faith. I hope God, Faith, and the Covenant, are not at such a distance, but that each of them may have a propriety in one and the same seal. Besides, if faith be a part of God's Covenant (which hath formerly been proved) then the Sacrament must needs be faiths seal, as well as the Covenants seal. Is the Covenant, God's Covenant; the Sacrament, God's Sacrament, as the Author thereof; and is not my faith also God's faith, as the Author thereof? and why then may not Gods seal be my faith's seal, as well as the Covenants seal? We dispute not about formalities, but realities; it's enough for us that the Sacrament is truly faiths seal, as well as Gods and the Covenants seal, though in some respect it may be faiths seal, in which respect it is not God's seal.  
M. D. Is not faith and every saving grace promised in the New-Covenant, unless M. H. will turn Pelagian?  
M. H. ib. We neither make faith the birth of man's freewill, nor yet to be given by virtue of the Covenant made with man, which the Sacrament seals; but to be Gods most free gift that proceeds from election and discovers the mysteric thereof.  
Answ. 1. I am glad M. H. is so Orthodox, as to acknowledge faith to be the birth, not of man's freewill, but of God's free electing grace. This agreement in fundamentals is comfortable, though we differ in superstructures.  
2. That in general, faith and other graces are promised in the New-Covenant, is to me unquestionable; for proof whereof I shall entreat M. H. to turn to Jerem. 31. v. 31, 32, 33. 
See likewise Ezek, 36. v. 25, 26, 27.  And 1. There you have a Covenant. 2. A future Covenant, I will make a Covenant, as distinct upon that account from the eternal Covenant made with Christ, which even then was a Covenant past. 3. A New Covenant, and that either in opposition to the Covenant of works made with Adam, or (which is the proper scope of the place) in contradistinction to the Legal Covenant made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, compare ver. 32. 4. A Covenant expressly made with man, even with the house of Israel and Judah, ver. 31, and 33. 5. Mark, I pray, what is given by virtue of this Covenant thus made with man, ver. 33. I will put my law in their hearts, and write it in their minds, etc. And what I pray, is the Law written in the heart, but faith and other graces? This is the more considerable, as pressed by the Apostle twice, Heb. 9 v. 8, 9,10. and 10. v. 15, 16.  
3. He mistakes in opposing a free gift to a Covenant, since the same thing may be a free gift and yet a covenanted mercy; and that two ways, 1. When covenanted absolutely, instance in God's Covenant against a future universal deluge, Gen. 9 v. 9 to 17. 2. When covenanted conditionally, yet so as the condition is promised in the Covenant, God therein undertaking for our part, as well as for his own: And such is the Covenant of Grace to all that are elected and effectually called, but to none else.  
To illustrate this by Sampsons' covenant with his thirty Companions, Judg. 14. v. 11, 12. Had the agreement been, that as many of them as could declare his riddle, should have each of them a sheet, etc. and at the same time Samson had resolved to declare the riddle to three of the thirty, before the seventh day, undoubtedly that Covenant with the three, though conditional in form, yet had been absolute in reality. And if a conditional proposition be not absolute, the condition being supposed or performed, then there is no absolute proposition in the world. Instance, If M. H. be a rational creature, than he is a man: this is a conditional proposition, yet I hope the consequent, That M. H. is a man, is an absolute proposition. Why? Because the condition is really in M. H. In lake manner, if Peter believe, he is justified, etc. this is a conditional proposition, yet upon the same account the consequent, Peter is justified, is an absolute proposition. Why? Because the condition is really performed by Peter. And thus its easy to make the most absolute propositions conditional by an hypothetical demonstration of any subject by its properties, 1 Kings 10. 21. If the Lord be God, follow him: this is conditional, yet I hope to follow the Lord is an absolute duty. Why? Because the condition of Deity is in him, and in him alone.  
For further explication note, A proposition (taking it here in a large sense) may be  
1. Absolutely true, and conditionally false; as, Judas shall be damned, and, Though Judas repent he shall be damned.  
2. Absolutely true, and conditionally true; as, Peter shall be saved, and, If Peter believe he shall be saved.  
3. Absolutely false, and conditionally true; as, Judas shall be saved, and, If Judas repent he shall be saved.  
4. Absolutely false, and conditionally false; as, Peter shall be damned, and, Though Peter believe he shall be damned.  
It's evident then, that Conditionality is no bar to Absoluteness: That which is conditionally true, may be absolutely true; and that which is absolutely true, may be conditionally true: And thus the Covenant is both conditional and absolute to the Elect, but only conditional to the Reprobate. It's conditional to both because a condition is required of both; its absolute to the one because the condition is purposed and promised to them, and wrought in them, namely, saving faith and repentance. And, as the Covenant is, so it's sealed in the Sacrament.  
It's evident then, that faith is the fruit, not only of Gods free gift, but also of God's Covenant.  
Mr. D. If the Covenant be Gods, if the Seal be Gods, and faith promised in it be Gods also, is it not apparent that God's Seal must needs be faiths Seal also?  
Mr. H. ib. and p. 189. If he count this apparent which is a very Chaos, you may guests what light to expect from him. The truth is, as faith is our condition it is not a branch of the Covenant that God seals; which puzzled this man; for if it were, every man should unquestionably come, and engage the Lord by his own Seal to undertake for his condition; and consequently, if God perform what he engages, every one should be saved.  
Ans. 1. If Mr. H. his ipse dixit be enough, how suddenly can he turn an apparent light into a Chaos? Now to dispel this Chaos of his making, not with words, but arguments. Note the ground of the  hypothesis opposed by Mr. H. is the near relation between God, the Covenant, and Faith, which are so inseparably united in the matter of grace, as that which is the Seal of the one, must needs be the Sea● 〈◊〉 the other; and that which is a Seal to the one, must needs be a Seal to the other. Thus if the Sacrament be a Seal of, and to God, it must needs be a Seal of, and to the Covenant, and of, and to Faith. They must needs be sealed as they are promised, but they are all promised together, and they must needs seal as they promise; but God, the Covenant, and Faith promise together, therefore they must needs both seal, and be sealed together; particularly, that the Covenant is promised. See Jer. 32. v. 31. etc.  
2. It's an untruth, That faith as our condition is not a branch of the Covenant that God seals. He may as well say, That the Law written in the heart, is not a branch of that Covenant; and that perseverance (which also is a condition) is not a branch of that Covenant. Sure the Prophet was of another mind, Jer. 32. v. 39 40. where you see God undertakes for the condition itself, as well as for the good things promised upon that condition.  
3. His argument to prove the former assertion is absurd, if his should relates to execution, not to obligation. We grant, every one under the Gospel should come, in point of duty, and humbly and seriously engage God to perform the condition in him, and by him, upon which God would perform what he engages, and every such person would be saved undoubtedly; but we deny that in point of execution every one can, or will come, and thus engage God, excepting only those who are elected, and effectually called, taught and drawn by the Father, Joh. 6. v. 44, 45. 
Compare Jer. 29. 12 13. & 21. 9 Ezek. 36 v. 25, 26, 27, 37. Zach 12. 10. Joh. 6. ●….  True, salvation is promised to all conditionally if they believe, and faith is required of all that live under the Gospel; but faith is not either promised, or given to all that are planted under the means of grace, but only to the Elect, Matth. 13. v. 13, 14, 15. Joh. 6. 64. and 2 Thess. 3. 2. Rom. 11. v. 7, 8. Joh. 6. v. 44, 45.  
Mr. H. p. 189. This Mr. D. sees p. 134. 135 and is quite lost in his very first particular, for while he supposes the Covenant promises initial grace to the Elect, and the Sacrament seals that Covenant, and the Seal secures what is in the writing (which are all his own terms) he must necessarily take upon him to judge who are Reprobates, which is sinful to do; or all must be admitted; For though men are visibly yet in the state of nature, they may be elect.  
Answ. Mr. H. his necessary consequence is, a mere non sequitur in both branches. True, the Covenant promises, the Sacrament seals, the seal secures grace absolutely only to the Elect, and effectually called; 
When I say initial grace is sealed in the Sacrament to the Elects I would not here be mistaken: I do not mean, that initial grace is sealed to an elect person (now in the state of nature) as progressive grace is sealed to a person effectually called. For illustration, Suppose Paul before conversion receive the Sacrament, or be present at it, etc. I do not think the Sacrament can assure Paul (though elected) that he shall be converted; but that it assures only in the general, that all the Elect shall be converted, who indeed are the Seed, and the true Israel. Rom 9 v. 6, 7,8. compare Jer. 31. 33. And this at present I cannot but assent to, till I be convineed, that the whole Covenant of grace is not sealed or confirmed in the Lord's Supper, which in its very institution, was a sign and seal of Christ's blood shed not only for the Apostles, but also for many for the remission of fins; compare Matth. 26. 28. and Luke 22. 20. And why that (many) should not include all the Elect (as well as some of them) I know not, yet I will not be peremptory, but shall very willingly learn of Mr. H. or any other that will inform me better.  But how doth it thence follow that I must necessarily take upon me to judge who are Reprobates, or else all must be admitted? Mr. H. gives the reason, because men may be visibly in the state of nature, and yet elected. A pitiful reason, which I shall endeavour to evince by these Arguments.  
1 Did I infallibly know a person to be elected, yea effectually called; It follows not that therefore I must presently admit him to the Sacrament, for he may be notwithstanding actually unworthy, as lying under the guilt of some scandalous sin, etc. much less than must all be admitted upon a supposition that possibly they are elected. Nor on the other hand doth it follow, That I undertake to judge who are Reprobates; For though it be true, that initial grace is promised, sealed, and secured in the Sacrament only to the elect; and though it be also true, that I dare not admit all Church-members to the Sacrament, yet it cannot flow from these two propositions, that I undertake to judge who are Reprobates, since we neither look at admission of any, as an infallible evidence of their Election, nor at suspension of any as an infallible evidence of their Reprobation; Nay we believe in thesi, that many persons admitted are Reprobates, and that divers persons suspended are elect vessels of mercy; the rule of Church-admission being not electing grace, but visible worthiness, and the rule of Church-suspension, being not Reprobation, but visible unworthiness.  
2. Yet further to convince him from the conditional Covenant which he grants is sealed in the Sacrament. It follows not, though the Covenant be sealed conditionally to all Church-members, that therefore all Church-members must be admitted, or else I must take upon me to judge who are in the state of nature, since the ground of suspension, is not simply men's being in the state of nature, but their actual unworthiness as visible, whether they be in the state of nature or not: Now if it follow not from the conditional sealing of the Covenant in the Sacrament, that I must either admit all, or undertake to judge who are in the state of nature; why should it follow from the absolute sealing of the Covenant, that all must be admitted, or I undertake to judge who are Reprobates? And this is the more considerable, because the conditional Covenant is sealed to all, not so the absolute Covenant. And if the conditional Covenant sealed to all be no ground for universal admission, much less is the absolute Covenant, sealed only to some Church members, a ground why all Church-members should be admitted.  
Again, if denying the Sacrament to divers to whom the Covenant is sealed conditionally be no argument to prove that I judge them to be in the state of nature, much less is the denying of the Sacrament to any an argument that I judge them to be Reprobates. My suspension of any argues indeed that at present I judge such a person to be visibly unworthy, at least actually; but it argues not necessarily that I judge him to be in the state of nature, much less, that I judge him to be a Reprobate.  
Mr. H. ib. Had not the man so much contemned me, he might have found how to distinguish between what comes from Gods undertaking with man, or the conditional bosom of the Covenant; and what comes from his undertaking with Christ, or the free, absolute bosom of Election.  
I perceive here the man is troubled as apprehending that I contemn him, which is a fond and groundless jealousy. I hate his errors, but I honour his person.  
Withal he twits me as not distinguishing between what comes from Gods undertaking with man, and what comes from Gods undertaking with Christ.  
I confess I am too dim-sighted, and therefore shall willingly be instructed by Mr. H. or any other, provided they will suffer me to see with my own eyes, and not take things upon bare report and trust.  
I shall therefore crave leave to distinguish between Gods undertaking for man, and Gods undertaking with man. For man God undertook with Christ from eternity to call some effectuality. With man God undertakes two ways: 1. With all, at least to whom the Covenant is proclaimed, to give them salvation by Christ, upon condition of their faith and repentance. 2. With some (that is, the effectually called.) 1. To give them perseverance in the condition which himself hath already wrought in them (partly of free grace, and partly by virtue of the Covenant made with Christ on their behalf.) And 2. In the issue to give them eternal salvation upon the forementioned account of Christ and free grace. And why Gods undertaking for man may not be sealed in the Sacrament, as well as Gods undertaking with man; as yet I must confess, I see no convincing reason.  
M. H. ib. I pray compare M. D. his third particular with this first. The Sacrament, he says there, is for nourishment (and that I hope to the Elect) So p. 147. it seals not initial, but progressive grace: and yet here, the Covenant (he counts) promises initial grace to the elect, and the seal secures what is in the Covenant. So that what need I to dispute with Mr. Drake, when his own particulars have an opponent and defendant among themselves? etc.  
Answ. 1. The Sacrament seals not nourishment at present to the elect unregenerate in sensu conjuncto, as the Covenant promises not growth to them before they have life. As the Covenant promises, so the Sacrament seals orderly: 1. Life and initial grace. 2. Nourishment and growth; M. H. therefore might have spared his parenthesis, but that by it he hoped to slur me.  
2. To slur me yet more, M. H. corrupts my text, page 147. of my Bar: my words are these, The Sacrament (as received) is not a means of initial, but of progressive grace, doth not beget grace at first by regeneration, but increase and strengthen grace by nourishment and confirmation, etc. There is no such words in that page, as M. H. fathers upon me; namely, that the Sacrament seals not initial, but progressive grace.  
Object. What the Sacrament seals, that it begets: But the Sacrament (Dr.) Drake confesses) seals initial grace; ergo.  
Answ. Absurd, if understood universally. The Sacrament seals Christ's death and satisfaction, I hope it doth not beget them. It begets some things it seals; namely, progressive grace and evidence; but it doth not beget all things it seals, amongst which initial grace is one. True, p. 135. of my Bar, I have these words (for omitting of which I do not thank M. H. his kindness) The Lord's Supper being a Sacrament of nourishment, seals not properly initial, but progressive grace, nor can the Church apply it to conversion, but edification, etc.  
Thence some may argue, that I assert, the Sacrament seals not initial grace, yet elsewhere affirm, that the Sacrament doth seal initial grace: which two propositions seem contradictory.  
Answ. True, had I not inserted that term properly; and that upon this account, because though the Sacrament seal or assure, that all the elect shall have initial grace: yet this cannot effectually comfort Timothy (supposing him then in his natural estate) because at the same time his election is uncertain to him, though certain in itself. As that branch of the Covenant, That all the elect shall have initial grace, cannot comfort me, till I know I am elected: so the sealing or assuring of that branch, cannot comfort me, till I know I am elected, Therefore I said, the Sacrament seals not initial grace properly, because, though it seal really, that all the elect yet unconverted, shall in due time be effectually called, and so shall have an interest in the blood of Christ declaratively shed in the Sacrament, for the remission of the sins of many: yet by that sealing, an elect person in the estate of nature, can have no special comfort; because he cannot in an ordinary way know he is elected, till he be effectually called, at which time initial grace is wrought, and is the ordinary and sure evidence of election; and to such a one the Sacrament doth not seal initial grace, as future, and to be wrought, but as past and already wrought, but it properly seals progressive grace, in the sense . My own particulars than do not fall together by the ears, though M. H. do his best to make them mutual Opponents and Defendants, that by their seeming variance, his error of Free-Admission might get the day.  
Having laid this foundation, I shall now come to his posing Questions, page 190. unto which I shall endeavour to give a clear and a candid answer.  
Mr. H. Q. 1. Whether it be one and the same Covenant I speak of there?  
Answ. As to eternal Salvation, and the necessary conditions thereof (to wit, perseverance and suitable growth in grace) I believe the Covenant made with Christ from eternity, and with those of the elect, who are effectually called in time, is one and the same substantially, though in other particulars there be a vast difference.  
M. H. Q. 2. How the Covenant being conditional, doth promise absolutely?  
Answ. Because as it requires the condition of the regenerate, so it promises the condition to the regenerate.  
M. H. Q. 3. How it promises initial grace? For faith and repentance are the conditions of the Covenant; and how can faith be promised upon condition we have grace?  
Answ. 1. That it doth promise initial grace, is evident by Scripture, Ezek. 36. 26, 27. unless the new heart, the heart of flesh, the spirit put within us, be not initial grace.  
2. Initial faith and repentance are not promised, upon condition we have faith and repentance, or grace (I own not that Brat, though M. H. would fain father it upon me) But because it's promised or foretold absolutely in the Covenant, that initial grace shall in due time be wrought in all the Elect yet uncalled (not so in the reprobate) And because I apprehend the whole Covenant is sealed or assured (as to its truth) in the Sacrament, I must confess (with submission to better judgements) I know not how to shut this branch of the Covenant here out of doors.  
Object. 
This Objection supposes the promise of salvation made conditionally to natural men.  Is it not a mockage to make a conditional promise to him, who I know cannot perform the condition?  
Answ. Not at all. Supposing 1. He be bound to the condition. 2. That the condition was once in his power. 3. That he lost that power by his own default, which is the case of all Adam's posterity by natural generation. Doth God mock natural men who are under the Law, by promising them life upon condition of perfect obedience? Matth. 19 17. Hath God lost his authority to command, because we have lost our power to obey? And may not God annex a promise to any command, but he must be thought to mock his creature? And if God may promise life to perfect obedience, without mockage; may he not promise life to faith, without mockage, though the creature left to itself be able to perform neither of the conditions? May the creditor promise liberty to an insolvent debtor, upon condition he satisfy the debt, and that without mockage; and may not God promise life to an impotent creature, upon condition the creature believe, etc. without mockage? God by requiring impossible conditions, and annexing promises to those conditions, designs not to mock his poor creature, but to demonstrate the creatures impotency, and thereby to out it of self, etc.  
Mr. H. Q. 4. What difference is there between the Covenants offer of grace, and promise of grace conditionally?  
Answ. As much difference as there is between the tender of 100 l. down upon the nail, and the promise of the said money without tender. The tender of the money upon the day will excuse the debtor in Law, not so the promise of that money. I think there is some difference between saying, Come when you will, and you shall have your money; and saying, Here is your money, I pray tell it and take it.  
Mr. H. Q. 5. How can the offer of grace. be said to be sealed, as offer is distinguished from promise?  
Answ. As he that tenders money promised under hand and seal, may by witness, hand and seal, attest that the tender was made to all, and accepted by some creditors, but refused by others. I hope here the tender sealed, is distinguished clear enough from the promise sealed.  
Mr. H. Q. 6. Whether the Minister can seal which he please, either the offer or promise; and why he should not content himself to seal the offer which is sure to all present, rather than to seal the promise where he may err, seeing his visible Legatees, really may not be such?  
Answ. 1. The Minister must seal what Christ would have him, and that is both offer and promise, they ever going together in the Sacrament; nor is he at his own choice, to seal whether he please. What God promises in the Covenant, that he offers by his Ambassadors, both in the word preached, and at the Sacrament; only at the Sacrament; there is not only a promise and offer, but also a sealing of them both.  
2. The promise and offer are considerable, 1. As to their real existence; and thus the Sacrament seals, that the promise and offer of Christ to all present (yea, wherever the Gospel is preached) conditionally, is no fiction, but a fundamental truth. 2. As to its attingency and efficacy; and thus it's not promised or offered to all present, or to all receivers. My meaning is, that at the Sacrament, Christ with all his benefits is never so either promised or offered, as that all present are assured thereby, they shall either obtain infallibly the good things promised, or accept the good things tendered. Whence it follows, that though the Minister may mistake (as a man) about the person of any receiver, thinking charitably he hath grace, when he hath it not: yet he cannot mistake as to his office, since he undertakes not to promise or tender Christ effectually to any (that being only God's work) though he groundedly hope God by him doth effectually promise and tender Christ to divers receivers; namely, where the Spirit is pleased to strike in effectually with the promise and tender sealed, in the Sacrament, by the Minister as Christ's Ambassador.  
Object. How can the Minister seal absolutely to the regenerate, when he cannot seal to them but upon condition of regeneration? And since he knows none that are regenerated (I mean, as such) must he not needs seal conditionally to all, and so to the regenerate among the rest?  
Answ. As a promise may be both absolute and conditional, so it may be sealed both absolutely and conditionally: Now the promise is made to the regenerate both absolutely and conditionally; therefore it may and must be sealed to them both absolutely and conditionally. The promise of salvation is made and sealed to Timothy, 1. Conditionally, that is, upon condition of his acting and persevering in faith, etc. 2. Absolutely, because really the condition is and shall be performed by him. The same promise is made and sealed to Judas only conditionally, because those conditions are neither performed nor performable by him: whence the promise can no way be made or sealed absolutely to Judas, as it is to Timothy. Though therefore the Minister at the Sacrament seal conditionally to Timothy, yet at the same time he seals absolutely also (though haply unwittingly) because the condition of eternal salvation is performed by Timothy, not so by Judas.  
Mr. D. Christ may be given to all at the Sacrament (if you take giving for holding forth) though they do not receive.  
Page 190. M. H. What an unworthy shift is this to be made use of so often! As Christ is held forth to all Sacramentally, he is held forth to this end to be Sacramentally eaten and drunken. Take eat, this is my body; that is, thus taken and eaten it is his body, and not otherwise. The Sacrament than gives not out Christ, or holds him forth Sacramentally, but to those that receive it. 
The fallacy lies in the term Sacramental. At the Lord's Supper you have Christ Spiritual and Sacramental. At every Lord's Supper Christ Spiritual is offered to all present, and it's their duty to receive Christ Spiritual: But it follows not thence, that Christ Sacramental (that is, the Elements) must be offered to, and received by all present. They are justly denied the sign, who visibly refuse the thing signified.   
Answ. I perceive M. H. hath a strong breath, to blast a man's sense, where he cannot convince it. I dare not boast of any worthiness either in my person, words, or actions; I hope the Lord hath made me truly sensible of my exceeding great unworthiness in them all. However (as I have) I shall endeavour, through grace, to assert and vindicate truth, though, I must confess, too unworthily. As to the point in hand:  
1. It's false, that Christ is or must be held forth to all present Sacramentally, if by holding forth you mean an offer or tender. Suppose one jure excommunicate be present; must the Minister offer Christ Sacramental to him? M. H. himself hath granted the contrary. True, he is held forth to all present Sacramentally by way of Declaration, but not by way of Oblation or offer to all present. All present may see Christ set apart and broken Sacramentally, etc. they may also see the Covenant sealed in the Sacrament to all present conditionally: But it follows not thence, that Christ must needs be offered Sacramentally to all present, though he be always offered to some present Sacramentally, and must be so received by them.  
2. It's false, that unless the Sacramental bread be eaten (understand proportionably of the Sacramental Cup as Christ's blood) it's not Christ's body: for 1. It's Christ's body by consecration, according to Christ's institution, before it be taken and eaten, otherwise the Minister would utter an untruth in speaking those words, Take eat, this is Christ's body, etc. 2. The not receiving of some present (whether it be orderly or sinful) cannot make void Christ's institution, but by virtue thereof the bread is Christ's body, so long as the solemnity of the Sacrament continues.  
3. Though Christ be not offered Sacramenttally to all at the Lords Supper, yet he is offered Spiritually to all present, and the promise of Christ spiritual is sealed conditionally to all present; who seeing Christ crucified by them, and for them, may be much affected and wrought upon, though they do not receive the Elements, Gal. 3. 1. as well as the Communicants themselves, who I hope, are affected with the Elements set apart, broken and poured out, before their actual receiving. May not a Look upon Christ crucified, affect as well as a receiving of Christ crucified? Zach. 12. 10. I do not say as much, since both of these actions will affect more than one of them.  
M. H. p. 191. As the Minister doth not only lose, but bind in the word; so doth he in the Sacrament, but conditionally in both.  
Answ. If his meaning be, that the Minister loses and binds only conditionally, than he loses the wicked as much as the godly, and binds the godly as much as the wicked; the reason is, because at the same time that he loses the godly conditionally, he binds them also conditionally; and at the same time he binds the wicked conditionally, he loses them also conditionally. Dare he say absolutely to a godly man; Thy sins are remitted, though thou repent not; or to a wicked man, Thy sins are bound, though thou repent? I pray what difference between Timothy and Judas as to this particular, upon M. H. his principles. Timothy's sins are loosed if he repent, and bound if he repent not; Judas his sins are bound if he repent not, and loosed if he repent. Is it not evident here, that Judas is loosed as much as Timothy, and Timothy bound as much as Judas, if the binding or losing be only conditional on both sides. Therefore say we, the Minister loses the wicked conditionally, when he binds the wicked absolutely; he loses the godly absolutely, when he binds them conditionally: yea, when he lose the godly conditionally, he loses them absolutely; and when he binds the wicked conditionally, he binds them absolutely; and that because the conditions upon which the first is loosed, and the second bound, are in them absolutely, or are performed by them. And a conditional losing or binding, where the condition is performed, is absolute, as before. The Minister acting clavae non errante, binds the wicked absolutely, as to his present state, but loses the godly absolutely both as to his present and future-state, because the godly hath performed the condition of losing, and shall certainly persevere in the performance of that condition; but many wicked men do not persevere in the condition of binding (namely, unbelief and impenitency) therefore the Minister cannot bind them absolutely for the future. Now as the Minister loses and binds, not only conditionally, but also absolutely in the word, so he doth in the Sacrament: And so he seals my losing or binding, whether I receive or not, since the Sacrament seals the whole Covenant of Grace made with man, whereof losing and binding are a great part. Nor is it material the Minister should know (as such) the persons whom he binds or loses absolutely, the binding or losing being as sure and effectual, though he do it ignorans, as though he did it sciens volens. Only the Minister must take heed he lose not either pastorally or juridically where he thinks in his conscience he ought to bind; nor bind where his conscience tells him he ought to lose, whether it be with the key of Doctrine, or of Discipline.  
Mr. H. ib. The word is a sealed word only to the Church, the seal is delivered only for her use, and therefore is to be applied only to her members.  
Ans. 1. He may as well say, The word is a sworn and written word only to the Church. God hath not only written, but also sworn, and sealed in the Sacrament the salvation of all believers, and the damnation of all unbelevers, whether they be Church-members or no; And do we think the oath and seal shall not take hold of them as well as the writing.  
2. Cannot the word be a sealed word, unless the Seal be applied to persons, as well as to the writing? I hope a Will is a sealed Will, though the Seal be not applied to the Legatees, but only to the Will itself. Had God appointed the elements only to be broken and poured out; I hope those very actions had sealed the Covenant, though no person present had received; and even now they do seal the Covenant before any person doth receive. The Sin-offering did both signify and seal pardon to the penitent offerer, though he are not one bit thereof; and so doth the baptising of a child seal the Covenant to the whole Congregation, though baptismal-water be applied only to the Babe.  
Mr. D. Not only the tenor of the Covenant is sealed absolutely to the worthy receiver, but also his interest in it. And though the word speak not particularly of any man's single interest by name, yet it doth by signs, etc.  
Mr. H. p. 192. If a man's particular interest depends upon these signs and marks, then is his interest only conditional, and must be sealed as it is; and the rather, because the word doth no where tell me, that I have these signs and marks.  
Answ. 1. I deny the consequence as propounded by Mr. H. my interest indeed upon the supposition is conditional, which is no bar to absoluteness, as hath been formerly showed. But that it is only conditional is Mr. H. his mistake: For where the condition is performed (as it is in the worthy Receiver) there his interest is absolute, and is sealed absolutely, yea, though neither the Minister, nor the Receiver know the condition to be performed, God ratifying his Covenant absolutely to them that keep Covenant, though neither the Minister, nor themselves know they keep Covenant.  
2. The word doth no where tell Mr. H. in particular that he hath the signs of a man, yet I hope the general. That all men shall rise at the day of judgement, doth as certainly prove that Mr. H. shall rise, as if the word had said particularly, John Humphrey Minister of Froom, Anno 1653. shall rise at the day of judgement. In like manner, The word never says, Thou Timot by shalt be on Christ's right hand at the day of judgement, but it says, All the sheep shall be then at Christ's right hand; therefore it says absolutely Timothy shall be at Christ's right hand; Why? Because Timothy is a sheep; for the condition being performed makes the promise or prediction absolute; and otherwise it's not an absolute truth that Mr. H. shall rise at the last day. Set the propositions together;  
1. If Mr. H. be a man he shall rise at the last day.  
2. If Timothy be a sheep, he shall stand on Christ's right hand at the last day. Here both the propositions are conditional in terms, yet I hope they are absolute in sense. Why I pray? Because the conditions are performed in each of them, for Mr. H. is a man, and Timothy is Christ's sheep.  
Mr. D. visible interest is sealed to visible Saints.  
Mr. H. ib. Church members are visible Saints, therefore consideratis considerandis, must be admitted.  
Answ. 1. I speak of visible Saints absolutely so, he of visible Saints only relatively so, that is, divers persons worse than heathen, that have nothing to plead, but that they are born in the Church, baptised in their infancy, and have the name of Christians.  
2. True visible Saints must be admitted consideratis considerandis; but Mr. H. will not considerare omnia consideranda; therefore by his own rule his visible Saints must not be admitted.  
Page 192 & 193. Mr. H. falls foul upon me as questioning Mr. baxter's truth of grace, whom yet he quotes so blindly.  
That 1. He mentions not Mr. baxter's name.  
Nor 2. His book out of which he quotes.  
Nor 3. Did I know it was Mr. Baxter, or who it was particularly.  
Nor 4. Have so much as read Mr. Baxters' Aphorisms, out of which the Quotation was taken.  
Nor 5. Had Mr. H. reason to censure me for putting an if so, upon Mr. Baxter presented to me under a confused disguise, when himself puts an if so upon all the godly men in the world, in saying, The Minister cannot seal salvation to any but conditionally, that is, if he be Evangelically worthy; and what is this, but an if so? Yet, I hope, by that if so, he doth not out of a bitter spirit question their piety. If herein I am more charitable to him, than he hath been to me, I hope he will not take it unkindly. My words p. 140. of my Bar, are these:  
I hope that godly person (if so) was converted before Mr. H. his Embryon was hatched.  
Upon these very words, Mr. H. is pleased to charge me with self-conceit, prejudice, and a bitter spirit, p. 192. when as himself in that very place where he quotes Mr. Baxter so blindly, p. 48. of his Vindication, gives him in effect, an if so, in these words, I cannot but be glad to find a piercing godly man (I take him) etc. Himself dare not say absolutely he was a godly man, but he takes him to be so; I say that godly man, if so, was converted before, etc. I leave it to the judicious Reader, whether Mr. H. or myself were more guilty of self-conceit, prejudice, and a bitter spirit. Withal, what ever Mr. baxter's judgement be for Mr. H. his syllogism, I am sure he is not of Mr. H. his opinion for admitting all pellmell. Mr. Baxter is a person whom I highly honour in the Lord, though I cannot in every thing jurare in verba magistri.  
Page 193. Mr. H. comes to his syllogism, Whosoever believes shall be saved, I believe, ergo, I shall be saved. p. 141. of my Bar, I endeavour to prove the conclusion of this syllogism (I shall be saved) is sealed in the Sacrament. My argument is drawn from the general, and particular promise, Joh. 3. 16. and Rom. 10. 9 and confirmed from the particular offer of grace, and from the argument à genere ad speciem. See p. 141. and 142. of my Bar. Now what is promised in the Covenant is sealed in the Sacrament.  
Mr. H. denies my argument, and gives his reason, page 193. because the Covenant promises only conditionally that I shall be saved.  
Ans. It hath been formerly showed, that what is promised conditionally, is promised absolutely, where the condition is performed; and what is promised in the Covenant, is sealed in the Sacrament. As in this conditional proposition, If Mr. H. be a man, he is a living creature. I hope the conditionality of this proposition is no bar to the absoluteness of the consequent. Mr. H. is conditionally an animal, as is evident in the hypothesis, yet he is absolutely an animal too. Why? because the condition of animality (namely humanity) is in him.  
In like manner, If Timothy believe, he shall be saved; the consequent (Timothy shall be saved) is absolute in sense, because he hath performed the condition of faith, though it be conditional in terms: And that promise which says, All that believe shall be saved, says Timothy shall be saved, because Timothy believes; as he that says, All men shall rise, says Timothy shall rise, because Timothy is a man.  
Note by the way, that I do not say, The conclusion is absolute to all, but only to those who have performed, or have in them the condition; and withal, that though it be true, that he who once receives with faith shall be saved, yet it follows not, that he who once receives without faith shall be damned, as Mr. H. absurdly infers, page 194. since even a state of unbeleef doth not prove absolutely that I shall be damned, but only that at present I am in a state of damnation; much less doth a receiving once without faith infer any such direful conclusion; and the reason is, because a state of unbeleef is changeable through grace, but a state of faith is unchangeable through grace; and one act of faith, argues a state of faith, but one omission of the act of faith, doth not argue a state of unbeleef.  
Ib. His argument is too weak to convince my distinction of weakness, for though the matter of the offer and promise be all one, yet that grace may be offered absolutely which is not accepted, but no grace is promised absolutely, which is not, or shall not be accepted.  
Mr. D. Where the condition is performed, there the promise is absolute.  
Mr. H. ib. I deny it; what is but upon supposition is not absolute; you may say, It is as good to me, as if it were absolute; it is certain, (there lies the equivocation) but how is it certain? not absolutely certain (as election is) but conditionally certain; for the promise is still the same, and no new promise.  
Answ. 1. If a conditional promise be as good to me, as if it were absolute; that is, certain, then M. H. doth but wrangle about terms. Grant the Believers salvation is certain, as if it were absolute, we have enough: And its evident, there is a wide difference between the conditionality of Peter's and Judas his salvation, since Peter's conditional salvation is certain, not so Judas his conditional salvation. That which is absolute can but be certain, and that which is conditional is certain. Now that which is certain in the Covenant, is sealed in the Sacrament; therefore it's sealed in the Sacrament that Peter shall certainly be saved (not so that Judas shall certainly be saved) which is the conclusion of the Syllogism.  
2. There is no equivocation, but a plain and downright assertion, That conditionality is no Bar to absoluteness: And, if this be not true, there is no absolute proposition in the world. To instance in that of election, which M. H. grants is absolute. Let the proposition be, All that are elected, shall certainly be saved. This proposition in truth is absolute, and is so granted to be by M. H. Now let M. H. or any other, prove this proposition; he will clearly see, it is conditional also. For evidence whereof, I shall propound this Agument, If God be alwise, all-sufficient, and unchangeable in his eternal purpose of freegrace, than all that are elected shall certainly be saved. But God is so; ergo. Is it not here evident, that the consequent (which is the conclusion) is conditional? yet withal, we say truly, it is absolute. Why? Because the condition of infinite wisdom, power, and unchangeableness (which are the necessary mediums to prove the conclusion) are really, necessarily, and essentially in God. Now if conditionality be no bar to the absoluteness of election, why should it be a bar to the absoluteness of the promise as made to the elect and regenerate, for whom, or by whom the condition either is, or shall certainly be performed, and is undertaken for in the promise, as well as are the good things promised upon that condition.  
M. D. When I believe, the condition is performed; ergo, the promise, that I shall be saved, is absolute.  
M. H. ib. That which assures me of a benefit only upon condition, and does not assure me the condition, doth not assure me absolutely of the benefit. The Sacrament assures me of salvatition only upon condition I believe, but doth not assure me I believe: Therefore it doth not assure me absolutely of salvation.  
Answ. 1. M. H. his answer is not home to the matter immediately under debate; I speaking of the absoluteness of the promise to a believer, and he answering of the Sacraments sealing to a believer. Now the promise is absolute, whether the Sacrament seal or no, yea, though there should be no Sacrament or Seal at all.  
2. There is a twofold assurance, 1 Real. 2. Sensible. The Sacrament gives to Peter real assurance of his faith, though not always sensible assurance, for which not the Sacrament, but Peter himself is to be blamed, who fails haply, 1. In a direct act, not considering the nature and use of the Sacrament. 2. In a reflex act, not observing his own faith of adherence; whereupon he may well fall short of sensible assurance. The Sacrament can seal but what is in the Covenant, and the Covenant doth not undertake so absolutely for faith of evidence, as it doth for faith of adherence.  
3. There is an ambiguity in the words, I believe: The Sacrament doth not seal, I believe, de praesenti, unless actually I do believe de praesenti, for than it should seal a falsity; which how absurd? But it seals, 1. That every true believer hath saving grace. 2. That he hath believed, and shall believe by intervals till he die. And this it doth by consequents; namely, by sealing the Covenant, and therein the truth of those marks and signs which accompany the act of adherence, produced by a Believer at the Sacrament, or at any other time.  
M. H. ib. Again, That proposition that contains the Covenant is sealed: But the major contains the Covenant, not the conclusion; therefore the major not the conclusion, is sealed.  
Answ. 1. The major of his Syllogism is not sufficient to infer the conclusion, unless the term only or alone be added to it.  
2. I deny the second branch of his minor, and affirm the contrary proposition, namely, That the conclusion is in the Covenant, to wit, remotely, and by consequence, though not immediately, as is the major. M H. will not deny; that all solid consequences from Scripture are virtually in Scripture; otherwise our Saviour could never have proved the Resurrection from that text, I am the God of Abraham, etc. Let us compare the Syllogisms.  
1. Syllog.  If God be the God of Abraham, etc. then there is a Resurrection: God is the God of Abraham; therefore there is a Resurrection. 
2. Syllog.  If all believers shall be saved; then Peter shall be saved: All believers shall be saved; therefore Peter shall be saved. 
The Antecedent in each Syllogism is express Scripture, and virtually includes the Consequent. Nor is it material as to the present Conclusion, whether Peter by a reflex act knows that he doth believe, the conclusion of certain salvation flowing from the presence, and acting of faith in Peter, not from Peter's knowledge thereof. Peter's comfort indeed depends upon the knowledge of his faith; but that is the minor of the first Syllogism of assurance (of which anon) not the conclusion.  
M. H. p. 195. M. D. p. 143. undertakes the minor, although before, p. 128. he tells us, He knows none so simple as to assert, that God doth attest our faith: Yet here he is grown so wise as to assert, that God doth seal to this proposition, I believe.  
Answ. In these expressions M. H. doth not carry himself as a fair and candid Adversary, but mangles and corrupts my text, thereby to slur me. My words, p. 128. of my Bar, are these, I know none so simple as to assert, that God doth in terminis attest our faith in the Sacrament. And to prevent (what in me lay) all possibility of cavil, I have these words in the margin, My meaning is, The Sacrament doth not say in express terms. Thou Roger believest, no more than the word doth, but only by consequence. Now M. H. (more prudently than honourably) leaves out those words, in terminis; and withal, takes not the least notice of my marginal explication, that thereby he might make the Reader believe I speak here a contradiction; whereas if both my assertions be candidly presented, there is no show of contradiction. For proof, let the propositions be compared.  
1. Propos. The Scripture says not in express terms, Thou Roger believest.  
2. Propos. The Scripture says by consequence, Thou Roger believest.  
I hope it's no contradiction to affirm, The Scripture says that by consequence, which it doth not say in express terms. But enough of this cavil, which I leave at M. H. his door, and proceed.  
M. D. What the Covenant assures, the Sacrament seals: The Covenant assures me that I believe; therefore the Sacrament seals that I believe. The minor is proved, because the Covenant gives me clear evidence of my faith by infallible signs of faith, etc.  
M. H. p. 195. You may see here how much prejudice will blind a man. The mistake is manifest in reckoning that to the minor, which belongs to the major: for when the word says, If I believe, I shall be saved, it is all one with, If I receive Christ for righteousness, and have these and these marks, whereby it describes this faith to me: All which go to the major. Now the minor or Assumption is, But I have these marks, signs, or that true faith thus described. And this is no where affirmed to me in the word, and consequently not sealed.  
Answ. 1. If this Logic of M. H. be good, there is no minor or Assumption, but the proof of it belongs to the major. Take one instance, I would prove myself (by Philosophy) to be a man, the very same way I have proved myself (by Scripture) to believe. Observe now how the argument and answer run parallel with my argument, to prove I believe, and M. H. his answer applied thereto; by which comparison the absurdity of M. H. his answer will evidently appear. The argument stands thus; If I am animal rationale, I am homo: I am animal rationale; therefore I am Homo,  
The minor is proved, because Philosophy gives me clear evidence of my animality and rationality, by sure signs thereof.  
May not M. H. here with as much show of reason argue, The mistake is manifest in reckoning that to the minor, which belongs to the major; for when Philosophy says, If I am animal rationale, I am homo; it is all one with, If I am a sensitive body endued with a reasonable soul, and have all other necessary signs and marks whereby it describes animality and rationality to me, than I am Homo, all which go to the major. Now the minor or Assumption is, But I have these marks and signs, or that true animality and rationality thus described: and this is no where affirmed to me in Philosophy; for Philosophy doth not say in express terms, Thou Roger hast the true signs or marks of animality and rationality; therefore Philosophy doth not say, Thou Roger art a man; and so it cannot be proved from Philosophy that I am a man. You may argue as absurdly, from Scripture, if you please, The Scripture doth not say in express terms, Thou Roger hast the certain signs of animality and rationality, therefore it doth not say, Thou Roger art a man: And so, belike, it cannot be proved from Scripture, that I am a man. Is not this rare Logic think you? If now I should desire M. H. to prove himself to be a man, he must prove it from Scripture or Philosophy. And how I pray, but by those infallibly and necessary marks laid down in Scripture, or in Philosophy? Suppose then I should return, and say, I but Sir, neither Scripture nor Philosophy say those signs are in M. H. therefore neither Scripture nor Philosophy prove that M. H. is a man: Did I not deserve to be hooted at for such a return?  
It is evident then, that though neither Scripture nor Philosophy say in express terms, Thou Timothy art a man; yet because both of them lay down the certain signs of a man, which are really in Timothy; therefore both Scripture and Philosophy say by consequence (though not in express terms) Thou Timothy art a man. Proportionably, though the Scripture say not in express terms, Thou Timothy believest; yet because the Scripture lays down the infallible signs of faith, which are really in Timothy, it says by consequence, Thou Timothy believest. And that which the Scripture speaks by consequence, is as true, as that which it speaks expressly. If the Scripture say, whoever hath these marks of faith, hath saving faith, it says Timothy hath saving faith: And though the proposition be conditional, If Timothy have these marks, he hath saving faith; yet the consequent is absolute, because the condition is performed in Timothy. And it is as absurd to argue, I but the essential marks of faith are the same with faith; and therefore cannot prove believing to be faith: as to argue, The essential marks of a man are the same with a man; and therefore cannot prove Timothy to be a man.  
You see the absurdity. If you ask how M. H. was beguiled to close with such an absurdity?  
Answ. He was deceived by a false principle, as apprehending, That whatsoever is a medium of demonstration, must not be one and the same with the thing it demonstrates. This is evident by those expressions of his, p. 195. When the Word says, if I believe I shall be saved; it is all one with, if I receive Christ for righteousness, and have these and these marks, etc. The Argument stands thus, If I believe, I shall be saved: I believe, therefore I shall be saved.  
The Antecedent (which is the same with the minor) is thus proved, He that receives Christ for righteousness believes: I receive Christ for righteousness; therefore I believe. 
The first Proposition is not at all asserted in the major, but supposed: the second proposition is asserted only condionally in the major: but that is asserted absolutely in the minor, this in the Conclusion. And though both propositions were false, yet the major or hypothesis is good, if the connexion be right.  Here M. H. answers, that receiving Christ for righteousness, is the same with believing; and therefore belongs to the major, not to the minor or Assumption. True, it belongs to the major materially, as one part thereof; which major being an hypothetical proposition is compounded of two propositions; namely, the Antecedent and the Consequent, I receive Christ for righteousness, I believe; both which propositions are united by the note of consequence (if) but it doth not formally belong to the major, as an hypothetical proposition, or as a Consequence, whose essence lies not in the truth of the parts, but in the connexion of the parts. Reduce the hypothetical into a Categorical Syllogism, it will evidently appear, that this proposition (I receive Christ for righteousness) belongs not to the major, but to the minor. Thus: He that receives Christ for righteousness believes: I receive Christ for righteousness; therefore I believe.  
Will M. H. now say, the minor belongs to the major?  
Object. I but Receiving Christ for righteousness, and believing, are all one, and so you do but prove idem per idem.  
Answ. True: And how will M. H. prove idem, but peridem? Is not that the clearest and strongest demonstration that proves a subject à priori, by its essential principles, that are the very same with the subject? Can he demonstrate the definitum better, than per definitionem? and is not definitio the fame with the definitum? Is not animal rationale, the very same with homo? And if M. H. will prove himself to be a man, is not the best demonstration thereof by animal rationale, which yet I hope is one and the same thing with a man. The definition indeed differs vatione from the definitum, but not really. In like manner, is not ens the same with unum, verum, bonum? yet Philosophy demonstrates ens by those properties of ens, as it doth also per essentiam, which must needs be the same with ens. Thus too, it demonstrates animal per animalitatem, which animalit as is the very same with animal. To conclude, God's essence is demonstrated by his properties, and one divine property is demonstrated by another; yet God's essence and properties are all one and the same thing, the divine nature having not the least composition; yea, can M. H. prove himself to be a man by that which is not really a man? If the best demonstration be per idem, then sure I err not in demonstrating faith by itself; which if M. H. will deny, he must make not only a new Logic, but also a new Scripture, seeing the Scripture describes, and so proves receiving Christ, and believing in Christ, each by other, John 1. 12.  
Object. Is not this a circular demonstration?  
Answ. Not at all, so the medium or argument be notius, more known of itself, or to the learner, than the thing proved is. Thus, If you ask me, what is faith? Ans. It's a receiving of Christ for righteousness. This description is the very same indeed with faith, but more known to a learner than the term faith is; and therefore doth very aptly both open and demonstrate the nature of faith, as being the same with faith realiter, though not ratione. It's evident then, that though faith be the very same with receiving of Christ, yet it's no Paralogism to prove or demonstrace faith by receiving of Christ, as M. H. would make the world believe.  
M. H. ib. I will therefore return his argument; If the word or Covenant doth not assure me, I leeve, than this minor cannot be sealed; but this it doth not, for it no where says, I have these marks and signs, ergo.  
Answ. Since Mr. H. will needs be absurd, let me be absurd also to convince him. Suppose the minor be I am a man. Let me now act Mr. H. If neither Scripture, nor Philosophy assure me that I am a man, than the minor cannot be proved from Scripture or Philosophy; but this they do not, for they no where say, I Roger have the marks and signs of a man.  
Yet further to evidence the absurdity, let us argue proportionably about the Command, as we have done about the Promise. I ask Mr. H. then, Whether the Scripture doth not say, I Roger must not commit adultery. I prove it doth, thus: The Scripture says, No man shall commit adultery; Therefore it says, I Roger must not commit adultery. The minor of the Enthymeme, I Roger am a man, is thus proved, He that hath the necessary marks of a man, is a man; I have these marks, therefore I am a man.  
Object. I but the Scripture or Philosophy no where say, That I Roger have those marks of a man, therefore it cannot be proved from them that I am a man, and by consequence it cannot be proved from Scripture that I am forbid to commit adultery: Would not such an answer be both ridiculous and profane? Yea by such a lose argument might not all obedience be waved, as also the especial commands of the Gospel? If the Word and Covenant do not assure me that I must repent, than it cannot be proved from Scripture that I must repent. But this the word doth not assure me, ergo. The minor is proved, because the Scripture no where says, Then Roger must repent; ergo. How will Mr. H. now convince me but by arguing thus? The Scripture says, Every man must repent, Acts 17. 30. Thou Roger art a man, ergo; suppose now I should return, the Scripture no where says, Thou Roger art a man, or hast the marks of a man (understand the same of Philosophy) therefore it cannot be proved that I am a man, and by consequence, that I am commanded in Scripture to repent. Would not such a reply deserve a Cudgel rather than an answer? It's evident then that the Scripture doth by consequence (though not in express terms) assure Timothy That he doth believe, which is the minor of the syllogism of assurance: And what the Covenant assures, that the Sacrament seals, namely, That Timothy doth believe, etc.  
Mr. H. ib. & p. 196. Again, if it were in the word, it were an object of faith; but it is no object of faith; Probo, That which is seen is no object of faith, for sense takes away faith, 2 Cor. 5. 7. and faith is an evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11. 1. But the minor, I believe, is an object of sense, spiritual experience, or thing seen.  
Ans. 1. It is in the word (by consequence) and so an object of faith, That Timothy believes.  
2. Mr. H. his argument to prove the contrary is invalid, since the same thing may be both an object of faith, and an object of sense; and such was Christ's resurrection both to John and Thomas, Joh. 20. v. 8. & 29. both which saw and believed that Christ was risen. Christ's resurrection than was the object both of faith, and of sense.  
Object. How then shall we reconcile the Scriptures quoted by Mr. H.  
Ans. Very easily, thus: Faith and sense are not always opposite in order to the object, but in order to the manner of apprehending the object. Both faith and sense may at the same time apprehend the same object, but not in the same manner. Thus faith assents to Christ's resurrection as a thing revealed by divine testimony; sense assents to it as a thing seen and felt. Joh. 20. 27, 29. Faith assents not properly upon the principles of sense, nor doth sense assent upon the principles of faith. The proper object of faith is a thing not seen, the proper object of sense is a thing seen; and the same object in one sense is considerable as not seen, in another sense as seen. Thus heathen by sense assent to a Deity, Rom. 1. 20. Christians both by faith and sense; whence the Deity is said to be both visible and invisible in the forequoted place, and Heb. 11. 27. invisible to sense, visible to faith; invisible in its essence, visible in its effects. It's evident then that in some respects sense doth not take away faith, and that therefore this proposition, I believe, may be an object both of faith and sense. It depends upon faith in order to evidence by Scripture signs, it depends upon sense in order to experience by an act of reflection. Thus the major in the syllogism of assurance depends purely upon faith, the minor partly upon faith, partly upon sense. The Conclusion flows necessarily from both. Mr. H. his illustration if rightly stated will favour us, in order whereunto I shall reduce Mr. H. his Thesis to an hypothesis, Thus, Josh. 2. The Spies treat with Rahab about articles of peace and safety, upon condition of her constant friendship to them, which is the qualification. How is Rahab now assured of her preservation? Ans. By being assured of her constant friendship. How is she assured of her constant friendship? Ans. By the sure marks thereof given by the Spies; namely, if she continued to keep their counsel, and to keep them safe from the King of Jericho his danger, etc. Is it not here then true, that the evidence of her friendship to the Spies, depended upon an act of humane faith, That the forementioned hiding of the Spies, etc. were sure signs of her friendship; and partly upon experience, by reflection that she had these signs. In like manner in the spiritual treaty, Timothy is assured of his salvation, by being assured of his faith. He is assured of his faith, by the infallible signs thereof held forth in the Covenant. Suppose (which is M. H. his illustration) Articles are granted and sealed to a Town, upon such and such qualifications; here it concerns me (if a Townsman) to evidence that I have the right qualifications. For evidence hereof, I must appeal, not only to witnesses, but also to the Covenant of Articles, where there is any controversy about the rectitude of my qualifications; else might not the General say? Friend, you bring witness of such and such qualifications, but you are mistaken in the manner of them, or in some necessary circumstance about them? must not I now appeal to the Covenant of Articles to make out that the qualification thus evidenced, is right for manner, and all requisite circumstances? And doth not my evidence then depend partly upon my witnesses, and partly upon the Covenant? Now in proving the minor, That I believe, it seldom falls out, but there is some dispute within me against this act of evidence, which may arise from temptation without, from the opposite corruption within, and from the weakness of my faith, etc. upon which account, I must to the Covenant for the clearing of those objections and exceptions. And otherwise, why do Ministers take so much pains in laying down trials, signs and evidences of faith, and other graces, but to help my faith of evidence, which is the minor of the Syllogism of assurance? A godly man will easily assent to the major, That all who believe, are justified by Christ, this being express Scripture, Acts 13. 39, but the difficulty is to bring him to say confidently, I believe, which is the minor of the Syllogism of assurance. Now to produce this assent, you must clear it by Scripture-evidence, that his act of adherence is conformable to the rule of the covenant. In order whereunto two things are necessary, 1. An assent by reflection, that I have produced an elicit act of adherence upon Christ. 2. An assent of faith in my understanding, that this act of adherence is not an act of presumption, but a regular adherence, according to the mind of the Covenant. Both these concur to make out the minor, which therefore depends partly upon faith, and partly upon inward sense and experience. Now so far as my faith of evidence depends upon Scripture, so far its evidenced by the Covenant, and sealed in the Sacrament, which is all I drive at. And here I must entreat M. H. to take heed, lest by opposing the truth I bold in this particular, he turn not too much aside to the Papists, who upon this very account deny faith of evidence (without an immediate revelation) because it's no where said in Scripture, Th●… J●… or William believest. If I mistake not, this is a good maxim in Divinity, The act of Grace is seen by reflection, the truth of grace in that act is known by comparing it with the rule of trial. Evidence is the beautiful child of a direct and reflex act married together. It's possible some evidence may be (like Christ) a virgin birth, but ordinarily that evidence which hath not both the forementioned parents is a Bastard, presumption instead of faith.  
Mr. D. The marks and signs which Conscience makes use of to evidence the minor, are in Scripture; therefore the minor is consequently in Scripture.  
M. H. ib. That is, because the medius terminus is both in the major and the minor; therefore whatsoever proves the major, must prove the minor.  
Answ. That M. H. wrongfully fathers on me so absurd a Consequence, I shall endeavour to evidence by clearing his misty expressions: which must be done by instance and example, thus; The Syllogism of Assurance is, He that believes shall be saved: I believe; ergo.  
The minor (I believe) is thus proved; He that receives Christ for righteousness believes: I receive Christ for righteousness; ergo. The middle term or argument in the first Syllogism is believing; the middle term in the second Syllogism, is receiving Christ for righteousness. Whence its evident, I prove not the minor of the first Syllogism, by proving its major; for the argument that proves the major, is pure Scripture in express terms. If any should say, its false, That he who believes shall be saved, will you bring receiving of Christ for righteousness, as the medium to prove it? He will still deny, That he who receives Christ for righteousness shall be saved; and so in infinitum. Therefore to prove the major irrefragably, you must argue thus, That which the Scripture says shall be, that shall certainly be: The Scripture says, He that believes shall be saved; therefore he that believes shall certainly be saved. The major holds forth the connexion between faith and salvation; the minor holds forth the assertion of my faith; which as they are very different propositions, so they are proved by very different mediums. The way to prove the minor, is not pure Scripture in express terms; for no Scripture says in express terms, Thou Roger believest, etc. But partly Scripture, and partly Experience, namely, Reflection upon an Act compared with the rule of Scripture, and therefore cannot be the same way of proof, with express Scripture, unless simple and compound be the same. Therefore I do not prove the minor, (I believe) by the same medinus terminus by which I prove the major (He that believes shall be saved.) Where a thing consists of more terms than one, it must be proved by more terms than one: 
Faith of evidence doth nor depend upon a simple or double direct act, as do sundry other proofs drawn from Scripture; but upon a direct and reflex assent combined, which holds so long, till the reflex assent be as evident to me, as it is evident that I see or hear, etc. for if there be the least doubt or scruple, it must be removed by Scripture, else the reflex assent cannot be firm & undeceiving. Suppose I would prove that Paul had faith of evidence, or affurance. I must use this Syllogism, He that by producing regularly a direct and reflex act, assents to grace inherent in himself, hath assurance: Paul did this; ergo he had assurance. Here you see the medium proving Paul's assurance is a direct and reflex act regularly united: or, he that assents directly to this proposition (He that receives Christ believes) & reflexly to this proposition (I receive Christ) hath assurance that himself believes. Paul had both these assents; ergo, he had assurance.  But faith of evidence consists of more terms than one, namely, a direct and reflex act, and therefore must be proved by more terms than one; which terms yet being united, make one compound medium or argument. You may prove Gabriel to be an Angel, by one simple term of spirituality; but you cannot prove David to be a man, but by two terms, of Spirituality and Materiality united. Why? Because David is compounded of spirit and matter; and therefore must be proved by those terms united in one medium or argument. In like manner, faith of evidence consists of two terms, namely, a direct and reflex act united, and therefore must be proved by two terms united: not so the faith of general assent: But two terms united are not the same with one simple term. And if proof by two terms united, be not the same with proof by one simple term, than the medius terminus proving that I believe, is not the same with the medius terminus proving that He who believes shall be saved.  
M. H. ib. Though the evidence in actu signato be in Scripture, this is nothing, seeing that goes to the major proposition: But his evidence in actu exercito is the business; and that is no where I hope in Scripture, by his own Confession.  
Answ. 1. 
If by going to the major, he mean an Identity with the major; its true, the evidence in actu signate is the major, or the same with the major, the evidence in actu exercito is the minor. But I pray, may I not prove a weak and trembling evidence in actu exercito (such are generally our evidences) by a strong and firm evidence in actu signato?  If by going to the major, he mean proving the major of the foregoing Syllogism (which he must mean, or he speaks not to purpose) than its false, that the evidence in actu signato goes to the major; which I must evidence by the former instance of the Syllogism of Assurance: thus, He that believes shall be saved: I believe; ergo.  
The minor (I believe) is thus proved. He that receives Christ for righteousness, believes: I receive Christ for righteousness; ergo. In the second Syllogism (which proves the minor of the first Syllogism) is the evidence of my faith; 1. In actu signato, in the major (He that receives Christ for righteousness believes.) 2. In actu exercito in the minor (I receive Christ for righteousness. Now, I pray, how doth the major of the second Syllogism, prove the major of the first Syllogism? Set them together in an hypothetical Syllogism, and see if they hang not together like ropes of sand: thus, If I receive Christ for righteousness, than he that believes shall be saved: I receive Christ for righteousness; ergo.  
I pray, what connexion is there in the forementioned hypothesis? Had it run thus, If I receive Christ for righteousness, than I believe: I receive Christ for righteousness, ergo. There is an evident connexion: but in the former hypothesis, there are clearly quatuor termini: 1. The pronoun, I. 2. Receiving Christ. 3. Believing. 4. Salvation. The major then of the second Syllogism doth not prove the major, but the minor of the first Syllogism, as is evident, because not the major, but the minor of the first Syllogism is the conclusion in the second Syllogism.  
He that receives Christ for righteousness believes: I receive Christ for righteousness; therefore I believe. The conclusion (I believe) is the minor of the first Syllogism; and that was the thing to be proved, but not the major of the first Syllogism, which was taken for granted, as being express Scripture.  
2. That the evidence in actu exercito, is in Scripture by consequence, I have formerly proved, and wait to see what M. H. hath further to say to it.  
M. H. p. 196, 197. Whereas Mr. D. puts this off with a not in terminis, but by consequence, Let us see his Consequence, All are sinners, therefore thou Roger art a sinner: All must rise, therefore thou must rise. This is true, because the one includes the other. So, whosoever believes, shall be saved, includes this de fide, If thou Roger believest, thou shalt be saved: but it cannot include de fide Therefore thou Roger believest.  
Answ. 1. If that proposition (All that are men shall rise) include, Therefore thou Roger shalt rise; then this proposition (All that believe shall be saved) includes, Therefore thou Roger shalt be saved. The reason is, because as the former proposition includes not Roger but as a man (humanity being supposed to be in him) so that latter proposition includes not Roger but as a Believer (faith being supposed to be in him) which faith being really-in him as well as humanity (upon the supposition) its evident the last proposition includes Roger as well as the first; and therefore Roger's salvation is as sure as his resurrection. True, seldom is it as sure to Roger, because Roger's faith is seldom as evident to him as his humanity: but it is as sure in itself. Thus, if Roger be a Babe, his resurrection is sure in itself, though not to Roger, because he cannot reflect to know himself to be a man; and so if Roger be a Babe in Christ, he cannot by a reflex act discern himself to be a true Believer, as he can discern himself to be a man; yet his salvation still is as sure as his resurrection, though not as sure to him: And the Conclusion is firm, Roger shall be saved, though Roger do not know he shall be saved.  
2. As that proposition (Whosoever believes shall be saved) includes this de fide, If thou Roger believe, thou shalt be saved; but doth not include de fide, Thou Roger believest: So that proposition (All men shall rise) doth include the fide, If thou Roger art a man, thou shalt rise; but doth not include de fide, Thou Roger art a man. And if Roger may be sure by Scripture-evidence, that he shall rise at the day of Judgement, though the Scripture doth not say in express terms, Thou Roger art a man; then Roger may be sure he shall be saved, though the Scripture doth not say in express term, Thou Roger believest.  
M. H. ib. M. D. says, Yes, because the minor here is the Conclusion in the Prossyllogism; to wit, He that hath these signs believes: But I have these signs; ergo I believe. I answer contra, seeing the Conclusion in the Prosyllogism is the same with the minor in the principal Syllogism, it cannot be in Scripture or de fide, by the same consequence he proves it can: For that he hath these and these signs, is not in Scripture: but to have these and these signs is all one with to believe, ergo, That he believes is not in Scripture, or de fide by consequence. He that hath these signs, I say, is all one with, he that believes; and so his Prosyllogism then comes effectually but to this, He that believes, believes: But he believes; ergo he believes.  
Answ. Here Mr. H. undertakes to prove, That the minor, (I believe) in the Syllogism of Assurance, is not in Scripture so much as by consequence: An high attempt, I confess, and of so sad consequence (if true) as to thrust out of our Sermons all Uses of Trial, break in pieces bruised reeds, increase the fears of doubting Christians, and in a word, discourage all sorts from the great and necessary work of self-examination; for wherefore should I try my faith by Scripture, unless by Scripture I can come to know that I believe? If by Scripture I can come to know that I believe, than it follows necessarily that this proposition (I believe) depends some way or other upon Scripture: but it doth not depend upon Scripture in express terms; therefore it must depend upon Scripture by consequence: And so by consequence the Scripture says, I believe, or, Thou John, Peter, or Roger believest, which is the minor in the Syllogism of Assurance. Now, what in me lies, to convince M. H. and to establish weak Christians, that they may not be overborne by principles that strike, not only at Church-examination, but also at self-examination, I shall endeavour as much plainness as the subject will bear, being made the more intricate by terms of art; and the rather, considering I have to deal, not only with a Scholar (my Antagonist) but also with weak and  Christians, whose life of comfort lies very much in the Vindication of this sweet truth here opposed by Mr. Humphrey.  
Let me only premise (to prevent mistake) That the minor in the Syllogism of Assurance is not sealed in the Sacrament, as it is formally the minor or Assumption of the principal Syllogism, but as it is the conclusion of the Prossyllogism, He that receives Christ, etc. believes: I receive Christ; therefore I believe. And thus, as the conclusion of the principal Syllogism (I shall be saved) depends partly upon Scripture, as to the major; partly upon sense and experience as tp the minor: so doth the conclusion of the Prossyllogism (I believe) and therefore as the first, so the second conclusion depends upon Scripture by consequence, etc. Amesius is clear to this purpose in his Cases of Conscience, Lib. 1. Cap. 9 Sect. 2. speaking of the application of conscience in the conclusion of such practical Syllogisms; in these words, Pendet igitur ista conclusio partim ex generali illo jure quod in propositione Synteresis dictar, & partim ex recognitione illa facti vel status quae in assumptione continetur, etc. thus, He that receives Christ, etc. believes: I receive Christ; therefore I believe. This conclusion (I believe) in Dr. Amesius his judgement, flows from the major as well as the minor, and so in part depends upon Scripture.  
I shall in order hereunto, first propound the principal Syllogism, and the Prossyllogism. The principal Syllogism is, He that believes shall be saved: I believe; therefore I shall be saved.  
The Prossyllogism is, He that hath the true marks of faith believes: I have the true marks of faith; Therefore I believe. 
Amongst which marks receiving of Christ is a principal one.   
Here you see the minor of the principal Syllogism (I believe) is the Conclusion of the Prossyllogism.  
Now says Mr. H. 
Page 197.  Seeing the Conclusion in the Prossyllogism is the same with the minor in the principal Syllogism, it cannot be in Scripture, or de fide, by the same consequence Mr. D. proves it can. Why I pray? For, that he hath these signs and marks is not in Scripture; but to have these and these signs is all one with to believe, ergo. That he believes is not in Scripture, or de fide by consequence.  
Answ. Though the Conclusion in the Prossyllogism be the same with the minor in the principal Syllogism, yet it is in Scripture, or de fide by consequence.  
M. H. His reasons to prove the contrary are invalid, his scope being to prove. That the Conclusion (I believe) is not the fide by Consequence, because its medium (I have the true signs of faith) is not the fide expressly, or in terms.  
His second reason is, 
Page 197.  Because to have these and these signs of faith is all one with to believe; And so my Prossyllogism comes effectually but to this, he that believes, believes, but I believe; Therefore I believe.  
Answ. 1. Proportionably, to have the marks and signs of a man is all one with to be a man; and so the Prossyllogism, proving that I am a man (and therefore shall rise) comes effectually but to this, He that is a man, is a man: but I am a man; therefore I am a man.  
In like manner, To have the marks and signs of a living creature is all one with to be a living creature; and therefore my argument (proving Mr. H. to be a living creature) comes effectually but to this, He that is a living creature, is a living creature, But Mr. H. is a living creature; therefore he is a living creature; and so its impossible to prove Mr. H. to be animal, for I cannot prove it but by the marks of animality, and these marks and signs are the same with animality. You see now to what straits and absurdities be hath brought himself, and all by that fundamental error against faith and reason, That a thing cannot be proved by itself; which if true, than I cannot prove the thing defined by its definition; I cannot prove entity by unity; I cannot prove God by his Attributes, yea it is impossible to demonstrate any thing à priori by its essential principles; and then farewell Divinity, Science, Reason, and all. But of this more largely before.  
Now contrà, If I may prove a thing by itself, than I may prove a man by the marks of a man, which (if essential, & à priori) are himself; I may prove faith by the marks of faith, which (if essential, & à priori) are faith itself: And such is that mark of receiving Christ for righteousness. Nor is there any absurdity in it, so the Argument proving be not both re and ratione, the same with the thing proved. 
Thus the Whole or totum is defined or described by all its parts; all which together differ 〈◊〉 re, but only ratione from the whole, and that whether this Totum be Vniversale, Essentiale or Integrale.  But in Mr. H. his absurd Syllogism, Believing is the same both re and ratione with believing; but believing is not the same ratione with receiving Christ for righteousness, though it be the same realiter, as animal rationale is not ratione the same with homo, though it be realiter the same with homo; but differs, as definitio differs à de finito.  
Mr. H. ib. And whereas to illustrate this he so elaborately demonstrates he is a man, and so that he shall rise, etc. partly by sense, partly by faith: first, by a direct act, and then by a reflex act on the signs of his humanity, etc. Spectatum admissi? when, I am a man, and I believe, are propositions of equal evidence. Mr. Drakes Argument shall carry it. He that is a man, is a man; he that believes, believes; he that is in the right, is in the right; But Mr. D. is in the right, ergo, he is in the right.  
Answ. Nay, soft there Sir, rather because they are not propositions of equal evidence, therefore Mr. Drakes Argument will carry it. If I believe were of equal evidence with I am a man, than (haply) I had no more need of Scripture marks to prove I believe, than I have of Scripture marks to prove I am a man, though it be a truth that both propositions are by consequence in Scripture; But because my faith is not so evident as my manhood, therefore I must to Scripture for proof of my faith, when I need not go to Scripture for proof of my manhood: And if I must to Scripture to prove I believe by the marks of faith, than its evident that this proposition, I believe, depends upon Scripture by virtue of those marks, as well as upon sense and experience by virtue of my reflection.  
2. Let me ask Mr. H. whether this Conclusion (John shall rise at the day of judgement) be in Scripture by consequence or not? If it be not, then by the same reason, No particular Conclusion drawn from a general expressly in Scripture, is in Scripture by consequence; which how absurd? for instance, than it is not in Scripture by consequence, That I must not steal, etc. If it be, then upon the very same ground it is in Scripture by consequence, That John shall be saved: For as John being a man is included in the general, All men, so John being a believer is included in the general All believers: And as by consequence I may argue from Scripture, If all men shall rise, than this man shall rise; so I may firmly argue, If all believers shall be saved, than this believer shall be saved. It flows then as necessarily from Scripture, That John the believer shall be saved, at it flows from Scripture, That John the man shall rise again. So likewise that John the receiver of Christ is a believer, as that John the reasonable creature is a man. I grant for the most part it is not so evident that John is a believer, as that he is a man; and that therefore it is not so easy for him to believe that he shall be saved, as to believe that he shall rise; but still its a truth, That both these Conclusions flow from Scripture by consequence, and therefore are in Scripture by consequence, which is the thing here opposed by Mr. Humphrey. He might therefore well have spared himself the labour of his merry Tautologies (he that is in the right, is in the right, etc.) but that he hoped to catch his Reader by a frothy expression, rather than to convince him by a solid Argument. Had he closed with this Syllogism; If Mr. D. be in the right, then Mr. H. is in the wrong, but Mr. D. is in the right, ergo, he had done both himself, his Reader, and his Antagonist more right than now he doth.  
Page 198. Mr. H. mentions an Objection of mine about the Sacrament supposing assurance and faith; unto which he says, I can make no solution, when at the same time my solution is laid down, p. 147 & 148. of my Bar; only he tells the Reader that he is not of my mind, That we must forbear the Sacrament, till we have effectual faith: And truly I think he is not of my mind in that particular; nor is it material what is his mind, or what is my mind, but what is the mind of truth.  
Ib. Mr. H. grants, That a general faith and acknowledgement of the Gospel, or Covenant of Jesus Christ, as the only means to be saved by, is prerequisive to adult Church-membership, and so to the Sacraments.  
Answ. Then 1. What will become of all grossly ignorant Church-members that know nothing of Faith, Christ, or the Gospel? He that blames us, as too severe for suspending them; is here so severe as to excommunicate them, and make them no Church-members.  
2. We accept (as to the latter branch) his good confession, which makes strongly against the free admission of grossly ignorant Church-members.  
Again, we grant with Mr. H. ib. That the condition is not absolutely prerequisite to engage to the condition; but the Question is whether a natural man be bound to engage all manner of ways to the condition; He may engage to the condition (and so to the Covenant) though he do it not by receiving the Sacrament.  
Page 199. Mr. H. tells us, The receiver seals not to his condition necessarily in esse, but in fieri.  
Answ. What then? Our present debate is not what the believer seals to God, but what God seals to the believer in the Sacrament, and God at the Sacrament may seal to the believer the condition, in esse, when the believer cannot seal to God that himself hath the condition in esse.  
In the same page Mr. H. pins upon me another contradiction, by misquoting my Text, p. 147. of my Bar; which says not the Sacrament is, but may be the means of initial assurance; and its one thing to say the Sacrament is; another thing to say it may be the means of initial assurance. I believe if God please, the Sacrament may be the means both of initial grace, and of initial assurance; I do not say it is the means of either. Besides, initial assurance is real, or more sensible. The word that works conversion works real assurance at the same time it works grace, which yet is not then so sensible, as being hid and overborn by much corruption, till the beams of grace have in some measure dispelled the cloud; but the first sensible or prevailing assurance may be wrought at the Sacrament. Grace (as light) brings its own evidence with it, though a person diverted haply minds neither for a while: He wrongs me therefore in saying, p. 200. That I affirm the Sacrament is sometimes the means of initial assurance; whereas my express words are, The Sacrament may be sometimes the means of initial assurance, and à posse ad esse non valet consequentia. I hope he that says, Mr. H. may be mistaken, doth not therein say Mr. H. is mistaken. Mr. H. If the Sacrament work further degrees in the same kind, why not the kind itself?  
Ans. If food work further degrees of life, why not life itself? Must every thing that strengthens a weak man, needs raise a dead man? Acts produce moral habits, but no act of the will works in itself supernatural habits; yet, I hope, acts of the will may, and do promote supernatural habits, therefore that may further degrees, which cannot produce the kind. Nor is the first grace wrought effectually, either per modum obsignationis, or proponendo objectum, or per moralem, actionem, or mediante significatione; (for then all would be converted who have these) but per creationem & infusioonem, since the first grace (as some think of man's soul) creando infunditur & in fundendo creature. 
Understand me here, that initial grace is not wrought by any, or all of these joined regether (if abstractedly considered) as moral habits may be, but as assisted in an especial manner by divine concourse, which concourse amounts to a Creation. Not opus operatum, but spiritus operaus, acts eminently for the production of initial grace.  And God may annex this creating act to what Ordinance he please. Now the great controversy between us is, whether God do thus infuse initial grace by the Sacrament as a moral Instrument thereof, as he doth by the word? This Mr. H. seems to affirm, but we deny.  
M. H. p. 201. For this we thank him; and if a man may come as lost and undone, than he may come while he judges and humbles himself, though he is in doubt of his regeneration.  
Answ. 1. I am glad of any agreement between us in this unhappy controversy, especially in a point of this nature, which tends so much to the binding up of bruised reeds. Yet  
2. There is some ambiguity in that expression of M. H. If a man may come as lost; nor are they my express terms, p. 148. of my Bar. A man is lost three ways, 1. Really, when in the state of nature (I mean, he is in a lost condition.) 2. Sensibly, and that either in himself (and thus we must ever be lost, if we mean to be saved) or by mistake, thinking he is in the state of nature, at that very time when in truth he is in the state of grace. 3. Both ways, when clearly convinced by the Spirit of bondage, that he is in a natural estate, and so under the work of Legal humiliation, which is ever accompanied with reigning pride, till evangelical humiliation melt the rock, and levelly the mountain. By legal humiliation a person is humbled, but by Evangelical humiliation he is made humble; by legal humiliation God humbles him, by evangelical humiliation he humbles himself; the one is humbled passively, the other actively.  
To apply the distinction:  
1. He that is lost really, and sensibly, ought at present to abstain: Such are they, who know themselves to be in the state of nature, and have no resolution at the present to come up to the terms of the Gospel, but are under the Regal power of sin, especially of some bosom corruption, and that sensibly.  
2. He that is lost really, but not sensibly, as thinking himself converted, when unconverted, is (I conceive, with submission to better judgements) in the condition of one who thinks a sin to be a duty, ligatus, but not obligatus, bound, by conscience misinformed, to receive; but not obliged to receive; yea, obliged by the precept, to abstain: or as he who thought himself clean, but was unclean, was bound and obliged in order to the Passover.  
3. He that is sensibly lost (as thinking himself unconverted, when really converted) seems bound by conscience to abstain, but is obliged by the command to receive; and in order thereunto, must endeavour to get his doubts satisfied. He that is both really and sensibly found, as having sensibly evangelical preparation (of which self-loss, and self-unworthiness in a Gospel sense, is a chief part) is both bound and obliged to come, unless detained by a just occasion.  
What M. H. adds page 201. I shall go along with him as far as I can, and be glad of his company too. And therefore grant 1. That the Sacrament is a seal of faith Consecutiuè. 2. Objectiuè. 3. Conditionaliter. 4. Obligatoriè, as obliging the receiver to believe. 5. That the Sacrament is not properly a seal of reason and experience; and therefore in a strict sense, doth not seal the Conclusion, as it depends upon the minor, which speaks experience; but as it depends upon the major, which speaks express Scripture.  
But whereas he adds, ibid. But if you say it is a seal of faith subjectiuè, properly to confirm and ratify faith, or any way so to assure or evidence faith, that God shall be made to set his seal to a lie, if any come without saving faith, this must be denied and rejected, and answered, that the Sacrament is not thus a seal of faith (to wit, formally, directly, properly) but of the Covenant, etc.  
Answ. 1. If I may but crave to be candidly understood, it's no such monster as M. H. would make it, to assert, That the Sacrament is a seal of faith subjectiuè; namely, that by Consequence the Sacrament seals to Peter, that he believes. The reason whereof hath formerly been given, because it seals the major proposition, upon which the Conclusion of Assurance doth partly depend. For, as no Conclusion depends only upon the major, or only upon the minor, but upon both premises; so the Conclusion of the Prossyllogism (That Peter believes) depends not solely upon the major (He that receives Christ, etc. believes) nor solely upon the minor (Peter receives Christ) but upon both. And therefore so far forth as this Conclusion (Peter believes) depends upon the major (which is express Scripture, and as a sign discovers to Peter, that the act of adherence he produces is not counterfeit) so far forth it's sealed in the Sacrament, it being sealed in the Covenant only as it is in the Covenant; namely, by Consequence; as is that Conclusion, That Peter shall rise, which depends upon the major, That all men shall rise; as well as upon the minor, That Peter is a man.  
2. Whereas M. H. hints, that by this means God shall be made to set his seal to a lie, if any come without saving faith: this is a most false, gross, and uncharitable inference and imputation, it being far from my judgement or argument to hold forth, that the Sacrament seals to all receivers, that they have true faith; but only unto those who have saving faith indeed. Suppose now Judas did receive; the Sacrament which seals to Peter that he believes, seals no such matter to Judas, but the quite contrary, namely, That he doth not believe; and that because it seals, That he who doth not receive. Christ rightly, doth not believe: But Judas never received Christ rightly; therefore by consequence it seals to Judas his unbelief, and so his damnation in statu quo.  
3. Therefore, If by formally, directly, properly, M. H. mean expressly, we grant the Sacrament is not so a seal of faith subjectiuè; for it can seal nothing thus expressly, but what is in express terms in the Covenant, and that is only the major: yet this is no bar, but that the Sacrament may seal that consequentially, which is consequentially in the Covenant; and such is this Conclusion, Peter believes, as well as that Conclusion, Peter shall rise.  
As for his vapour therefore in the close of this Section, I shall say but only this to it, However my arguments be but earthen ware, yet God can use them to break his conceited bar of iron.   

SECT. 5.  
THe fifth Objection is, The Covenant belongs not to all; therefore the Seals neither.  
Page 202. M. H. first states his answer to this Objection, and in the same breath overthrows it in these words, The state of my answer then lies plainly, that all those to whom the Covenant belongs by way of interest in it, though but according to title, are in Covenant so far as the external seal belongs to them, without some known bar otherwise.  
Answ. Grant the whole, it will not much prejudice either us or the Objection: Not us, who easily yield that all Churchmembers are to be admitted without a known bar, the term known being rightly understood. Nor the Objection, since the seals cannot belong to any, but as the Covenant belongs to him (speaking now of the visible Covenant) but the Covenant cannot visibly belong to any who visibly reject it: and this (with us) is one of the principal known bars.  
Mr. D. The Sacrament belongs conditionally to all, but absolutely to the worthy Receivers.  
M. H. p. 203. If there be any sense and validity in this, he must argue thus, The Sacrament is not to be delivered to all it belongs conditionally, but to those only to whom it belongs absolutely: But it belongs only to the worthy receiver absolutely; therefore it must be delivered only to the worthy receiver. Now this you see is apparently false, seeing he admits some only visibly worthy, to whom he himself counts it belongs not absolutely.  
Answ. 1. To show the fallacy, let us put the same case about the Passover, and the receivers thereof: thus,  
" The Passover belongs conditionally to all Israelites, but absolutely to the clean Israelite. Suppose now Mr. H. reply as above, mutatis mutandis.  
If there be any sense and validity in this, he must argue thus, The Passover is not to be delivered to all it belongs to conditionally, but to those only to whom it belongs absolutely; But it belongs only to the clean Israelites absolutely; therefore it must be delivered only to the clean Israelites absolutely: Now this, you see, is apparently false, seeing he admits some only visibly clean, to whom himself counts the Passover belongs not absolutely. Is not the first branch now evidently false? namely. That the Passeover is to be delivered only to those to whom it belongs absolutely. I hope the Priest or Master of the Family might, and aught to admit all persons visibly clean to eat the Passover, when at the same time he that was visibly clean, but really unclean (to whom therefore the Passover belonged conditionally, but not absolutely) sinned in receiving the Passover.  
2. Is it not a mere non sequitur, as to the Objection, which mentions not to whom the Passcover is to be delivered, or not, but only to whom it belongs, or doth not belong?  
Apply now the same answer to the Lords Supper, and it will appear my sense is good and valid; and that I do not argue, as M. H. would make the Reader believe I do, who to make my sense absurd, shuffles into his own answer the term delivered, in stead of the term receiving. Let my answer run thus, The Sacrament is not to be received by all to whom it belongs conditionally, but only by those to whom it belongs absolutely: But it belongs absolutely only to the worthy receiver; therefore it is to be received only by the worthy receiver.  
Where is now M. H. his absurd Conclusion, Therefore it must be delivered only to the worthy receiver?  
The Minister, I hope, may, and in some cases ought to deliver it to them, who at the same time ought not to receive it, he acting (as Christ's Officer) by the rule of visible, not of real worthiness, and so regularly admitting those to whom it belongs visibly, though at the same time it belong not to them absolutely. They to whom the Covenant belongs conditionally, to them the seals belong conditionally; to whom it belongs visibly, the seals belong visibly; to whom it belongs absolutely, the seals belong absolutely. The first must neither be admitted, nor receive till they have visibly or really performed the condition. The second must be admitted, but if only visible Saints, ought not to receive. The third must both be admitted, and aught to receive, unless detained by a just occasion.  
Page 203. M. H. charges me with railing, for showing him the horrid conclusion that follows from his lose principles; namely, That the Sacrament doth more ingenuously belong to one out of Covenant, than to one in Covenant: See p. 51. of his vindication. Which if true, it must more ingenuously belong to Drunkards, Whoremasters, Murderers, etc. than to real and visible Saints, the former being out of Covenant, the latter in Covenant. An inference so monstrous, that I apprehended such a soar and ulcer required a sharp knife to open it; yet withal, I told the Reader what M. H. his meaning should be, namely, that the Sacrament belongs more ingenuously to weak Saints, than to strong Saints. An Adulterer, etc. resolving sincerely to believe and repent, hath already begun to do both; and so is not out of Covenant, but a weak Saint. This was my scope, and is the same still, though I will not justify every quick expression that either there or elsewhere passed from me.  
What he citys from my text elsewhere, to salve his contradiction, will do himlittle service; since I charge him not with absurdity for saying, a man may have a good resolution before he is in Covenant; but for saying, The Sacrament be longs more ingenuously to one out of Covenant, if he have some good resolutions for kind, through fear of Hell, etc. (which are but legal or mere velleities) then to a real and visible Saint, who comes fully up to Christ's terms in point of sincerity, but acts weakly, as a Babe in Christ. That a man may not only resolve well, but also enter into Covenant with God, and yet his heart be naught, I never questioned; or that he may have good resolutions before be believe, or enter into Covenant sincerely, as M. H. notes, p. 204. But what is this to M. H. his purpose? or how doth it follow (what he charges me ib.) that I am too narrow in speaking of these things, unless because I cannot extend myself to his latitude? If study of brevity, and therefore passing by those things which are well known, and not to our present purpose, be narrowness of expression, I must confess I affect such narrowness, and wish I were better at it than I am: But M. H. his clouding and jumbling things together, forces me to be larger than otherwise I would; yea, withal, I must confess, I am always too narrow in discoursing of the things of God, which are far above my weak comprehension, much more above my poor expressions. This ever is the glory of divine Truth, That the apprehensions and expressions of the ablest, are but cockleshells to its Oceans, Psalms 119. 96. and mine are but cockleshells to the flood of their appehensions and expressions.  
Page 151. of my Bar, I took some pains to reconcile (if it might be) M. H. to himself; which being difficult to do (haply because of my dulness and inability to reach his seize) I was bold to conclude, that he wrote contradictions. For this M. H.p. 204. and 205. is pleased to correct me as one very dull, and prone to vent contradictions.  
Answ. 1. I thank him for his reproof.  
2. Entreat him to write more plainly.  
3. As I have in part, so I hope to clear it, that I writ not contradictions; or if at any time I do, I shall not wittingly own them.  
I shall relate M. H. his words, and then let the Reader judge whether my dull apprehension might not be puzzled about them. His words are these, page 51. of his Vindication, The benefit of the Covenant you may truly say belongs not yet to him, until he is in Covenant (Where note from M. H. that some Church-members are not in Covenant) but the Covenant itself is of epidemical concernment, and so far belongs to all, that it is to be tendered freely, and offered to them, etc.  
Had he now said, That the benefits of the Covenant do not belong to him, as to right or fruition, till he be in Covenant: but the condition of the Covenant belongs to all by way of obligation, and the benefits of the Covenant belong to all by way of tender, etc. I am sure he had spoke plainer to my dull capacity, and I think also to the capacity of divers of his Readers.  
He that divides the whole into parts, and presently gives the name of the whole to one of those parts, speaks neither Logically, nor clearly. But this doth M. H. by distinguishing the Covenant into its condition, and its benefits; and then saying the Covenant is of epidemical concernment as to its tender (he supposing and holding, that the conditions are required, not tendered, and that only the benefits are tendered conditionally to all) here the Covenant is the totum, the condition and benefits are the parts; which last part (in applying his distinction) he presents under the notion of the whole, and thereby makes his sense obscure and subject to exceptions. Nor doth he clear it in his answer, p. 204. though in order thereunto he distinguish the Covenant into its Condition, Benefits, Tenor, which consists of both. For still I ask him, Whether the Tenor of the Covenant belong to all by way of Tender? If he hold the affirmative (as he seems to do) I disprove him thus, The whole can belong to none further, than as both parts belong to him: But both parts of the Covenant belong not to all by way of tender; therefore the whole (namely the tenor) belongs not to all by way of tender. The major is firm, as I shall clear by instance. Let homo be the totum, its evident homo cannot belong to Socrates, farther than materia & forma hominis, which are its parts belong to him. The minor, That both parts of the Covenant belong not to all by way of tender, is as evident (upon M. H. his principles) since, according to him, the condition, which is one part, is not tendered, but required. The Condition than belongs not to all by way of tender, but only by way of duty and obligation. And though it be a truth, that the benefits of the Covenant are tendered to all upon condition of faith, yet because M. H. holds that faith is not tendered, but required, (in the revealed Covenant sealed in the Sacrament, of which we now speak) he cannot say the tenor (called by him the Covenant) is tendered to all, without contradicting himself; but must say, if he speak uniformly to his own doctrine, that the tenor of the Covenant is partly required of all, and partly is tendered to all; the tenor consisting (as himself declares) of the condition required, and of the benefits tendered; and he may as rationally say, the tenor is required of all, as say the tenor is tendered to all; both being false in his sense, and contradictory to his Doctrine.  
Page 152. and 153. of my Bar, I oppose four things to M. H. his universal obligation of receiving.  
1. Infants, etc. and because this infant-passage offends him now seventeen times, I shall put in the room of it his ipso jure excommunicate.  
2. I say there, All have a mediate, but not an immediate right.  
He tells me, page 205. This distinction is in vain, because all must prepare as well as come.  
Answ. True, yet 1. I hope a person prepared hath a more immediate right, than a person unprepared. 2. If he sin who prepares, but doth not receive when he may, why doth not he sin also who receives, but doth not prepare when he ought? Let not M. H. separate, where himself confesses that God hath joined.  
My illustration from the Passeover, he tells me, That one Text, 2 Chron. 30. 18, 19, 20. may convince.  
Answ. True, when M. H. can prove that one extraordinary dispensation makes a rule and command to be void.  
The third Mr. H. says is answered somewhere else.  
Answ. And I hope that answer is confuted somewhere else.  
4. I say, That in a strict sense, actual receiving is no more an act of worship, than preaching is, etc.  
Mr. H. answers, I should say they are no duties neither, else it will not add one cubit to my stature.  
Answ. Mr. H. did prudently omit my third answer, which but mentioned had stopped the mouth of this Objection. There I show that affirmative precepts bind not at all times, nor in all cases; therefore though receiving be a duty, yet being an affirmative precept, it binds not at all times, nor in all cases. For his flouting Simile in the close of this Section, I forgive him, and confess that in some part of it he speaks too true, I being no bigger than my shadow, that is, an empty nothing, and so very unfit to compare with him, or any of my brethren and fathers in the Lords work. The Lord send me more humility, and him more charity.   

Sect. VI.  
THe sixth Objection is, The Sacrament is only for the regenerate; it is no converting Ordinance, etc.  
From page 206-212. Mr. H. is large by way of preamble, before he come to downright blows.  
And 1. He says, Suppose the Sacrament convert not, yet it must be received by all, because God commands all to receive it.  
Answ. 1. Is not this the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether God command all to receive?  
2. Mr. H. knows I dispute against a natural man's receiving, not only upon the supposition, that it cannot convert him, but also because it can do him no good in statu quo, but evil; which answers his instance of Alms-deeds commanded a natural man, though it be not converting. And this argument doth no where cross Gods revealed will, but highly commends his rich and free grace, which commands nothing but what is profitable to the creature, as well as what is honourable to his Majesty. I grant God may command without respect to the creatures profit, but I deny that in the Covenant of grace he doth command any thing, the performance whereof is not (of its own nature, and by divine institution) advantagous' to the creature. It's a slander therefore, that by this argument I advance my benefit above divine authority, etc. as Mr. H. would make the Reader believe, p. 206. yea I join together God's authority, and my benefit, in saying, That in the way of duty, I am ever in a possibility, yea probability of spiritual good, 1 Tim. 4. 8. and that act which imports no such possibility, or probability is no duty. Yea Mr. H. himself confesses in the same page, That there is no man, but so far as he doth his duty, it shall tend to his good; which if true, then that which tends not to my good, is not my duty. If therefore this doctrine be a tradition, Mr. H. is guilty of it, as well as myself.  
Page 208. Mr. H. makes the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, not for Heathen, but for Church-members.  
Answ. 1. I desire a Scripture proof for this distinction.  
2. I perceive Mr. H. is not clear in opening this distinction, but confounds Conversion, and Edification together, in these words, The Sacrament, as it serves to edify unregenerate Church-members, it must be a means of their regeneration, p. 208. I had thought Conversion was the Foundation, Edification the superstructure, and that as there is a double Conversion, 1. To profession. 2. To truth of grace, so there is a double Foundation, the one upon the sand, the other upon the rock, Matth. 7. v. 24, 26. and proportionably a double Edification, one of the house upon the sand, the other of the house upon the rock, which doctrine, if true, then surely the house upon the sand is not properly edified by saving Conversion, but is new founded upon the rock.  
Page 209. Mr. H. lays a foundation in two Propositions.  
1. That the same faith which served to admit men to be Church-members, served to admit them to the Communion.  
2. That a faith that falls short of saving (to wit, the very receiving of the Apostles doctrine) served to make men disciples, and add them to the Church.  
With all, he grants there, That conversion of assent (which alone reaches so far as to engage one to the Covenant) is necessarily prerequisite to adult Church-members, and both the Sacraments; not so the conversion of Consent, which he opens well; and page 210. concludes, That in order hereunto, God uses this Sacrament especially, where is a more vigorous confluence of all the Ordinances.  
Answ. 1. By concession of both Propositions in relation to admission (which is Mr. H. his own term) though I do not believe, that receiving mentioned, Act. 2. 41. fell short of saving grace in most of them. The Minister must sometimes admit him, who at the same time ought not to receive.  
2. If the  Conversion of assent be necessarily pre-requisite to adult Church-members, and both Sacraments (which is the very truth, and acknowledged here by Mr. H.) than those Church-members who cannot give such an assent, ought not to be admitted to the Sacrament (I might add, by Mr. H. his present doctrine, they ought to be excommunicated; though we rise not, especially at first, to that severity) but this is the condition of many, grossly ignorant adult Church-members, whom if you ask, Whether Christ be a woman? They are as like to give their assent, as if you ask them, Whether Christ be God-man? And so of other fundamental truths.  
3. We grant, The Sacrament (as having a more vigorous confluence of all Ordinances) may be singularly useful in order to conversion of consent (as he expresses it) and therefore judge, none should be hindered from presence at it, any more than from presence at Baptism, where by presence they may be converted, though they partake not with the child, or Catechumenus, of Baptismal water; and the rather because the Lord's Supper (as well as Baptism, Prayer, or Preaching) is a public Ordinance, and therefore may be honoured with universal presence, though not abused by universal partaking.  
Whereas p. 310. Mr. H. pleads humane testimony.  
Answ. With due respect to the Authors, Man's testimony is either 1. Ambiguous in this point; Or 2. may be balanced by opposite testimonies of man; Or 3. at best is not authentic. Man's testimony may suadere, but only God's testimony can persuadere.  
As for his distinction about real and relative grace here repeated; The latter branch thereof hath been formerly answered, which therefore I pass.  
Page 211. He thinks its unsound to hold the Sacrament conveys real grace morally by way of Obsiguation: Why I pray? Because moral instruments cannot exhibit any thing real.  
Answ. 1. If this be true, then how can the Sacrament convey grace by way of signification, since the Sacrament (himself confessing) is only a moral instrument. And if it convey grace neither by way of signification, nor of obsignation, nor of exhibition, it conveys grace no way. Thus by Mr. H. his principles the Sacrament conveys no grace at all; and if so, than it neither converts, or edifies, which how absurd? yea, pari ratione, how doth the word convert, since it also is but a moral instrument?  
2. Grace is not strengthened, but by superadded degrees (I mean ordinarily) but grace is strengthened by the sealing, as well as by the signifying virtue of the Sacrament, therefore degrees of grace are morally conveyed by the sealing power of the Sacrament. The major is firm till Mr. H. can show some other way of strengthening grace immediately (for of that strength I now speak) besides superadded degrees. The minor is proved by instance, the Sacrament is a Seal, assures the Covenant to faith; by this assurance faith is confirmed, as was abraham's by the Seal of Circumcision, Rom. 4. 11. Faith is not confirmed but by intention; an habit is not intended but by degrees superadded. The conclusion than will follow, That degrees of grace are conveyed by the sealing power of the Sacrament; and because the Sacrament works only morally, therefore they are conveyed by it morally.  
I doubt not but the Sacrament may beget grace; but the Question in dispute is, whether every Sacramental action doth so, and particularly the act of receiving; for till Mr. H. proves this, he is still at a loss, and while he would charge me, p. 212. as being injurious to poor Christians, disvaluing this means of grace, bringing in question how it can beget any degree of grace at all (a charge to which, I trust, I can groundedly plead not guilty) himself is found guilty of his own charge, by denying the Sacrament conveys real grace morally; as I have showed in the foregoing Paragraph.  
Mr. H. p. 212. I agree with him as for Infants; but for the intelligent, John's Baptism may convince him, whom we find admitting all to it, and then exhorting them to amendment, as the use or end of it, etc.  
Answ. 1. If Baptism be a converting Ordinance, I see no reason why Mr. H. should suspend Infants any more from its efficacy than from its use. And to what purpose are Infants baptised, if they are (in statu quo) capable of no good by it? especially those of them who die within few hours or days after Baptism. They were relatively holy, and so members of the Church (in the right of their parents) before Baptism, 1 Cor. 7. 14. as in hereditary Kingdoms, the Heir upon the death of his Father, is King before his Coronation. His argument drawn from their non-intelligence seems as strong against their edification or confirmation by Baptism, as against their conversion and regeneration by it, since the baptised Infant can understand no more in order to his edification, than in order to his regeneration by his Baptism.  
Therefore (with submission) I rather apprehend, That Baptism being a Divine Ordinance, doth undoubtedly attain all its ends for good in the elect vessels of mercy, be they Infants or grown persons; and that either in their Infancy, or when they come to riper years.  
Upon supposition that it is a converting Ordinance, I see no absurdity in it if we say, it may (at the very moment of Baptizng) be morally instrumental to convert the Infant-baptized, not by way of signification to the apprehension of the Babe, who can understand nothing of it (nor is it necessary he should understand; man cannot get into the heart, but by the head, God needs not that porch or threshold) but by way of supernatural concourse with this, as with other Ordinances when ever they become effectual. Christ at the very moment when the Minister baptises the Babe with water, can baptise it with the Holy Ghost, and power grace into its heart as the Minister powers water upon his face, the child being equally passive both in the sign, & in the thing signified, and understanding nothing of either. If an Infant may be bewitched by a Diabolical Ceremony used by the Devil's ministers, and that Witchery be removed by a spell, or the like, which the Babe cannot understand (and if he could, the understanding avails not to its efficacy) why may not the same Babe be regenerated by a Divine Ceremony applied to it by God's Minister? the Devil in things of this nature being but God's Ape. How did Jordan cure the Leper? 2 King. 5. 14. How did Peter's shadow cure the sick? Acts 5. 15. How did Paul's handkerchiefs both cure diseases, and cast out Devils? Acts 19 12. All these were but signs and seals of Gods miraculous presence. And why may not God (when he pleases) concur supernaturally with Baptism, in order to Regeneration, as he concurred with Jordan, a Shadow, or Handkerchief, in order to cure or dis-possession? I believe Divine concourse is much after this nature in every Ordinance when savingly effectual. And Baptism applied to an Infant, or to a man, is but as Paul's handkerchief was to an Infant, or to a man. The man might understand this handkerchief came from Paul's body, and would be effectual to heal him; this the Infant could not understand, yet the effect of healing followed alike in both. Nor was the handkerchief more powerful to heal the man, because he was intelligent; but possibly his intelligence might prove a bar, he being thereby capable of an act of unbelief, which might hinder the cure, Matth. 13. 58. and 17. 19, 20. Mark 6. 6. and 9 23, 24. Acts 14. 9 which actual unbelief Infants are not capable of. Thus the word preached hath a natural aptitude to illuminate the mind with common knowledge of Christ, but never of itself can work a saving understanding or regeneration, this being wholly in God's power. We must therefore extend the notion of a moral instrument further than M. H. doth; that being truly a moral instrument, not only which works by way of signification to my understanding, but that also upon which being used, an effect of another kind follows, by way of compact, or otherwise, whether I understand it or not. Thus a Witch is the moral cause of a child's death, but the Devil is the physical cause thereof, he applying his natural power (by God's permission, upon the Witches using of his ceremonies for that purpose) to kill the child. And thus the Minister and Ordinances are the moral instruments of conversion, but God is the physical, or rather hyperphysical cause thereof.  
Nor do we by this doctrine deviate to the Popish opus operatum; but honour God's Liberty, Sovereignty and Grace, who when he pleaseth concurs with his Ordinances supernaturally, in order to Conversion and Regeneration wrought then infallibly, and not otherwise. And certainly, if Baptism be a converting Ordinance, why may not Infants thus be converted by it as well as elder persons? especially when at the hour of Baptism, faith and devotion are upon the wing in the Parents, Friends, God's people, and the Minister, assembled to wrestle with God, that he would please to wash the child in the Laver of Regeneration, etc. whence public Baptisms are more eligible than private Baptisms. And thus upon the supposition, it may also be effectual to the intelligent person baptised; yet not simply because he is intelligent, but because of God's supernatural concourse in him, as well as in the Infant, the work of Conversion being supernatural in every subject.  
2. Whereas M. H. says, ib. John first baptised the people, and then exhorted them to repentance.  
If his meaning be exclusive, that John did not exhort to repentance before, but only after Baptism, I believe he will find little favour from the Text for such an opinion. It's evident, Mat. 3. 11. that John leads them from his Baptism to Christ, for the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, as a future thing; withal, that he preached to them before he baptised, to me seems more than probable, by comparing vers. 2, 5, 6, 7. of Mat. 3. Besides, supposing the exhortation were after Baptism, and that some were converted upon the place, the great question will be (which shows the weakness of M. H. his inference) whether they were converted by John's Baptism, or by his following exhortation? For his instance in the Converts, Acts 2. it is more than M. H. can prove, that their faith was only historical. Likely, it might be so in some of them; but what is this to prove that their Baptism did convert them (any more than it did Simon Magus) who might afterwards be converted by some of those Sermons which they heard every day, or hold out in a form of Godliness to their dying day, as Ananias and Saphira did. The Text says, they were all baptised, Acts 2. 41. but it doth not say, that any of them were converted by Baptism.  
M. D. Can any man make the Seal a cause of the writing?  
M. H. p. 212. Here is the man's error still; the seal of the inward writing in men's hearts, is not the Sacrament, but the Spirit, and that seal I hope, is the cause of the writing, etc.  
Answ. 1. That the Sacrament is a seal of the inward writing (though not the sole or principal seal) hath formerly been proved, which therefore I pass.  
2. That one and the same thing may be both a seal and a cause (as well as a sign and a cause) I deny not: but I hope it is not a cause as it is a seal. The Spirit first works, than evidences grace wrought; in that it acts as a cause, in this as a seal: When therefore I say, the seal is not the cause of the writing, my meaning is, that as a seal, it is not a cause of the writing, but under an other notion. M. H. interprets it simpliciter, which I propound secundum quid, and so abuses both me and the Reader.  
Page 213. M. H. would feign court me from my yielding to universal presence, to yield to universal receiving. But I must entreat him to excuse me, since I find none in Scripture forbidden to be present; but I find divers in Scripture forbidden to receive, as hath formerly been proved. And I hope, that upon second thoughts, he will be more charitable, than to judge me upon this account, as trifling with this holy Ordinance, and with the Consciences of people.  
His argument drawn from the seeing to the tasting of Christ Sacramental, will not hold, till he can prove that a sight of Christ Sacramental is effectual to convert, and withal, that the precept (Take, eat) doth immediately take in all intelligent Church-members; and if so, then let his jure excommunicate receive also. His instance of Thomas feeling and believing, proves only that feeling may draw out an act of faith, from a principle of faith inherent: But what is that to the producing of a principle of faith; where there is no faith at all.  
Lastly, M. H. should consider, not barely the application, but the end of application in the Lord's Supper, which is evidently nutrition, but no where (as I know) Conversion.  
Mr. D. Taking and Eating call for acts of faith, but presuppose the habit, etc.  
M. H. p. 214. When Christ and his Disciples preached (Believe and Repent) the command did call for faith and repentance, but I hope it did not presuppose the habit in those who were to be converted; so when Christ says here, Take, etc. There is a virtue or power from Christ goes along with his command.  
Answ. True: so far as Christ hath promised, virtue shall go along with his command. But the great question is, Where Christ hath promised that converting power shall go along with his command of taking in the Sacrament, as he hath, that it shall accompany the command of believing in the word preached?  
M. H. p. 216. God hath promised in general, to meet with those that wait on him in his ways.  
Answ. Here he begs the question; as if receiving were a way God commands unregenerat men to walk in.  
M. H. ib. Christ consecrated this Ordinance with a blessing.  
Answ. So he did the Ordinance of the Ministry, yet I hope all are not therefore bound to turn Ministers.  
Mr. H. ib. Mr. Drake tells us this (Take) is a short exhortation, and will he demand a promise to prove that Exhortation is Converting?  
Answ. Mr. D. p. 158. of his Bar, only supposes the word Take, as a short and virtual Sermon, may convert; and then adds, What think you of that person who stands out against this word also, can he be converted by actual receiving?  
A Supposition, I hope, is not a Position. Besides, it will puzzle Mr. H. to prove, that every virtual Sermon is converting; for then every moral Precept, yea, every Creature, should be a means of Conversion.  
M. D. The word is both seed and food, not so the Sacrament.  
M. H. p. 216. The Sacrament works by the word, and therefore may work the first grace, as well as further degrees of grace.  
Answ. The question is not, What the Sacrament may do, if God pleases, but what it doth. Let M. H. produce one Scripture to prove that the Lords Supper, as received, is converting.  
M. H. p. 217. In the Sacrament there is a Take, and this is certainly seed; and there is an Eat, including food,  
Answ. A strange interpretation, and contradictory to itself, That the command of taking Christ for nourishment, should be seed, as is the command of taking Christ for Conversion.  
M. H. ib. Prayer is not where called the immortal seed, yet it is seed, I doubt not, in this sense, to beget grace in us.  
Answ. Prayer, as such, converts not as seed, but by way of impetration, setting God on work to cast the seed of grace into the heart. If an Husbandman upon Mr. H. his request cast seed into the ground, I hope M. H. will not say, His request was the seed wherewith the ground was sown.  
2 The matter of Prayer is the Word, since we can ask nothing but what is promised; Upon which account Prayer in some sense may be called an immortal seed, and may prove very effectual, in order to conversion, especially where spiritually and powerfully uttered: But as Prayer, it works properly by way of Impetration, Psal. 2. 8. And thus Stephen's prayer, Act. 7. 60. might be effectual to convert Paul.  
Mr. H. ib. Ex quibus nascimur, ex iis nutrimur, That which nourishes us can beget us.  
Answ. I perceive Mr. H. is better at quotation than at translation: A Grammar-Scholar would have translated it better thus, That which begets us, nourishes us, or we are nourished by those things by which we are begotten: Which makes for us, and against Mr. H. we being nourished by the word that begets, but not being begotten by the Lord's Supper that nourishes us. And though nourishment contribute remotely to the making of seed, yet I hope nourishment (as such) is not seed, though sometime seed may be nourishment.  
Mr. D. But suppose a man stouts it out before and after the word take; If actual receiving can convert him, the Apostles rule is not universally true, He that eats unworthily eats judgement to himself.  
Mr. H. Suppose the Jailor had stouted it out against the word, Believe, etc.  
Answ. He belonging to the election of grace, the Lord, no doubt, would have converted him by another word of command to believe, etc. as he doth all the Elect sooner or later, 2 Pet. 3. 9 the word being still the Instrument of conversion, not so the Lords Supper.  
What ever Mr. H. may think, or would make the Reader believe, a Dilemma, if right, is no Sophistry, but a forcible Argument. On the other hand, Let me warn the Reader to take heed he be not deceived by Mr. H. to think that a person in the state of nature can receive worthily in the Apostles sense; Or, that the sin of not discerning the Lords body, is nothing else but the making of the Table of the Lord a common table, in the gross and literal sense. But of this formerly.  
Mr. D. But suppose a man may be converted by that short exhortation, Take; this may be done by presence, etc.  
Mr. H. 
Page 218.  If all come to this still, you may see what he must have, a Sacrament without receiving, which yet himself decryes.  
Answ. Soft, Sir, no such thing follows; If there be persons either visibly, or really worthy, there will be no Sacrament without receiving: If there be none such in a Congregation, I think that at present there ought to be no Sacrament in such a Congregation. Though the Sacrament as a mixed Ordinance, may convert standers by, yet I am far from turning the Sacrament into a Mass to be received by the Minister alone, all the people in the mean time being only Spectators, and Auditors. I believe some present must receive; but it follows not that all must receive who are present, or that none must be present unless they receive. Nor is the command of Taking an empty liveless word, unless it convert; I hope an edifying word, is no empty liveless word.  
Page 219. Mr. H. is a little too confident in daring to lay his life upon his opinion, That Christ would never have so indeterminately commanded, Drink you all of it, if so many thousands of unregenerate members that come thither, must but necessarily therefore eat their damnation. He considers not that the term all in Scripture-phrase, very seldom notes an absolute universal.  
Mr. D. Every natural man, notwithstanding all his preparatory acts, hath still the unworthiness of person, and comes to the feast without the wedding garment, etc.  
Mr. H. p. 219. f. This himself satisfies, for the feast he says is Christ, and I hope a man must come to Christ for conversion, etc.  
Answ. A man indeed must come to Christ for conversion, but not under every notion. I come to Christ as a Father for conversion, I come to him as a Feast for nourishment and edification. Christ as a Father begets us by the word, as a Feast he nourishes us by the Sacrament. Such confounding of notions by Mr. H. may well puzzle, but will not enlighten, or edify the Reader.  
Page 220. Mr. H. catches now again at a marginal escape of mine, p. 160. of my Bar, which I will not justify; but thank Mr. H. for showing me my error, though it be with a scoff.  
That fruit is to be attained by the Sacrament as tactible and gustible, I deny not, but the Question is whether the fruit of regeneration be attainable by touch and taste; and whether an unregenerate person can attain any benefit at all by receiving. I seek not to vilify Antiquity by saying, that Ite missa est, was an humane tradition; but desire Scripture-proof to make it a divine Ordinance, which is not evinced by Christ's commanding all the Apostles to receive (supposing Judas did receive also) for that proves not that all present did receive; For 1. Can he say, Our blessed Saviour did receive? 2. Doth he know what waiters were present at the Celebration; or can he say groundedly that none were present? He will find tough work of it to prove such negatives.  
Page 220. & 221. Mr. H. flourishes, but speaks not to the purpose, Instead of answering what I laid down, That humiliation, if not right, leaves a man still in the state of nature, and so Evangelically unworthy, He asks me how my soul was infused into my body after due preparation of the matter, I can tell him some hold, It is ex traduce; others that creando infunditur, etc. But whether I can answer him or no, as to that particular, this I am assured of, That till the soul be united to the body, that body hath not the dignity of a man; and till grace be in the heart, that man hath not Sacramental worthiness.  
Mr. H. p. 222. Me thinks the man here speaks very carnally. His doctrine is this, If you partake of the Lords Table without faith, you are without danger; but if you actually touch the bread upon the Table, and eat, you become a debtor.  
Ans. Here Mr. H. doth me a great deal of wrong. Where do I teach any such doctrine, That if you partake of the Lords Table without faith, you are without danger? I believe that standers by do more partake of the Lords Table than they do of Baptism, yet they may receive much good by presence at both Ordinances, be they regenerate or unregenerate. For the latter branch, I hope Mr. H. will not deny that unworthy receivers are debtors. Surely he that doth not eat cannot be guilty of unworthy eating, though I grant he may be guilty of unworthy carriage; yet not so deeply guilty caeteris paribus as he that receives unworthily.  
Page 164. to 167. of my Bar, I endeavoured to convince Mr. H. of his error, in holding, That the Ordinances are primarily and directly means of grace, and remotely means of conversion and confirmation.  
For answer, page 223. Mr. H. says I mistake him for want of distinguishing between gratia operans and gratia operata; and that his meaning is, the Ordinances are primarily means of gratia operans, and then of gratia operata. 
If by gratia operans he mean an act of the creature unconverted, which is the cause of habitual grace, or initial conversion; will it not thence follow, that Mr. H. believes a natural or moral act of free will, can, or doth produce a supernatural habit? a thing extra sphaeram activitatis liberi Arbitrii; And what is this but Pelagianism?   
Ans. That this cannot be his meaning (unless he mistake himself) is evident by his own Text, page 59 of his Vindication, in these words, This grace we receive in the use of them, is that which converts some, and strengthens others. Now grace received is not the divine Act, which he calls gratia operans, but the terminus of that action, called gratia operata, and which being received, doth, formally and immediately convert, regenerate, and change the heart; of which effect or terminus the word preached is the moral Instrument, but God as creating and infusing is the principal cause: and as the divine action is really distinct from the terminus wrought by it, so the divine action is not receptible, but only its terminus, namely the habits of grace. Whence it follows strongly against Mr. H. (by his own explication of himself) that the Ordinances as they are primarily and directly means of grace, so they are primarily and directly (not remotely) means of conversion, they being the primary and direct means of grace received, which grace received is nothing else but the habits of grace infused, not the divine action of creating and infusing, for that cannot be received.  
In vindicating his distinction of outward and effectual conversion, Mr. H. p. 223. & 224. hath divers mistakes.  
And 1. He mistakes in saying, That conversion to the knowledge of what we knew not before, is necessarily wrought by teaching only, and persuasive arguments, unless by miracle. There is a wide difference between humane, and divine discoveries; the former doth change our understandings in an ordinary way, the latter (when effectual) by special and supernatural concourse, 1 Cor. 12. 3. True, by hearing or reading, I may come to have a notion or apprehension of a thing, be the report true or false, but the understanding is not converted by the knowledge of apprehension, but by the knowledge of assent, Joh. 8. 32. And this assent is not wrought only by teaching and persuasive arguments, but by the power of God concurring with them, Joh. 6. 45. yea though it be but a common assent, 1 Cor. 12. 3. yet we call not this Assent miraculous in Mr. H. his sense, because God ordinarily works it in the use of means, to wit, the word preached, though the means cannot work it without God's especial concourse.  
Mr. H. his second mistake is p. 224 (supposing the Sacrament a converting Ordinance, which is his position) That God hath not appointed the Sacrament to convert heathen.  
Answ. 1. I desire a Scripture-proof, That God hath not appointed the Sacrament (suppose it be converting) to convert Heathen, as well as unconverted Church-members. His argument from analogy of the Passeover reaches not home, for though uncircumcised persons might not eat thereof, yet they were no where forbidden to be present at the Passeover eaten (suppose an uncircumcised sojourner or hireling desired to see the Passeover eaten in the house where he lodged, where doth God forbid such to be spectators or auditors?) Nor is any unbaptized person forbidden by Christ to be present at the Lords Supper, though I believe he ought not to receive till first initiated by Baptism.  
2. M. H. grants, p. 223. and 224. That the Sacrament is apta nata to convert an Heathen sufficiently knowing in the mystery of our Religion, if he be present, though he do not receive; and I pray then why may not presence convert a profane Christian sufficiently knowing, though he do not receive? And if the Sacrament cannot convert an ignorant Heathen, how shall it convert an ignorant Christian? yea, lastly, if it have an aptitude to convert any present, though he do not receive, how can M. H. forbidden any to be present at that which is apt to convert him, without an express warrant from heaven? If he have any such warrant, let him produce it.  
His argument for excluding infants, Because the Sacrament converts by a joint virtue of the word and discernment, which children have not, may as well exclude them from Baptism, of which they have no more discerning than of the Lords Supper.  
Page 224. M. H. grants, 1. That the Lords Supper is instituted for edification. 2. That this edification refers to the whole Church.  
Whence I infer from M. H. his five principles, That those intelligent Church-members who are warrantably suspended (instance in his jure excommunicate) at least may (if not must) be present in order to their edification, to which in his sense the Sacrament refers. How can I edify by an Ordinance, if I be not present at that Ordinance? He that is absent in reference to place, is further from edification, than he that is absent in understanding, 1 Cor. 14. v. 17, 24.  
His conceit of making regeneration to be edification, hath been formerly answered. We dispute not about the latitude of the word edification; but grant, that in a large sense, he who lays a foundation edifies, if the foundation be a part of the building; yet I hope, in precise speaking, the terms and notions of founding and building, are distinct, both in the Civil and Spiritual Edifice, 1 Cor. 3. 10. and that an Ordinance, or part of an Ordinance, may be effectual to edify, which is not effectual to found in a precise sense. Besides, edification must be proportionable to the foundation; therefore edification in common grace follows and suits with the foundation of common grace; and edification in saving grace, follows and suits with the foundation of saving grace, which is regeneration: Common grace found'st but upon the sand, saving grace found'st upon the rock, which are two distinct foundations, and must have two distinct edifications. But of this formerly.  
M. H. p. 225. In that word (fancy) he wrongs me; for his sense is answered: A vital Ordinance can beget life.  
Answ. Then M. H. wrongs himself, the word Fancy being his own word, page 63. of his Vindication. An Ordinance may be called Vital, not only as it begets, but also as it preserves and increases life. Christ indeed is vital food, but not before he be vital seed, and in the Sacrament he is received as vital food, not as vital seed.  
Page 170. of my Bar, I blame M. H. for saying, That confirmation of the Covenant is a primary end, confirmation of faith a secondary end of the Lords Supper.  
Page 225. of his rejoinder, M. H. tells me scoffingly, That I blame him for saying but what I say myself. For confirmation whereof he quotes page 126. of my Bar.  
Answ. I say there indeed, That Sacramental seals confirm, 1. The Covenant. 2. The faith of the worthy receiver. But where do I say, that confirmation of the Covenant is the primary end, confirmation of faith the secondary end of the Lords Supper? Is not that generally first in time, which is last in intention. Confirmation of the Covenant, as a means, is first in order of time, or at least in order of nature, before the confirmation of faith, as the causa synechtica, is before the effect: but the confirmation of faith, as the end, is in order of intention, before the confirmation of the Covenant. That is first in order of existence, which is last in order of intention, and contrà. In order of existence, the confirmation of the Covenant, is before the confirmation of faith, as the means are before the end; but in order of intention or design, the confirmation of faith, is before the confirmation of the Covenant, as the end is before the means. I say, the confirmation of the Covenant is in order of existence, before the confirmation of faith. M. H. says, it is in order of intention, before the confirmation of faith. Let the Reader judge whether these two propositions are all one; and whether M. H. does not violate the Law of Moral Philosophy, as well as Divinity, in holding, That the confirmation of the Covenant is the primary, the confirmation of faith, the secondary end of the Lords Supper. Who knows not, that the Covenant is confirmed by the seals (as well as by God's oath, Heb. 6. v. 17, 18. in order to the confirmation of our we ak faith. As God's oath, so the seals, by confirming the Covenant, do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in order to the confirmation of our faith, as the end. And if so, than the confirmation of our faith, is the end of the confirmation of the Covenant; whence it follows necessarily, that the confirmation of the Covenant cannot be the primary end of the seals, and confirmation of our faith their secondary end, as M. H. would have it.  
M. H. p. 226. Let me help him out here, There is the end of the Ordainer, and the end of the Ordinance. It may be true, that the Church's edification is primarily the intention of the Ordainer: But the primary end of the Ordinance must be that which goes into the institution, and the secondary that which flows from it: Now the end that is thus express in the institution is, for to be a memorial of Christ's death, and so outwardly to seal, solemnize or confirm the Covenant, and then the confirming a man's faith (as begetting it in others) is plainly a consequent effect, result or concomitant thereof. By this one passage well considered, you may have a guess at the man.  
Answ. In the former branch of his answer, M. H. is pleased to make himself and his Reader merry with me; with the rehearsal whereof I shall not waste and defile paper, but give him leave to make up in frothy wit, what he falls short of in solid argument. Now he proffers to make amends by helping me (rather himself) but I fear his help will prove as unserviceable, as his jesting is unsavoury.  
1. Therefore, its false that an effect or consequent of another end, is not, or cannot be a primary end; yea on the contrary, it's most certain, that the last effect or consequent is the first, primary or highest end, and so by proportion, this being a sure maxim in morality, Finis, ut in executione ultimus est, ita in intention primus.  
2. It's likewise untrue, that the primary end must go into the institution of a Sacrament (I mean expressly, for at that Mr. H. drives) as is evident (to go no further) by the Passeover, of which Christ and salvation by him was the primary end, yet not so much as mentioned in the institution thereof, Exod. 12.  
3. Supposing his rule were true, that the primary end of the Sacrament, must go expressly into the institution;  
Then 1. The confirmation of the Covenant (by Mr. H. his own rule) is not the primary end of the Lords Supper, since the confirmation of the Covenant is not expressly mentioned in the institution, though the Covenant itself be.  
Or 2. The confirmation of our faith is as evidently mentioned, as the confirmation of the Covenant, and therefore (by M. H. his rule, though against his dictate) may be a primary end of the Sacrament. For proof compare Matth. 26. 28. This is the blood of the Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Luke 23. 20. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you, 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my body which is broken for you. Those words for you, and for many, evidence that Christ in the Institution as expressly minded the confirmation of his people's faith, as the confirmation of the Covenant which is subservient thereunto; and that therefore by M. H. his rule it may be a primary end of the Sacrament. That, compared with the Confirmation of the Covenant, it is a primary end, hath been formerly proved; which is also more evident by the words of institution in the forequoted places. Should I now for a close return M. H. his Epiphonema upon himself, and say, By this one passage well considered, you may have a guess at the man, I suppose the Reader could not blame me. But I forbear.  
In the same page M. H. mentions some exceptitions I make from page 171. to page 175. of my Bar, and confutes them with a dash or two of his pen, saying, That I carp, snarl, my exceptions are not worth any further answer, what pitiful things are they, as if I envied him a bare expression, etc.  
Answ. 1. The Reader cannot expect I should spend time in vindicating those five passages which M. H. doth not answer, but only vilifies with reproachful terms. If this be to answer and confute, the Ladies of Billingsgate are excellent Disputants. We have had too much heat already on both sides, I had rather bring water, than fuel to this fire. I beseech you, Sir, think not that I envy you any expression; I think too many of your expressions, and of mine also, deserve rather pity than envy. Can we not seek the light of truth, without the heat of passion?  
Page 227. He presents his Jury of Arguments, to prove the Lords Supper a Converting-Ordinance. His first Argument is,  
Argument 1.  
It is the duty of every intelligent member to frequent the Sacrament: But officium est propter beneficium; ergo.  
Answ. 1. I deny the major, if by frequenting the Sacrament, he mean actual receiving, otherwise it militates nothing against us, who grant universal presence.  
2. Supposing some benefit did accrue to all receivers, must that benefit needs be initial Conversion? Studying to know by the Creation, is a duty required of Heathen, and no doubt but it was eo nomine, beneficial to them; but doth it thence follow, they were converted by this study of nature? or were the Sun, Moon, and Stars their Gospel? This for the minor.  
3. He asserts untruly, That man's benefit is not the ground of duty. He had as good say, The Promises are no ground of obedience. Shall Self be no ground of duty, because it is not the sole or principal ground?  
M. H. ib. A thing is not good, and our duty, and therefore God wills it: But God wills it, and therefore it is good, and our duty.  
Answ. I assent fully to the latter, but question the former branch, if universally understood. Some things are essentially good, and therefore necessarily our duty, as rational Creatures; instance in the duty of Loving God, this is good, and our duty, though there had been no positive command to enjoin it. Other things are our duty, merely because required by a positive Law; instance in Sacrifices, Sacraments, etc. Hence the distinction of natural and instituted worship, with which latter God often dispenses, not so with the former.  
M. H. ib. That the Sacrament can do an unregenerate man good, I have formerly proved.  
Answ. And that proof hath been formerly answered, which therefore I pass. Hence it follows, That no unregenerate man is bound to eat and drink his own damnation, because he is not bound to eat and drink the Sacramental elements. I have given M. H. more than one Text to prove, that persons Evangelically unworthy, must not receive; and have also proved, That every natural man is Evangelically unworthy. I hope therefore M. H. will be as good as his word in this place, in yielding to me, That receiving is not the natural man's daty; as eating the Passover was not the unclean man's duty.  
M. H. p. 227, and 228. Let the pious Reader underst and this point, and that is, through man's impotency, to make void God's Authority.  
Answ. When a duty in thesi, is therefore every man's duty in hypothesi, then M. H. speaks somewhat to purpose. Are there not many duties? which bind not all persons in every state, but this or that person, as his state and relation varies; instance in the fifth Commandment, and in duties of institured-worship, of which nature is the Sacrament. That may be a married man's duty, which is not a single man's duty; and that a godly man's duty, which is not a natural man's duty. I hope here is no entrenching upon God's Authority, but only an explication how Divine Authority applies itself to bind one man, where it doth not bind another.  
Argument 2.  
Page 228. M. H. his second Argument, All God's Ordinances within the Church, are means of grace, whether first or second, to beget or increase it; ergo.  
Ans. The Antecedent is true in sensu diviso, not in sensu composito. Among all God's Ordinances, some are means to beget grace, others to increase grace; but the thing to be proved is, That every Ordmance, yea, every part of an Ordinance, is a means both to beget, and to increase grace; nor can M. H. prove, that the act of receiving is a way God would have natural men to walk in. He that says, Receiving is a Converting-Ordinance, must produce, 1. A command for all natural men within the Church to receive. 2. A promise of Conversion annexed to that command.  
M. H. ib. You must produce some Text where converting grace is denied peculiarly to this means. If any say, This is a negative, which ought not to be proved: I answer, though it be so in the words, yet materially in the thing it is an affirmative; for he that excepts out of a general, affirms a limitation, and must prove it.  
Answ. Here M. H. his Logic fails him. Himself as Opponent in this place, undertakes to prove, That receiving is a Converting-Ordinance. I as Respondent, deny his Antecedent (That every Ordinance is Converting, and particularly those Ordinances which have no promise of Conversion annexed to them) doth it not apparently concern M. H. to prove (if he will make good his minor or Antecedent) that all Ordinances have a promise of Conversion annexed to them? It lies indeed upon the Respondent, to grant a true Proposition, to deny a false one, to distinguish a doubtful one; but it lies only upon the Opponent to prove what he undertakes, unless he mean to yield up his cause; which in my poor judgement would be more for M. H. his comfort and honour. Suppose M. H. would prove the Sun, Moon and Stars to be means of Conversion, because they discover to us much of God, etc. I as Respondent answer, That is not proof sufficient, but he must produce a promise of Conversion annexed to the observation of those Heavenly Bodies, if he will make it out, that they are a Converting-Ordinance. Were it now a reasonable demand on M. H. his part, to bid me produce any one Text of Scripture, where Converting grace is denied to the Contemplation of the Heavenly Bodies? The case is here much alike; nor is every means of Edification, a means of Conversion. True, the Respondent denying an universal Proposition, and so by consequence affirming a limitation, is bound to give an instance for that limitation; but it lies not upon him to prove that instance, but upon the Opponent to disprove it. For example, I deny M. H. his universal (that all Ordinances are Converting) in this denial, by consequence I affirm a limitation, and give instance of those Ordinances which have no promise of Conversion annexed to them. Doth it not here lie upon M. H. to prove, that every Ordinance hath a promise of Conversion annexed to it, if he mean to fortify his Universal? Will any fair Opponent here require of me to produce some Text, where Converting-grace is denied to any Ordinance?  
Argument 3.  
M. H. p. 229. There is but a peradventure for the Conversion of any in the use of all means besides, because there is no special promise of grace in the best use of mere naturals: But there is, an it may be granted by our Opposites, to the Sacrament.  
Answ. There is a wide difference between the first and second it may be; the first it may be, or peradventure, flowing from God's ordinate power, as declared by his revealed will, that it shall concur with some Ordinances for the Conversion of his: the second it may be, flowing only from his absolute power, which is a poor ground of encouragement to expect Conversion from any standing Ordinance, to which God hath annexed no promise of Conversion. It's possible, by God's absolute power, the damned may be saved through the satisfaction of Christ; but by God's ordinate power, its possible only for the Living to be saved. The former it may be, speaks no comfort to the Damned, but the latter it may be, speaks much comfort to the living, especially those under the means of grace. Why? Because the efficacy of Christ's satisfaction, is by promise annexed to divers of the living, but to none of the damned. In like manner, its possible, by God's absolute power, receiving may convert, not so by God's ordinate power, unless a promise can be produced which annexes conversion to actual receiving. There is a wide difference, I hope, between these two it may bees. It may be God may convert me occasionally by my sin (as he did divers of the Crucifiers of Christ) but it were madness thence to conclude that sin is a means of conversion. By saying therefore, that actual receiving cannot convert any; I do not limit the Spirit of God, but only declare that the Spirit is pleased to limit himself not to convert any by receiving, and that because he wills not to convert any by it: And that God wills not to convert any by this, as well as by other Ordinances, I conclude, because God hath not revealed his will to convert any by this, as by other Ordinances. Let it appear, that God wills to convert any by receiving, and I shall easily be of M. H. his judgement, That actual receiving is a converting Ordinance.  
For his amplification, ib. by a distinction of an half promise, and a full promise.  
Answ. These half promises are made to none but such as attend upon God, in, and under the means of conversion; and that actual receiving is a means of conversion, is the Question to be proved.  
Argument 4.  
Mr. H. p. 230: If the Sacrament be converting as it is a visible word, than it must be converting as it is a gustable, tactible word, etc.  
Answ. 1. It's not granted that the Lords Supper converts as a visible word. See my Bar, p. 155. and 156, but that the word reed ', opened, and applied at the Sacrament, is, and may be a means of conversion.  
2. We desire Mr. H. to produce one promise that the Sacramental elements, either as seen, touched, or tasted, are a means of conversion.  
Argument 5. ib.  
The precepts of God are lively and operative, and the offers of grace are the means and conveyances of that power we have not in ourselves to receive it: But here is this most sweet and gracious offer and command, Take and eat. Ergo:  
Answ. The precepts of God are lively and operative in order to the ends, for which he appoints them, and the offers of grace are means to convey unto the heirs of grace that grace which God offers by them; but that in the Sacrament God commands us to receive in order to conversion, or that he offers converting grace in tendering the Sacramental elements, is still the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Argument 6. ib.  
The reclaiming of a man from some particular vice, or vices, is a good step forwards towards repentance and conversion: But the Sacrament is a constant experiment hereof. Ergo.  
Answ. 1. There is a wide difference between a step towards repentance materially, and repentance itself. In the Devils and damned, there are some steps towards repentance, as conviction, fear, etc. Yet they, I hope, are far enough from repentance.  
2. A man may turn from one sin to another, from prodigality to covetousness, is this a step towards repentance or conversion?  
3. That receiving the Sacrament reclaims a natural man from any sin is still the Question begged. Mr. H. pretends constant experience, but names here no experiment. We are sure, upon his own principle, we can show him an experiment to the contrary. Supposing (as he will have it) Judas did receive, I pray what vice or vices was he reclaimed from by his receiving? doth not the very Liturgy hold him forth as a warning unto natural men not to venture in that estate upon the holy Sacrament?  
He supposes indeed a drunkard coming to the Sacrament with a resolution against drunkenness, taking the Sacrament upon it, and proving ever after a sober man.  
Answ. 1. This resolution of his is either against drunkenness alone, which is purely carnal, upon carnal principles, and is often justly plagued with returning to the vomit; or it is against all other sins too; and this either a velleity and faint resolution, made by the strength of natural free will; or real and sincere: the former is but a good mood, or turning upon the hinges, Prov. 26. 14. exposing him to a more dangerous fall; the latter is true repentance begun, and such a one comes not a natural man to the Sacrament, but is converted before receiving.  
Argument 7.  
Mr. H. 231. The acting or exercise of common grace, and endeavouring to do what a man can, is another good step forward towards conversion: But the Sacrament is the means to exercise common grace in the unregenerate. Ergo.  
Answ. 1. It hath formerly been showed, that a step towards repentance may be far enough from repentance.  
2. If this be warrant enough for receiving because the Sacrament is a means to exercise common grace, then why should not persons jure excommunicate be admitted in order to the exercise of common grace, and that thereby they may get a step nearer repentance?  
3. Common grace may be exercised by presence, and I am not against free presence, but against free receiving. For his half or comparative acceptance, ibid. I believe he sins less in divers cases who performs the matter of a duty, than he that profanely omits both matter and manner; yet on the other hand it's as true, that better omit the duty altogether, than venture upon it in an unwarrantable way, witness the sad fate of Nadab, Abihu, and Vzza, Levit. 10. 2. and 2 Chron. 15. 13. and of the unworthy guest, Matth. 22. 12, 13.  
Argument 8.  
M. H. ib. The solemn engagement of the soul to Christ upon his terms, &. is a means of full and effectual closing with him, if God's Spirit shall be pleased to act with it. But actual receiving is such a means, etc. ergo,  
Answ. 1. Then let persons jure excommunicate be thus engaged.  
2. An engagement will bind poorly where it's not understood, which is the case of grossly ignorant persons who know neither the nature of the Sacrament, nor of such a solemn engagement.  
3. He that comes to engage with no resolution to keep that engagement, yea with a resolution against it (which is the case more or less of all natural men) will be no more tied by those engagements than Samson was with cords and with'hs, or the Legion was with chains and fetters. Nor can any expect the Spirits acting out of the way and road of the Spirit. A penny earnest would bind no more than a promise were it not for the coactive power of the Law; and there is no compulsion of elicit, but only of imperate acts. 
Not but that natural men ought to engage against sin, and to duty, which engagement may be also very useful and beneficial, but that may be done otherwise, and with less danger than by receiving.   
Argument 9  
M. H. p. 232. That which can beget more degrees of the same grace, can beget the first grace, unless these degrees are begotten some other way than that is. But all grace (first and second) is begotten alike, by propounding the object, by illumination, and by a touch upon the will; which object is showed forth in the Sacrament, as in the Word, etc.  
Answ. 1. M. H. answers himself by his own limitation, since the first grace is ever begot by supernatural infusion; not so always the second, but may be got by exercise of the first grace, the Holy Ghost concurring to excite, and act the principle received, but not always insusing new grace, as God first poured down fire from heaven, which afterward was preserved and increased by the Priests applying fuel, etc. Leu. 6. 12. This truth is held forth by the Parables of the Talents and Pounds, which were at first given by the Lord, but improved and increased by the servants industry. As moral habits are strengthened by moral acts, so spiritual habits are strengthened by spiritual acts. Light may be intended by reflection or refraction, but cannot at first be generated without a direct beam; Such is the first grace darted into the soul by the Holy Ghost, but afterwards intended by exercise, and multiplied acts as so many reflections and refractions, though withal the Holy Ghost may at pleasure dart in fresh beams of grace, as the Lord did oftentimes cause fire to fall from heaven.  
2. The external propounding of the object, either by the Word or Sacrament, can no more work saving grace than the setting of an object before a blind man, or one that is in the dark can work upon him before the medium and organ be illuminated. Now the Holy Ghost is that light which illuminates the faculty savingly; and that he conveys the first illumination by actual receiving is the question to be proved.  
M. H. ib. It is a mistake to think that the second grace is exhibited by way of obsignation, but it is wrought (I say) through the Spirit of God by the way of moral operation only; as the first and second grace, both are begotten in reading and hearing, etc.  
Answ. 1. We believe that separation, tender, obsignation, and exhibition are distinct acts in the Sacrament; nor do we think that that Sacramental action which doth the one doth formally perform the other, which yet it may do virtually; and why grace received should not be confirmed by the sealing virtue of the Sacrament (which is really, though not formally, the exhibition of the second grace) as well as by God's oath and promise laid hold on by faith, I see no solid reason.  
2. That the first grace is wrought by way of moral operation only, as M. H. seems more than to hint in 〈◊〉 paragraph, is a Pelagian, and a dangerous 〈◊〉; nor did Pelagius himself deny the grace or concourse of the Spirit; but what that grace of his was, is too well known, namely natural reason, common illumination, propounding the object, moral suasion, etc. I will not here charge M. H. in the same kind, but wish he had explained himself, that the world might know his meaning whether he really think that the first grace is infused, or whether it be wrought (as moral habits are) by moral suasion, by strong and iterated acts which are both the seed and fruit of moral habits.  
Argument 10.  
M. H. p. 232. The sad Consequence of this Tenet, that the Sacrament belongs only to the effectually converted, is sorely against it, and that both for the giver and receiver. For the Receiver, this will cut off every poor doubtful Christian from the Sacrament. For 1. If I am bound to receive when I am regenerate, and bound to forbear if I am unregenerate, than I must be persuaded in my Conscience that I am regenerate, or else I cannot eat in faith; and he that eateth and doubteth is damned if he eat. I desire this may be tonderly weighed.  
Answ. In general. This Argument hath more accidental than natural strengt●…●…d is more plausible than powerful; as pretending much respect to tender consciences, and charging our principles with the contrary. I shall therefore endeavour to weigh it tenderly in the balance of the Sanctuary, that thereby I may satisfy tender consciences; and if it may be, my Antagonist also. 
Instance in the opposite tenets about the time of Easter, which so merly vexed the church etc.   
1. Therefore I lay this down as a foundation, That a sad Consequent is no solid Argument against any Tenet, unless first it be a proper and natural effect of such a Tenet. And,  
2. Unless it be a moral evil. Or,  
3. That Tenet be so trivial, that the least afflictive evil is too much to suffer for it. And otherwise, if all sad Consequents should be Argumentative in M. H. his sense, we might by a like Argument conclude against Christ and Religion, the sad consequents whereof are troubles, divisions, temptations, persecutions, etc. But to descend from the Thesis to the Hypothesis, what sad consequents follow as to the Receiver, from our Tenet, That only the regenerate aught to receive.  
M. H. tells us, 1. This will cut off every poor doubting Christian from the Sacrament. Why, I pray? Because he cannot eat in faith, being under a doubt of his regenerate estate.  
Answ. 1. No more can he abstain in faith, if this argument were good; since, as he is bound to abstain, if he be unregenerate, so he is bound to receive if regenerate (I mean, unless warrantably detained by some just occasion; for affirmative Precepts do not bind ad semper)  
You will say, This makes more against us, and for M. H. since it hereby appears, that a doubting Christian, is in a snare, whether he receive or not.  
Answ. 1. No more than a doubting Jew was in a snare in order to his eating of the Passover (the rule being, that no unclean person should eat, Numb. 9 13. compare 2 Chron. 30. 18.) Suppose now Caleb doubting whether he were clean or no, yet without any folid ground; but it may be, I have touched, or have been touched by an unclean person, or thing, etc. think you this groundless scruple had been sufficient to detain him from the Passover?  
2. The best way under such scruples, is to consult with God, and to discover their ground (either real or apparent) to some faithful friend or Minister; whereby, through mercy, their consciences would soon come to some settlement, far better than by M. H. his Doctrine of admitting all pellmell.  
3. If yet his scruple still remain, its wisdom to take the better part, which is the affirmative. He that doubted whether he were clean or no, might cat the Passover; and he that doubts whether he be regenerate or no, having faithfully used God's way of discovery, by self-examination, advice with others, and prayer, I believe both may and aught to come to the Sacrament, though he cannot yet attain full satisfaction of his scruples. That scruple which cannot exclude me out of the state of grace, sure cannot suspend me from the Sacrament; for than who shall receive? The best are not without scruples about their estate; which scruples may weaken, but cannot abolish evidence. As faith, so evidence is gradual, ebbing and flowing upon several occasions. Nay, the Sacrament is especially instituted for doubting Saints.  
Page 233. M. H. his second sad Consequent, as to the Receiver is, That upon this account every one that comes, professes himself converted; and if any man be but doubtful that he is not yet converted, he cannot come, but he acts a lie, and is a public hypocrite, etc. thus shall every humble, tender Christian keep away, and the self-justitiary harden to death.  
Ans. 1. It's a mistake, That upon this account every one that comes professes himself converted. This only follows upon our principle, That every one who receives, doth virtually profess he apprehends or thinks himself converted; as every Jew that came to the Passover; professed only that he believed himself to be clean, which belief yet might stand with some doubt or scruple. Hence it follows indeed, That he who knows himself to be in the state of nature, and yet comes to receive, acts a lie, and plays the gross hypocrite; which consideration well weighed, may be bar sufficient to a generation of Receivers, who will dare before God, Angels and men, to profess they believe themselves to be real Saints, when their own consciences, and divers of their neighbours, can groundedly evidence against them as profance persons, and scorners of holiness. But what is this to a poor doubting Saint, who hath solid evidence of grace, yet somewhat shaken by scruples, to whom God's Messengers and people can and ought cordially to give the right hand of fellowship, and persuade, yea, charge hi● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 receive, and not be afraid to close with his be●… friend in the Sacrament. We assert, That none but real Saints ought to receive, and that all real Saints, with due provision, must receive: But many doubting Saints are real Saints, and therefore by our assertion ought to receive. Contra, hypocrites, whether doubting or confident, ought not to receive; and if they receive, they do so at their own peril: And should Christ ask any of them, Friend, how camest thou in hither? he would be as speechless as was the presumptuous guest, who for all the general invitation, was bound hand and foot, etc. because he came without th● wedding garment, Matth. 22. v. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Yet further, if a confident hypocritereceive, his danger is the greater, the Sacrament (through God's rihteous judgement) building him up accidentally in a damnable error of false assurance: A sad Edification.  
We have scanned M. H. his sad Consequents for the Receiver. Next let us view his sad Consequents for the Giver.  
Page 233. M. H. For the Giver, 1. The case will be near the same; for the Sacrament cannot be administered according to rule, nor he (that is, the Giver) act in faith, unless both the Receiver is regenerate, and he assured of it (which he cannot be) if Regeneration were a qualification commanded as necessary to receiving.  
Answ. This imaginary Consequent, discovers more of M. H. his weakness than the former. He might as well argue about the Passover, thus, If no unclean person might eat thereof, than the Passover cannot be administered according to rule; nor the Giver of 〈◊〉 act in faith, unless both the Eater be clean, and the Giver or Overseer be assured thereof (which he cannot be) if legal purity were a qualification commanded, as necessary to the eating of the Passover. Think you the Priests or other Overseers were to admit none to the Passover, but those whom they knew to be clean? yet the rule was strict, No unclean person shall eat thereof: Whence I infer, As the strictness of their rule obliged not them to know certainly who were clean, who unclean; so the strictness of the Gospel-rule (let no unregenerate man receive) obliges not Church-Officers to know certainly, who are regenerate, who not; but only to take care, that no persons visibly unclean in an Evangelical sense, be admitted to the Sacrament. Will it follow, That because none but regenerate persons must receive, therefore none but such must be admitted? The latitude of Admission is as far beyond the latitude of Receiving, as the latitude of visibility, not contradicted by gross ignorance and scandal, is beyond the latitude of true Grace.  
M. H. ib. Secondly, men will be ready to think themselves converted, when they are admitted, and the formal Christian rest in his estate, when he should come hither to repent of it.  
Answ. 1. Carnal persons are apt to conclude their estate good, by catching at any evidence that seems to favour them; as, because they are Church-members, attend upon the Ordinances, have the good word and opinion of eminent Professors, etc. yea, some people abuse right evidences; must Ministers therefore forbear to preach evidences and trials of grace?  
2. Though we hold, that none but visible Saints must be admitted; yet withal we teach, that few visible Saints are real Saints, and that therefore admission to the Sacrament is no evidence of true grace, though it be a strong obligation to grace. It argues indeed, that the Admitters have a good opinion of the persons admitted; but what folly is it to infer, I must needs have true grace, because God's people give me the right hand of fellowship, and hope well of me?  
M. H. ib. Thirdly, the best Minister must fall infinitely short in the discharge of his trial, were any at all required upon this ground.  
Answ. No more than the Priests and Levites, who were not bound to know certainly who were clean or unclean, but upon suspicion, might and ought to bring the case to issue by the party's confession, or sufficient testimony. Or no more than a Judge is bound to know certainly, whether the person suspected be a Felon or not, but must endeavour to seek out the truth by the persons confession, or legal evidence; which being done, the Judge is innocent, however eventually a guilty person may be cleared, and so enjoy the privileges of an honost man, & contra.  
However therefore in the close of this Argument, M. H. is pleased to judge. That the first touches of Conscience, before mature deliberation, have inclined pious persons to plead for trial of others in order to the Sacrament; yet the serious debates both in the Assembly and Parliament about this particular, before it was ratified by the Civil Sanction; as also the constant practice of our own and other Churches before these times, may persuade M. H. that his judgement is not infallible. If Self-examination exclude Church-examination, then pari ratione, Self-judging exclude Church-judging, and Self-teaching Church-teaching.  
Argument 11.  
M. H. 234. his 11 Argument, The Sacrament is a means to confirm faith of Assent: Ergo, It's a means of Conversion.  
Answ. 1. This Argument proves indeed, the Sacrament is a means to confirm Conversion, by confirming assent in those who are regenerate.  
2. That it may confirm a common assent in any that understands it: But the great question is, Whether actual receiving can beget a saving assent, and so work initial Conversion. His testimony out of Calvin, proves Gods orderly and gradual proceeding about the work of Conversion, first by the word, then by the Sacrament, yea, afterwards by both together, but that by the Sacrament God opens a passage for initial Conversion, is M. H. his gloss, not M. calvin's text. Besides, by the word, God teaches not only convincingly, but also effectually; and so far as the word teaches, the Sacrament may confirm, either in relation to degrees of Conviction, or of Conversion; in order to both of which, the Spirit is a necessary Agent.  
Argument 12.  
M. H. his 12. Argument, ib. The solemn application of the Covenant to a man's self, according to his estate, etc. is the very only way whereby the Spirit usually worketh Conviction, and sincere Conversion: But actual receiving is a solemn means of such an application, Ergo.  
Answ. 1. I deny the minor, as to the second branch about sincere Conversion. M. H. his Prossyllogisms drawn from Legal-conviction, and self-judging, will not help him, till he can prove, that an instantaneous act of Legal-Conviction, with a like instantaneous and hypocritical act of Self-judging (if produced at all by the unworthy Communicant) in the act of receiving, are effectual means of converting such an obdurate sinner, who resists all the grace of the Sacrament, till he come to the last act of receiving.  
2. The  application may be made (with less danger of guilt) by presence without receiving.  
Mr. H. p. 236. and 237. He that is willing to go on in his sins, and refuse Jesus Christ, I will not gratify him so far, to say he must stay away. This were doctrine after the flesh's own heart.  
Answ. 1. How comes it then to pass, that the most fleshly men are usual most eager for the Sacrament, and think themselves most wronged when kept away? Ask the worst in every Parish, Whether the Minister gratify them most by suspension, or by admission?  
Yet 2. By suspension we affect not simply either to gratify or displeasure any, unless care and endeavour to prevent their sin, and bring them to saving knowledge and grace be a gratification or displeasure; and I hope every godly man should be willing to gratify all, nor afraid to displease any by endeavour to prevent their sin, and to work in them real conversion.  
What ever therefore M. H. is pleased to insinuate, p. 237. be not deceived as if by abstention, or suspension, thou either gavest up thyself, or wert given up as lost; Or that any unworthy receiver can make so good use of the Sacrament, or of the blood of Christ as to wash away any one stain of sin. Such conceits may puzzle and trouble, but will never convert or edify thee. If the guilt of Christ's body and blood can bring thee nearer heaven, then may unworthy receiving bring thee thither. Study well those two Texts, 1 Cor. 11. v. 27, 29. and thou wilt easily perceive, that M. H. is better at Rhetoric than spiritual Logic. Attend upon the word which undoubtedly is a means, and hath clear promises of coversion: And upon true, though weak discoveries of grace, come to the Sacrament as Gods second Chariot that will carry thee apace to heaven.  
Page 239-240. M. H. endeavours to back all his twelve Arguments by an instance or example; before which he inserts these words, Whereas Mr. Drake is ready to cite me before the great Tribunal, I may appeal thither to those many Saints in heaven, together with this party, etc.  
Answ. 1. Sir, Had you noted the place where I cite you before the great Tribunal, you had done me a favour. I do not remember such expressions, and should censure myself for rashness if I uttered such words without a very weighty ground.  
2. In appealing thither to the Saints departed, how ever your meaning may be good, the expressions are not very suitable to Protestant principles. But I let it pass as a superfluity of Rhetoric, and come to scan the instance and example, I doubt not but Mr. Fairclough reported faithfully and candidly according to what he apprehended by information and observation: which testimony Mr. H. presents to public view, p. 240. I hope verbatim without addition or detraction. Only here I entreat the Reader to note three particulars, so I have done with this Section.  
1. By this testimony its evident Mr. F. differed from Mr. H. his opinion about free Admission.  
2. That Thomasin Bud said not, That her receiving the Sacrament was the first thing which by the power of the Holy Ghost, brought over her will to the acceptance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But that it was the first thing which she sensibly perceived brought over her will, etc. whence it follows, she had her first sensible evidence at the Sacrament in receiving; but whether she were not really converted till that instant is still in dispute.  
3. Mr. F. confesses, That before her admission she had some sleight motions and conviction wrought upon her. Who can say, but these sleight motions (in man's judgement) might be converting motions. That may be real and glorious with God which is but sleight with man, & contra, Luke 16. 15. Hence I may (without injury to that pious woman) conclude that this example affords no solid bottom to prove actual receiving a converting Ordinance.   

SECT. VII.  
THe seventh Objection is, Judas received not the Sacrament because he went out, John 13. 30.  
This Objection is considerable as overthrowing Mr. H. his foundation, That Judas did receive. But whether he received or not, it's not very material to us.  
Mr. H. p. 241. My answer was, That this Supper of John was before the Feast of the Passeover, and that very likely two nights. Unto this, all Mr. D. answers (p. 176.) is Mr. H. in two leaves takes some pains to small purpose. I pray note it, while I allege Scripture to prove that this Supper in John, and the Passeover were two different Suppers, and in two different pl●…es; he tells us this is to small purpose, as if the alleging Judas went out to agree with the High-Priests from a Supper two nights before the Sacrament, wa● sufficient proof that therefore he went out at the Sacrament.  
Answ. 1. Sure those words are not all Mr. Drakes answer, as is evident to any that will but cast an eye upon what I say, p. 176. & 177. of my Bar: though withal I must confess I wonder at myself upon what account I should let pass so memorable a place as that of John 13. untouched in my answer, and am beholding to Mr. H. for minding me here of it. 2. Therefore now, what in me lies to make up that defect; I shall first cope with Mr. H. in his humble vindication; and then proceed to what he adds is his rejoinder.  
Mr. H. p. 64. and 65. of his Vindication, There was a Supper a little before the Passeover, where St. John relates a washing of the disciples feet, and other things, that were not to be done at the solemnity of the Passeover; but the feet were to be shod then, and the like gestures quite contrary.  
Answ. 1. To this Mr. H. citys his own answer, p. 65. in these words, Some say, those passages which noted their ●aste out of Egypt were not obligatory when they came to the land of rest.  
2. Yet suppose they were then obligatory, why might they not have their feet washed just before the Passeover, and then put on their shoes, etc. and eat the Passeover with observation of the original rites? If you say, This washing was a servile work, and therefore prohibited at that holy time, Exod. 12. 16.  
Answ. 1. All servile works were not forbid upon such holy Convocations, and particularly washing, anointing, dressing of meat, which served to cheer and refresh them, as the Rabbins note. 
Mr. Goodwin in his Jewish Antiq. notes L. 3 c. 2. & 4. That at all feasts, especially at the Passeover, washing of the feet was an usual ceremony.   
2. This work, though servile in form, was holy in use, and in Christ's design; and holy works, though bonily, are no profaning of an holy day.  
Mr. H. ib. So large a circumstance as is here mentioned of John, to be introduced of Christ at this time is not probable, Joh. 12. 1.  
Answ. 1. I hope all those circumstances mentioned, Joh. 12. might easily fall out in six days. 2. For the circumstances of washing and giving the Sop, suppose they took up half an hour between the common supper, and the Passeover (the celebration whereof, as also of the Lords Supper, is not recorded by John as being sufficiently handled by the other Evangelists) I pray what absurdity follows? May not the Lord of time borrow a little time to testify his great love and humility, and to uncase an hypocrite?  
Mr. H. ib. and p. 66. About two nights before the Passeover, when it drew near, Satan entered into Judas, etc. compare Matth. 26. 2.14. and Mark. 14. 1.11. So that it could not be at the time supposed, that is manifest.  
Answ. Grant, that two nights before the Passeover Satan entered into Judas, doth not John take particular notice of that circumstance as a thing past, by expressing it in the participle of the preterperfect tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, John 13. 2. though upon other occasions Satan got further entrance, vers. 27. The circumstance of time than is not against us, unless Mr. H. his bare assertion be a demonstration: With the same confidence he affirms, ib. That Judas was present till the Lord's Supper, and all was done, for which he quotes Luke's Hystor●ogie, Luke 22. 21. and hath been formerly answered. Also, that Judas stole away when Christ was going with his disciples to Mount Olivet, etc. But 1. where is his Scripture-proof for this particular? 2. That the discovery of Judas by the Sop, and by dipping in the dish, was a twofold discovery, and at two several times seems not probable. What need they suspect every man himself on the Passeover Even, if Mr. H. his assertion be true, that but two days before the Traitor was so particularly discovered by the Sop given unto him? It's more probable therefore, that Christ at one and the same time, and that before the Sacrament, did discover Judas in general by his dipping in the dish; and in particular by the Sop given him, John 13. 26. and by word of mouth also, Matth. 26. 25. Upon which he immediately went out, John 13. 30. and (as some think) neither received the Passeover, nor the Lord's Supper: It's enough for our purpose if he received not the Lord's Supper  
Mr. H. p. 67. Johus Sop was before the bargain, Matthews dipping was at the very time of accomplishing it.  
Answ. 1. How will Mr. H. make it out that Johns Sop was before the bargain? If he urge, John 13. 1. Now before the Feast of the Passeover, etc. is not immediately before, as truly before as two days before? If Christ washed his Disciples feet, etc. between the common supper, and the Passeover, I hope it was as truly done before the Passeover as if he had washed them two days before the Passeover; and the Sop being given at that time, it seems consonant to reason, and not against Scripture, that Judas went away before the Passeover, much more before the Lords Supper, to acquaint the Priests with that fair opportunity of taking our Saviour in the Garden that very night if they would furnish him with a sufficient number to attach him; compare John 18. v. 2. 3. with Joh. 13. 30. which, if so, aggravates Judas his malice, who out of design to kill the true Passeover, 1 Cor. 5. 7. forsaken and slighted the typical Passeover.  
If he argue from the same expression used, Luke 22. 3. and John 13. 27.  
Answ. 1. Why might not Satan have a double entrance by tempting Judas, first to strike the bargain two days before, and next by tempting him to complear it two days after.  
Yet 2. The adverb of time (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is not mentioned by Luke in the original, but only inserted by the Translators, which makes it probable enough that Luke observed not so much the order of time, as the truth of the narrative here, as elsewhere. Luke tells you that Satan entered, John specifies the time, immediately after the Sop given; which Sop, I proved a little above, was given on the Passeover even, after the common supper. Yea, page 67. of his Vindication Mr. H. acknowledges that many learned men think there were three Suppers on the Passeover Even, which though he is pleased to term conjectures, yet we need not be afraid to balance his conjecture with their conjectures. His pronouncing (tanquam è tripod) that they have erred, and are not to be built upon, I hope is no oracle: Nor well his Argument hold against them though Judas were at the Table (which was first a common table, than a Passeover table, and lastly the Lord's Table) unless he can prove that Judas was present at all the three Suppers upon the same Table. Only I must confess his last Argument, ib. is wonderful, as being drawn from John's silence; thus, John says nothing of this Supper at all; Ergo, Judas received the Lord's Supper. Should we now imitate Mr. H. and argue, John says nothing of the Lords Supper; Ergo, Judas did not receive; might not the Reader from such profound arguments conclude (with a smile) that both of us were rare Logicians? Nor will it follow (with M. H. his good leave) that because Christ offers grace to all, therefore the signs of grace must be tendered to all, or received by all. This for his Vindication; I come now to his rejoinder.  
Mr. H. page 241. notes well, That there are many difficulties about the Passeover; which may warn us not to be too assertory. Page 242. He endeavours to prove that this Supper of John was before he Evening of the 14. of Nisan, and so before the institution of the Lords Supper which immediately followed the Passeover, thus,  
The evening of the 14. day of Nisan, and the morning of the 15. was the Feast of the Passeover (so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but John's Supper he tells us expressly was before the Feast of the Passeover; Ergo, It was before the 14. day of Nisan, and the time Christ instituted his Supper.  
Answ. 1. I deny his major, which confounds the Passeover day, and the Feast of the Passeover together. The Passeover day was the fourteenth day of Nisan or Abib, on which the Paschal Lamb was killed, and its blood sprinkled etc. about three of the clock in the afternoon. The Feast of the Passeover was the 15. day, which began precisely at Sunset, till which time they were roasting the Passeover in their several houses, which being an whole Lamb of a year old might well be roasting and dressing till about six at night (at which time the 15. day began, it being then Equinoctial) Thus our Saviour probably sent two of his Disciples about the noon of the 14. day to prepare the Passeover, Mark 14. 12, 13. But himself with the rest did not eat it till about six at night, Matth. 26. 20. the Evangelist notes expressly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the first watch of the night, beginning at six, and ending at nine of the clock at night, Mark. 13. 35. Therefore the Learned distinguish well between the two Evenings, whereof one was vespera declinationis called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 24. 29. the other vespera occasus, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the Sun was set, Mark 1. 32. In the former evening, which ended the 14. day, they killed the Passeover; in the latter evening, which began the 15. day they are it, which therefore was very properly called the Feast of the Passeover, and was not part of the 14. and part of the 15. day, but precisely the 15. day, beginning at Sunset; on which day also they did eat other Passover-offerings of the herd, as well as the Paschal-Lamb, Deut. 16. 2. compare 2 Chron. 35. v. 7, 8,9, where Oxen are called Pesach and Pesachim, as well as the lesser ; which may be of good use to reconcile that difficulty, John 18. 14. 28. Passover there being meant, not of the Paschal-Lamb, but of the Oxen, etc. that were for Passover-offerings, which they eaten on the fifteenth day about noon (on which day our Saviour suffered) yea, all the seven days of the feast, as the Learned Broughton notes.  
2. Granting therefore M. H. his minor, That John's supper was before the feast of the Passover, let us examine his Conclusion; ergo, It was before the evening of the fourteenth day of Nisan, and the time Christ instituted his Supper. The major failing, this Conclusion must needs be lame. Yet further to clear myself about this particular, we must know, That (as every day, so) the fourteenth of Nisan had a double evening: 1. The evening that began it, at the Sunset of the thirteenth day. 2. The evening that concluded it, holding from twelve at noon, to six of the clock at night; or at least, from three to six, which made the fourth and last great hour of the day. After which began the fifteenth day, whose first evening extended from Sunset, to nine at night, and was the first watch of the night, Mark 13. 35. That by the Learned is called Vespera declinationis, this Vespera occasus. Now John's Supper was on the second evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, between three and six of the clock, haply about five of the clock, which began the twelfth and last hour of the artificial day of the 14 of Nisan, After which, between six and nine the first great hour, or watch of the fifteenth of Nisan, the Passover was eaten; of which also possibly Judas might partake (for about that I must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and being discovered, as some think, by the sop dipped in the Chatosheth or Sauce of bitter herbs, went out in a pet to get a band of Soldiers or Officers for the Attatchment of our Saviour.  
I doubt not but M. H. here will soon cry out, a Contradiction, a Contradiction. Did you not lately say, That Christ came and sat down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: compare Mark 14. 17. & Mat. 26. 20. and did you not teach us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the even, began at Sunset? If Christ came not till the Sun was set, than he could not begin the common Supder, till the Sun was set; at which time the fifteenth day of Nisan beginning, is it not evident by your own principles, that Christ eaten not the common Supper till the fifteenth of Nisan, which was properly the feast of the Passover? And is not this in terms contradictory both to ourselves, and to the Apostle, who tells us, John 13. 1. that that Supper (which we term the common Supper) was before the feast of the Passover?  
Answ. This is easily salved with a distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in strict terms noted the first watch of the night; as also did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 13. 35. beginning the natural day with the Jews, and is called Vespera occasus. But in a large sense it's extended also to the evening that terminated the day foregoing, at least, from three in the afternoon to six of the clock at night, called Vespera declinationis. Take one place for proof, Mark 15. 42. its evident there, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the evening that ended the fifteenth day: 1. Because it's called the Preparation, 2. The day before the Sabbath, which was the sixteenth day of Nisan, and began just at Sunset. This evening was between three and six; about three in the afternoon of the fifteenth of Nisan our Saviour died, between it and the Sabbath, beginning at six, Joseph begged his body, and together with Nicodemus, wrapped it in linen with spices, John 19 vers. 38. to 42. but they could not perfectly embalm it, because the Sabbath beginning at six, came so fast upon them, compare Luke 23. 56. and 24. 1. Our Saviour then might eat the common Supper on the evening that terminated the fourteenth day, which is our Thursday, coming haply to Jerusalem between four and five in the afternoon, and the Passover on the evening which began the fifteenth day, which we call Thursday night, but began their Friday, or sixth day of the week, and was properly the feast of the Passover. And thus without contradiction, the common Supper might be before the feast of the Passover, & I neither contradict S. John nor myself. For Christ might well eat the common Supper after five, and the Passover after six, the common Supper at the end of the fourteenth day, and the Passover at the beginning of the fifteenth day of Nisan, the fourteenth day ending, and the fifteenth day beginning precisely at sixth of the clock at even.  
M. H. p. 242. As for those other reasons, M. D. repeats against Judas receiving, and are answered before, I count them only as so many cyphers, etc. And yet there is one passage he hath very remarkable, and not to be forgotten, that is, Christ excluded Judas in particular in these words, Luke 12. 21. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is at the Table.  
Answ. A very probable argument; Judas was excluded from the Sacroment, because Christ says expressly he was present at it.  
Answ. 1. Suppose my Reasons, or rather Answers, were but Ciphers (as M. H. calls them) yet Cyphets with a Figure, himself grants are powerful. You must conceive his figurative answers have turned them into Ciphers. I confess he is good at Figures, and can play the Rhetorician well; but M. H. should consider, that Logic is fit for a Disputant than Rhetoric. I shall not say my Arguments are Figures, nor should M. H. say they are Ciphers, till he can prove, and not barely speak them to be so; we being parties, it's not fit we should be Judges in our own case. Let us leave that work to the indifferent and judicious Reader.  
2. In his remarkable observation, he quotes not my text candidly; my words page 176. of my Bar are these, It seems probable that Christ excluded Judas particularly in those words, etc. M. H. brings me in affirming downright, That Christ excluded Judas, etc. whereas I spoke doubtfully, 1. It seems so. 2. It seems probable. This is not fair dealing.  
3. For the thing itself, 1. Where doth Christ say expressly, Judas was present at the Sacrament? He says indeed, The hand of the Traitor was at the Table. But might not that be at the common Supper, or at the Passover? Hath he forgot Luke's hystorologie? 2. Suppose he were present when Christ was ready to institute the Lords Supper, might not Christ by that sharp reproof virtually bid him be gone; as ask him, What hath a Traitor to do at the Lords Table amongst Christ's faithful Disciples? Upon which, and the following discovery by the Sop, etc. Judas might probably go away in a pet; as the Master virtually turned away the presumptuous Guest, by those words, Friend, how camest thou in hither? etc. Matth. 22 12. and with us, when persons attempt to receive before approbation, the Minister or Elders deal with them upon the place, either by Interrogation, or otherwise to forbear at present. This for the substance of his answer, his flouting and feigned instance, I leave to them who need some of M. H. his mirth.   

SECT. VIII.  
THe eighth Objection was, Those that receive unworthily, eat their own Damnation.  
Page 243. M. H. answers, 1. On the Church's part. 2. On the receivers part. On the Church's part, I judge this cannot be made to concern them whom Mr. D. excepts, p. 178. the Apostle commanding us to examine ourselves, but not others to examine us, 1 Cor. 11. 28.  
Dr. D. The Apostles words are not to be understood restrictively.  
M. H. p. 243. Belike then by Mr. D. the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be thus interpreted, Let a man examine himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so, the Presbytery having examined him, Let him eat.  
Answ. Let M. H. take heed, lest by straightening the word, he attempt also to straighten the Spirit of God, Micha 2. 6, 7. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (used in the Text) signifies in Scripture-phrase, not only to examine, but also to approve, Rom. 1. 28. Phil. 1. 10. and 1 Cor. 16. 3. and particularly notes an approbation upon trial, 1 Tim. 3. 10. and 2 Cor. 13. 5. the primary end of examination being approbation, which he will attain unto sooner or later, who is constant and conscientious in this duty. By proportion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, notes not only self-tryal, but also self-approbation, which must be not only to my own conscience, but also (what in me lies, upon just occasion) to the consciences of others. See a like phrase, 2 Cor. 4. 2. and 6, 4. And this must especially be done to those who are over us in the Lord. Now I approve myself to others, either by an holy conversation, or by a good confession, when called to it, by divine providence, as in persecution; or by the entreaty of equals, or authority of superiors, upon just occasion; which suppose for the particular and special season it may be prudential, yet in the general it is a moral precept, and tends much to edification. Now if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have this latitude in Scripture; upon what account will M. H. straighten it here? Is it neither contrary to the analogy of faith, nor to good manners, to teach, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to approve one's self to God and his own conscience always, and to man, as just occasion requires: And shall M. H. be sole Judge of the justness or fitness of such occasions? what absurdity is there in this Paraphrase? Let a man approve himself to God, to his own conscience, and upon just occasion to man, and so let him eat, etc. 1 Cor. 11. 28.  
For his third answer, I grant it with Limitation; namely, that those who admit persons visibly unworthy (when they have power to keep such away) had need pray, Lord forgive us our othermen's sins. And this I apprehend consonant both to Truth, and to our principles.  
Mr. D. It's absurd by an affirmative, to exclude a negative, etc.  
Mr. H. ib. Let Mr. D. see the same absurdity in himself (who goes wholly on this ground) for if affirmative Propositions are not exclusive (which is his meaning) then how can he still argue and impose on us, that because the Apostle says, Let a man so eat, therefore a man must not eat, unless so?  
Answ. I see I am like to be absurd enough, if Mr. H. must be my Expositor: his candour appears here, as well as in other places, I say, An affirmative doth not exclude a negative; this is a particular proposition. M. H. tells the Reader my meaning is, that Affirmative propositions are not exclusive; this is a general proposition. 
I mean its particular, if compared to the following proposition that says, affirmative propositions are not exclusive at all. That exclusion which excludes all propositions, persons and things, sure is more general, than that which excludes only a negative proposition.  Doth not he excellently open my meaning, who tells the world, that by a particular I mean a general? Let the affirmative be, Let a man so eat: This affirmative, I say, doth not exclude the negative, Let not a man eat, unless so, but rather includes it; as, Let a person circumcised and clean, eat the Passover, doth not exclude, but include, Let not a person eat, if he be uncircumcised or unclean. But M. H. his unhandsome (I will not say witting) mistake is, that he applies that to a person, which is to be applied to a proposition. An affirmative precept, I hope, doth not exclude a negative precept; but it may, yea often doth exclude a person from an Ordinance, as is evident in the former Propositions.  
Mr. H. ib. 2. If this be absurd in Divinity and Logic, it may be demanded, How then will Mr. D. make good, therefore an other must examine me?  
Answ. 1. By the same rule in proportion, 1. That one affirmative includes another; and that either by way of subordination, or by way of analogy, Rom. 4. 23. 24. If I must do good to myself, I must also do good to my neighbour as God offers just occasion.  
2. And more particularly by that rule which binds me to endeavour the salvation of another, as well as my own salvation, Jam. 2. 18. Show me thy faith, and I will show thee my faith, etc.  
For his Rhetorical flout in the close of this Paragraph, it proclaims him more witty than wise, and may tickle them who are taken more with fancy than reason. Therefore I leave it for them to make merry withal.  
For the Simile of poison, I grant, as I must give a man his food, so I must give him the Sacrament; but I must not give a feverish man, etc. that wholesome food, which will hurt him in statu quo, nor must I give a person visibly unworthy the wholesome food of the Sacrament that will hurt him in statu quo; yea, should an antipathy against the wholesomest food continue in any durante vitâ, I ought not to give him that food so long as he lives.  
Mr. H. p. 244 So that he must belike give them a little poison to try them etc.  
Answ. I give not any man poison in the Sacrament to try him, but the children's bread to them, whom I am bound in charity to think, or to hope they are Children; Nor do I judge the Sacrament is poison to any by the effects only, but also by the causes that make it so, namely visible ignorance and profaneness, which last symptom (drawn from the causes) Mr. H. let's pass in deep silence, though not fairly.  
Dr. D. " All may see and be present, not eat, etc.  
M.H. ib. This is but a kind of spice of secret Popery with which Mr. Dr. would sweeten the bitterness of his book, etc.  
Answ. 1. I ask Mr. H. whether the Lords Supper be a public Ordinance, or not? If he say, It is not, let him show why: If he grant it is, will he then make it a spice of Popery for all to be present at a public Ordinance? Is there no difference between a Mass, where none but the Priest must receive (of which M. Fox, and M. Bradford are to be understood) and a Communion, where every intelligent Church-member that is visibly worthy hath liberty and encouragement to receive in both kinds; and those who are visibly unworthy are for the present only denied receiving, but not presence at the Ordinance?  
Mr. D. How absurdly doth Mr. H. make that the principal duty, which is the carcase and form only?  
M. H. p. 245. Me thinks Mr. D. should not speak so lightly of Christ's own words, who does not know. Do this, includes matter and manner, & c?  
Answ. I speak not lightly of Christ's words, about which we both agree that they include both matter and manner; but I blame Mr. H. who makes the bare act of receiving, abstracted from the right manner, a principal duty, and self-examination or preparation for right receiving the accessary. For evincing whereof, consult his Vindication, page 70 in these words.  
If a man fails in the one, and is not sufficiently prepared, I dare not say, that he must keep away (I am sure it will not excuse; but by your leave, Sir, it may suspend) him from the other. Two or three lines above in the same page M. H. hath these expressions, For the receivers part, there is a double duty, a principal, do this, what is this, but Receive? An accessary, Let a man examine himself. No question, but we are bound to come worthily; but the question is whether I be bound to receive when unworthy, unexamined by myself, and unprepared? Mr. H. thinks you are, for self-examination is the accessary, I pray then what is receiving in him that cannot receive rightly? that must be either principal or accessary, for he makes no other branch of distinction; the accessary he makes to be only self-examination, what then can the principal be here but the act of receiving abstracted from preparation, which is unworthy receiving? His similitude for illustration is lame, since even in Civil society a Feast is not the principal, no nor feeding upon the Feast, but the nourishment and confirmation of love between the Feast-maker and the Guests, and between the Guests mutually, else a dinner of green herbs is better than a stalled ox, Prov. 13. 17. But how can he that is destitute of faith and love, either feed upon Christ, or bear love to him or his members as such. True, the preparation of the Sacramental elements is but accessary to the feeding upon them; but right preparation for the Sacrament is better, I hope, than a bare receiving of the outward elements, and therefore cannot be accessary to that receiving, but the principal. If Mr. H. judge otherwise, the Lord give me the accessary of right preparation, though without the principal of the bare elements (supposing I must be denied one of them) I shall not envy Mr. H. or any, that principal of the bare elements, but shall rather pity them.  
For his charging me here to cast up mire and dirt, let but the Reader peruse my words, p. 122. of my Bar, and then judge, whether Mr. H. his fancy be not foul and turbid, and so misrepresents seasonable and suitable reproof as mire and dirt. A black sight makes white objects show black like itself.  
Mr. H. ib. A Church-member is as absolutely bound to come to the Sacrament (understand here by coming. receiving) as to pray and hear.  
Answ. A person jure excommunicate is a Church-member till actually cut off. Is such a one as much bound to receive, as to pray, and hear? Yea a person actually excommunicated, I hope, is bound to pray, nor will Mr. H. deny it; Is it not evident then, that the duty of prayer is more obligatory than the duty of receiving?  
Mr. H. p. 246. Where doth the Scripture say any where, Let a man not eat, or not drink?  
Answ. 1. Where doth the Scripture say expressly, Let not an heathen, or excommunicated person eat or drink?  
2. By just consequence, 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 10 21. say, Let a man not eat, or not drink; But of this formerly.  
I am glad that in this page Mr. H. with some caution agrees with me, That unpreparedness will excuse a man from receiving. I cannot but like his caution well for its substance, and, I pray, let the world here take notice, that as wide as we seem to differ, yet we agree in this, That as unpreparedness may excuse a man from receiving at present, so this abstinence must humble him, and put him upon greater care to prepare for next Sacrament. Let me add, This is the very end of suspension, be it negative, or positive: were passion and prejudice laid aside, we should soon agree; The Lord cast these devils out of us all, for man cannot.  
M. H. p. 247. If Mr. D. cannot really sever hearing and unworthy hearing, etc. How can he make it a means of grace?  
Answ. Just as he can make unworthy preaching a means of grace; who knows how many Judas converted? yet he preached unworthily. The evil doing of that work (as to spiritual rectitude) which is materially good, may be a cause of death to me, when the matter of the duty performed may be a cause of life to another, as is evident in that Minister who preaches orthodoxly, plainly, and powerfully (all which he may do by a common gift) yet is acted by, and under the dominion of pride and selfseeking, etc.  
For his five Premises, and three Inferences, page 247. and 248. whereby he would make the world believe. That I press men to do evil, or to sin, that good may come of it.  
Answ. 1. I abhor such damnable doctrine, nor hath Mr. H. the least solid ground to infer it from my principles.  
2. It being a received Scripture-maxim (which M. H. cannot deny) that all the actions of a natural man have not only sin in them, but also are sins, being (as the Father notes well) but splendida peccata; I shall make bold to retort M. H. his Conclusion (against me) upon himself. Thus, A wicked man's prayer is sin; A wicked man is bound to pray, ergo, He is bound to sin. Absurd, and abominable! You may well say he is necessitated to sin (hypothetically) in every action considering his state, etc. but he is bound to pray, and graciously too, which yet he cannot do in statu quo; and for which he must thank himself, but cannot blame God, or his Law, much less the Gospel. True, all duties of a natural man are sins in him; yet it's a greater sin for him (caeter is paribus) to neglect or reject his duty.  
You will say, than a natural man must receive (as well as pray) for that's his duty.  
Answ. 1. Let Mr. H. prove that receiving is a natural man's duty in statu quo, and then I shall easily grant he is bound to receive, as well as to pray, though both praying and receiving be sin in him. This for his first Query.  
For the second Query. Mr. D. Unworthy receiving is otherwise damnable, than unworthy praying, or hearing; 1. Because it's not on universal duty; 2. Because not converting.  
Mr. H. p. 248. The first is vain, and inconsequent; for there are some duties belong only to men in such and such relations; is the neglect hereof ever the less damnable because they are not universal?  
Answ. Sir, Let me crave leave to tell you that here you are clean besides the Cushion, we are not now speaking of the neglect of a duty, but of presuming to act out of my place, and relation. Unworthy receiving is not simply an omission, but a commission, and a presumptuous act of him that will venture to receive when prohibited; upon which account it is more damnable than unworthy praying, etc. since no man in what estate soever, is prohibited to pray.  
Mr. H. ib. Again, a natural man cannot convert himself by his moral works, are his sins therefore ever the less sinful?  
Answ. They are, or are not according to the nature of the moral work. He that doth a work naturally moral, yet unworthily (caeteris paribus) sins less than he that doth a work moral by institution unworthily, though he can convert himself by neither. The reason is, because all men are commanded works really moral, and therefore in doing them a wicked man sins only in the manner; but divers persons are prohibited some parts of instituted worship, who therefore by venturing upon them, sin both for matter and manner: Of this nature was the Passeover, and now is the Lords Supper as received. And for a person to venture upon a prohibited work which in statu quo cannot convert, but hurt him, I think is an aggravation. And so unworthy receiving is more damnable than unworthy praying, or hearing.  
3. Query. Whether an unregenerate person must never come to the Sacrament for fear of eating damnation?  
Mr. H. his answer (upon my assent) was, That upon the same ground he must abstain from hearing etc.  
Mr. D. " Not so, unless it can be proved the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance.  
Mr. H. p. 244. To undermine me here, he flies to all the duties of the Law, as if upon this account a natural man must forbear them all, because they are not converting.  
Answ. But he overshoots himself, 1. By not considering the difference between natural and instituted worship (of which above) natural duties are required of all by the Law of nature, whether they be converting or not; not so instituted duties, unless they be converting, or particularly imposed as was Aaron's sacrificing, Christ's Baptism etc.  
2. By not putting a difference between absolute and relative duties, the former must be done by all, not so the latter. It's as great homage to omit where God forbids, as to perform where God commands. This saves me the labour of answering a leaf.  
Mr. H. p. 250. Where did Mr. D. learn a man must hear the word, though he hear unworthily upon this ground, because its a means of conversion?  
Answ. A strange question, as if he that commanded me to convert, did not in that very command charge me to attend upon all the means of conversion. What he adds for confirmation, is as frothy, as his question is uncouth, and hath formerly been answered. Every duty of a natural man is turned into sin by reason of his state, must he not therefore do his duty? As we must not do a thing materially evil that good may come of it, so I must do that which is good for the matter (though it be evilly done for the manner, and ever will be so in natural men) that good may come of it.  
Mr. H. p. 251. Mr. D. his distinction of abstainers and refusers cannot be applied here, because a man cannot always forbear an Ordinance, but his omission makes him a refuser, or neglecter: And my question is, Whether an unregenerate man must never receive?  
Answ. What if the ground of abstaining for a time hold always? Is there not still the same reason of abstinence? No unclean person was to eat the Passeover. Now I ask Mr. H. whether leprous Vzziah was not suspended, and bound to abstain all his life long from the Passeover, and why not (pari ratione) a spiritual Leper from the Lords Supper, if his leprosy hold him to his dying day? I hope Uzziahs' abstinence was no refusal.  
In the same page Mr. H. charges me with a malicious aspersion for saying, It's an apparent falsity that the same thing is sealed to all in the Sacrament. My assertion I proved, because damnation is sealed to one, salvation to another; and these are not the same.  
M. H. p. 251. That which is sealed is the Covenant, and that is the same I hope.  
Answ. But I hope, Sir, the same branches of the Covenant are not sealed to all. It's not enough to say two things are the same, because they agree in genere proximo vel remoto; for then flesh and Spirit, fire and water, man and beast, yea, the very Covenant of works and of grace should be the same; which how absurd in common acception?  
M. H. p. 252. The Sacrament can convert him that hath common grace, because it can confirm him in common grace.  
Answ. Then the Sun, Moon and Stars may convert him, because they can confirm him in common grace. But, I pray, where is the promise of Conversion by receiving the Sacrament.  
M. H. ib. first charges me as saying, The Receiver seals as necessarily to the condition of the Covenant in esse, as in fieri. And then spends half a side in disputing against me.  
Answ. He sets up a Puppet of my Text, corrupted by his own gross omission, and then fights against it.  
My words p. 188. of my Bar, are these, The Receiver seals as necessarily (in point of duty) to the condition in esse as in infieri. But those words, in point of duty, he omits, and thereby makes my sense absurd. His opposite instance of Children in Baptism is impertinent, since he knows we are now speaking of intelligent persons.  
Mr. D. 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 plays the hypocrite woefully, etc. and so doth every unworthy receiver.  
The sum of M. H. his answer to this in three pages is,  
1. That he hath true historical faith, and therefore plays not the hypocrite.  
2. That the case is the same at all Ordinances.  
3. That Christ is given to him, and received by him, so far as he is in Christ.  
4. He is engaged to receive sincerely.  
5. That he may receive Christ, as the Minister tenders Christ, that is conditionally.  
6. Mr. H. tells us in effect, page 225. That by receiving, he professeth not saving faith, or that he is converted, for he holds the Sacrament a means of conversion. What else he inserts is in effect the same with these heads, or hath formerly been answered.  
Answ. 1. By receiving, he professes not only historical faith, or faith of assent (that he may profess by bare presence, though bare presence is not always a profession) but also faith of adherence, or that faith which receives Christ, as his hand receives the Elements, etc. which is an act of the will, an act of election; But the natural man doth not so receive Christ, when he receives the Elements, and therefore in that act dissembles.  
To the second. The case is not the same in all Ordinances: A person coming to hear, doth not simply by that act profess faith in Christ; instance, 1 Cor. 14. 24. Besides, the Word and Prayer are parts of natural worship, to which all are bound, be they dissemblers or not. But the Sacrament, as such; is purely instituted.  
To the third. If by giving, M. H. mean tendering (which he must mean, or he writes a tautology) his assertion is false, since whole Christ is tendered to him, but not so received by him; and so Christ is further tendered to a carnal receiver, than Christ is in a carnal receiver: for Christ is tendered to him sincerely, and completely, but Christ is not in him sincerely and completely.  
To the fourth. Is my engaging to receive Christ sincerely, a salvo for, or rather is it not an aggravation of, my receiving Christ hypocritically?  
To the fifth. I pray what is the condition of the Covenant, but the receiving of Christ? and so belike a natural man receives Christ, upon condition that he receives Christ.  
To the sixth, page 255. this, 1. Contradicts his second answer, That attendance upon every Ordinance, is a signified profession that we will obey the mind of God, when revealed; and he that doth not hearty resolve this, when he hears, mocks God, by playing the hypocrite. 2. Contradicts the known and acknowledged sense of receiving. As the Minister tenders not only the bare Elements, but Christ himself really and sincerely, so the Communicant professes by that very act, that he receives not only the Elements, but also Christ himself, as he is tendered; which not natural man doth, and therefore by receiving he plays the hypocrite. 3. It's a mere flame for any to say, I receive Christ, in order to saving faith and conversion, when at the same time he hates saving faith and conversion. Can any really make that to be his end, which he hates and detests?  
M. D. Assurance is not absolutely requisite, as a means to receiving.  
M. H. p. 256. If regeneration be necessarily required before receiving, than assurance is absolutely required as a means; for that which is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14. 23.  
Answ. By faith, understand the faith of persuasion, to which the doubting there mentioned is opposite, compare Verse 22.  
Now 1: Doubting doth not make an act of duty unlawful (for then prayer should be unlawful, to him that doubts whether he should pray) but it makes an indifferent action (of which the Apostle speaks) unlawful.  
2. Every doubt doth not overthrow persuasion, and by proportion it doth not overthrow assurance, which is not perfect in this life, but more or less opposed by doubting. No real Saints assurance is utterly overthrown by doubting, though his assurance may often times not be so sensible, as to break out into a clear flame, Matth. 12. 20.  
3. As a Jew being clean might eat the Passover, though he were not certainly assured of his cleanness; so a Christian being clean, may, yea, aught to eat the Lords Supper, though he be not certain of his Gospel-cleanness. But of this formerly.  
Page 256, 257. M. H. says truly, That the actings of God's Spirit are very secret, and that a Christian should still endeavour to blow up all good motions; but seems to hesitate, whether common grace differ from special grace gradually or specifically: By which it appears, that I was not much out in saying, that he did not sibi constare.  
Answ. If common and saving grace differ only gradually, than they are one and the same grace specifically; and if so, then common grace is saving grace in a lower degree, and saving grace is but common grace in an higher degree; and what then follows?  
1. Where is the distinction between Babes, Young men, and Fathers? 1 John 2. vers. 12, 13, 14.  
2. How doth the Apostle prove, that divers professors had not true grace, because they turned Apostates? 1 John 2. 19 Then men not only may, but usually do apostatise from saying grace, if this Doctrine be true.  
3. How will this turn us back to Arminianism, and subvert the very foundation of weak Christians comfort, if this be true Doctrine, that their weak beginnings are but common grace, in which many reprobates have gone far beyond them? yea, how shall strong Christians now their common grace is rooted enough to make saving grace; how shall they value their gold, when for aught they know it may be but copper?  
For what he adds in the close of page 257. let the Reader judge by comparing our texts, whether I wrong him or no. I perceive the man is distempered, which makes him so apt upon the least occasion, to change me with frowardness, Therefore I shall not rub the sore, but pass on.  
M. H. must pardon me, if I be not of his mind, page 259. That an unregenerate man can hearty for the present, engage himself to the terms of Christ; yea, his very premisal, ibid. That he doth this but Legally (in my poor judgement) overthrows that Conclusion. Can a Legal and Servile spirit act cordially towards Christ? withal, let me entreat him, not to call those terms harsh, and the opinions of others, which are either the Apostles express terms, or his sense; and owned in that sense, not by few, or contemptible persons, both Calvinists, Lutherans, and Papists. Let me but transcribe two or three testimonies in meeter, that the Sacrament is poison to the wicked.  
Sumunt boni, sumunt mali,  
Sorte tamen inaequali  
Vitae & interitus.  
Mors est malis, vita bonis:  
Vide paris sumsionis  
Quam sit dispar exitus.  
Vita pits erit, atque eadem mors sontibus, esca;  
Vno eodemque salus fluit atque ex fonte venenum.  
Gratus odor cerebro est quem mollis Amaracus edit.  
Sed necat immundas illius aura sues.  
I trust we shall be as tender of Christ's Lambs as M. H. is, though we dare not own all for Lambs, that have the Lamb's clothing.   

SECT. IX.  
THe ninth Objection is, The Ordinances are polluted if all be admitted.  
M. H. page 260. Unto the unworthy receivers it may be said defiled, as Tit. 1. 15, etc. but not to others.  
Unto this Mr. D. consents, and therefore he might have dealt more ingenuously to have joined with me in strengthening the weak, rather than to vilify the succours that I brought them; 
Pag. 261  but like a troublesome briar, there is nothing can pass him without catching, renting and tearing, while he brings his nettles to possess our pleasant places, and thorns our Tabernacles, etc.  
Answ. This I must confess is a short answer to page 192, 193. and part of page 194. of my Bar: In which three pages,  
1. I grant, that the actual receiving of a wicked man, doth not simply defile either the Sacrament or the Communicants; but sinful Connivance.  
2. I vindicate one or two places of Scripture misapplyed by M. H.  
3. I retort his own professed principle upon himself.  
4. I entreat him to walk by the light of his own caution, given page 78. of his Vindication. Let the Reader peruse those three passages in my Bar, and then judge, whether I deserve such liberal language as M. H. is here pleased to afford me. Is it probable, that he who falls so foully upon a weak Brother, can be so zealous (as is pretended) to strengthen weak Brethren? Or can I not possibly strengthen weak Brethren, unless I be just of M. H. his latitude?  
M. H. p. 261. and 262. I cannot wholly free Mr. D. for I think there is a deadly wound made upon tender Christians, while he involves every soul under the guilt of participation with the Receiver, if they do not their best to hinder him from receiving, which yet is not simply a duty (where still lies this sad fallacy) but only secundum quid, in reference to the party's amendment, as the end, and excommunication as the means, whereby a man being cast out of Christian Communion in general, is consequently debarred the Sacrament; and otherwise to keep him from it is amiss, as going upon this false ground, that unfitness to the Sacrament is the formal cause of excommunication: and I fear sinful, because it is simply our duty to exhort (and in our places to prepare) all our fellow members, both to come, and to come worthily unto it.  
Answ. 1. Where do I say, that its simply a sin to partake at the Sacrament with visibly unworthy Receivers? nay, is not the contrary Tenet my professed judgement? Let my own words speak for me, page 196, of my Bar, Particular persons sin not in communicating with persons visibly unworthy, but only in connivance at their visible unworthiness. 2. This connivance (I there show) consists either in neglect of Brotherly admonition, or (if that will not do) of complaining to the Church, in order to their Reformation; or (if that cannot be effected) in order to their suspension: And lastly, their dismembering; which is M. H. his excommunication. This carriage of ours M. H. calls doing one's best to hinder a person visibly unworthy from receiving; whereas indeed by private admonition, etc. I do my best to prevent his suspension and excommunication, and withal, deliver my own soul from the guilt of sinful connivance. To root up this cavil, let me turn a little from M. H. to tender Christians.  
Dear Brethren, will you justify M. H. in this Allegation of his? Is it a wound to your consciences to admonish an offending Brother, and (if upon private admonition he reform not) to tell the Church, according to your Master's rule? Mat, 18. ver. 15, 16, 17.  
Object. We scruple not the thing, but the doing of it in order to suspension.  
Answ. If you scruple Suspension, will you therefore neglect your duty, because of the Consequence which you allow not? When you complain to Church-officers, can you not tell them you seek not the Suspension, but the reformation or Excommunication of the offending Brother? I wish we had more scruplers of suspension, provided, that in love and humility Church-members would make conscience of the forementioned duties. But this is our misery, and one great bar to Reformation, that private Christians make little conscience either of fraternal correption, or of telling the Church when private admonition will not do. 
His very words are p. 262. if they do not their best to hinder him from receiving, which yet is not simply a duty, but only secundum quid, in reference to the party's amendment as the end, and excommunication as the means, etc. Doth he not here grant, that its our duty secundum quid, to endeavour to hinder an intelligent Church-member from the Sacrament, in reference to excommunication? mark it, he says, not to hinder him from receiving by excommunication, but in reference to excommunication; and what is this, I pray, but by suspension to make way for excommunication? a doctrine very agreeable to our principles in sundry cases.   
3. (To return to my Antagonist) let the Reader judge, if here M. H. yield not up his cause, by granting. That in reference to excommunication, and the party's amendment, it is my duty to do my best to hinder a person visibly unworthy from receiving.  
Hindering from the Sacrament here, cannot be excommunication in M. H. his sense, since his own text tells us, that this hindering from the Sacrament is in reference to excommunication; and so it seems to explain his doctrine about the suspension of persons ipso jure excommunicate: And though he say, ib. This hindering is in reference to excommunication, as the means, and in reference to amendment as the end, that will not help him, since we easily grant, that suspension may be, yea sometimes ought to be, in reference to excommunication, as a sharp means, but both must always be, in reference to reformation, as the end.  
4. We renounce, as well as himself, that false ground (T'has unfitness to the Sacrament, is the formal cause of excommunication) and judge it a very harsh doctrine. Gross ignorance makes a man unfit for the Sacrament, which yet is not simpliciter, the formal or just cause of excommunication in the rigour, whatever affected ignorance may be.  
5. If it be our duty to exhort (and in our places to prepare) all our fellow-members to come worthily (I know no duty incumbent to exhort any to come absolutely) to the Lords-Supper; sure Church-Officers act not out of their place, by endeavouring to prepare Church-members for the Sacrament, by previous trial, counsel, and exhortation. I pray, Sir, do not discourage Church-Officers from that which here you cannot but acknowledge is their duty.  
I hope, Sir, you are not of opinion, that the Elders or private Christians must turn public Preachers to prepare their fellow-members for receiving (that's the Minister's work) it must then be done more privately by Christian converse in a way of trial, counsel, and exhortation. Persuade the people to this, and you will be a better friend to reformation than by pleading for your free admission. 
I mean not, that public preaching is so the Ministers work as to excuse him from private converse with his flock. See Act. 20. 20   
Mr. H. p. 262. Suppose a regenerate man deserves to be excommunicate, and I do not complain of him; he comes, and receives in faith. Now if I must partake of a man's receiving unworthily, when I should endeavour his excommunication, and do not, than I must partake in this man's receiving worthily, and so my not endeavouring their excommunication shall be good in the one, and sin in the other. It is apparent therefore, that this sin is to be singled by itself; I am never the more or the less guilty whether he come or not come, receives worthily, or not worthily; that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but this is one only continued guilt in me, that I do not my duty in admonishing, and telling the Church of him, supposing the case so, that it is my duty.  
Grant Mr. H. His supposition may be true, what then?  
Mr. H. Then by my not endeavouring his excommunication, I must partake of his receiving worthily.  
Answ. No such matter, for his worthy receiving (upon the supposition) is but accidental unto your neglect of duty; and as a sin following accidentally in another upon my duty performed towards him shall not be imputed to me (as suppose upon my admonition my Brother grow worse) so a moral good following upon the neglect of my duty, shall not be imputed to me, who omitted that duty; but contra, the neglect of my duty shall be charged upon me. God measures not a sin or duty by its accidental events, but first by its nature and circumstances; and secondly, by its natural and proper consequents. He that omits good that good may come thereby (by good understand my duty, that I am hic & nunc obliged to) sins, as well as he that does evil that good may come, Rom. 3. 8.  
What next? Mr. H. And so my not endeavouring their excommunication, shall be good in the one and a sin in the other.  
Answ. This is as wild as the former, and supposes that an omission of duty is warranted by a moral good following casually thereupon.  
I shall therefore answer this supposition with another. Suppose, I am dangerously sick of a fever; the Physician forbids me wine: a careless Nurse (contrary to the Physicians prohibition) upon my importunity lets me drink Sack liberally, upon which I fall a sleep for divers hours together, and recover: Will Mr. H. say the Nurse's carelessness was morally good because it was eventually good? pilate's not rescuing of Christ was eventually good, was it therefore morally good? In like manner, Suppose a godly man deserving excommunication receive worthily; his worthy receiving is accidental to my neglect of telling the Church; wherefore by omission of that my duty I am guilty as if he had received unworthily; that, and not his worthy receiving being the natural and proper fruit of my omission.  
Yet further; Who ever will seriously weigh and compare the supposition and inference, may observe that Mr. H. is not very cordial friend to excommunication, how ever he may cry it up, to cry down suspension.  
With all, lest I should seem to be over rigid, I must add. That if this godly man deserved excommunication for some foul crime known only to me, or some few, and upon reproof humbled himself, etc. I dare not say its my duty (in that case) to tell the Church, since the principal end of excommunicating this person is attained by private reproof, Matth. 18. 15. But in case this godly man do obstinately persist, and deny, or defend the crime that is evident, there is little hope that in such a condition, he will receive worthily; yet suppose he should, that will not excuse my neglect to tell the Church upon his pertinacy after admonition first by myself, and then with two or three more according to the rule. Matth. 18. 17. By all hath been said, its apparent, my sin of omission is not to be singled by itself (as Mr. H. would have it) and that I am more guilty if that godly man receive unworthily, than if he had not received at all; since my telling the Church (in case he be obstinate) might have prevented his great sin of unworthy receiving, to which I am accessary by not hindering it when I might, and should; but his unworthy receiving will not excuse my neglect to tell the Church, since his worthy receiving (upon the supposition) is not the proper, but accidental consequent of that my neglect and omission.  
To what Mr. H. adds in the same page, I answer, We say not its absolutely a duty to keep from the Sacrament persons visibly unworthy (this act being limitable by several cautions) but that it concerns Church-members, by private admonition, or telling the Church, to seek the reformation of such a person; which regularly done frees private Christians from guilt. Nor is there the same reason for keeping any from the Word and Prayer, as from the Sacrament. But of this formerly. 
As in some cases excommunication itself may be forborn of which formerly in the Parable of the Tares; so it may fall out in the matter of positive Suspension which is very rare with us, Church-governors ordinarily acting rather by way of entreaty to forbear, than by any juridical censure. As for the Ministers suspending his own act of giving the Sacrament to one he knows to be unworthy; if Mr. H. judge it a weakness in such a Minister, I hope how ever he will not force a weak brother to act against his conscience.   
For his instance (in the close of this Section) of the Churches admitting Infants to receive in the days of Augustine, he is not ignorant of the ground thereof, which upon better inspection was found weak. Yet withal, I must be bold to tell him, that if he will keep to his own bottom of Church-membership, he cannot turn Infants, or the distracted out of his society, who have better right to the Lords Supper than many he pleads for. But I pass this as formerly handled.   

SECT. X.  
THe last Objection is, from the several Texts alleged for separation from wicked persons.  
Mr. H. No Scripture allows a separation from any of God's public Ordinances.  
A great part of my answer to this exception, Mr. H. passes, 
Page 265.  with telling the Reader, He hath already satisfied those things, only he leaves two notes. And 1. where I say his excommunication is a cruel censure, as cutting men off from all Ordinances.  
Mr. H. answers, I am persuaded Mr. D. will be of another mind when he comes to understand me better, how I take this, that is, relatively, wherein I think I am near the truth.  
Answ. By relative cutting off from Church-communion in general, Mr. H. means (to my best understanding) That a person thus censured hath no relative right to any Church-Ordinance; yet by the Church's indulgence may be admitted to any, though not as a Church-member. Whence it follows, That he who is no Church-member (such is his excommunicated person) may by the Church's indulgence be admitted to any Ordinance; which if true (I know no scriptum est for such indulgence) than not only persons dismembered, but also heathen may be admitted to receive the Lords Supper, though not as Church-members; a great latitude indeed. But I pray, Sir (upon the supposition) may the Church indulge me a real enjoyment of the Sacrament, to which (if excommunicated) I have no relative right, and may it not indulge me a relative right to the Sacrament, though at present it see good reason to deny me the real enjoyment thereof? Of this formerly, therefore I pass it.  
Mr. H. ib. Not every sleight occasion, but notorious crimes, must serve for Church-censure. If we allow any censure less than casting out of the Church, Church-censures are like to become ordinary, and soon contemned, etc.  
1. By concession of the first branch; yea, though the crime be heinous (so it be not notorious and public) I do not think it must come presently to a Church-censure, till private admonition be slighted, Matth. 18. v. 15, 16, 17.  
2. Yet that may possibly be sleight to some, which is very foul in itself, whether you respect its substance or circumstances: And such is affected ignorance.  
3. If there be no censure less than casting out of the Church, than belike public reproof is no Church-censure. Sure the Apostle was not of Mr. H. his mind, 1 Tim. 5. 20.  
4. If the causes of Church-censures be ordinary, Church-censures (caeteris paribus) must be as ordinary. That frequency makes them contemptible is too true through our innate corruption, which inclines us to contemn Christ, the choicest Ordinances and mercies, because they are ordinary. But thence to argue it were better such mercies and Ordinances were less frequent, is antiscriptural and irrational.  
For his personal reflections, page 267-269. I shall only say thus much; I He takes too much upon him to charge me so highly, especially with malice. I confess I hare his free Admission, but love his person.  
2. What I speak in thesi, and still apprehend to be a truth, he first applies in hypothesi, and then exaggerates, to make it seem more odious.  
3. Had I applied it personally to Mr. H. I only noted what God might justly do, as himself confesseth, p. 268. and withal acknowledge as much against myself, That God justly might deal with me as a weed, for cherishing and tolerating of weeds.  
His four Queries propounded page 269. have formerly been answered, therefore I shall not trouble my Reader with Repetitions.  
Mr. H. p. 269. And now if Mr. Drake shall have need to write again; as I believe nature will work, and his spirit cannot hold: I shall desire him, if he will go to vent that superfluity of maliciousness, etc. to take along with him that Text, Deut. 23. 13.  
Answ. How true is that saying of the Wiseman, Prov. 27. 19 As in water face answereth to face? so, etc. Mr. H. hath set me so fair a copy in his rejoinder, that he might well expect (considering both our hearts have the same inherent principles of naughtiness) I would undoubtedly write after his copy. But I hope I have not so learned Christ. As in placing the Bar (if I know my own heart) I was not acted by malice; so now in fixing the Bar, I have, by the grace of God, endeavoured to avoid the appearance of malice, and shall beshrew myself, if any passage have slipped from my Pen, which may favour of that hellish leaven. I would not only seek Truth, but also follow after Charity, especially with Mr. Humphrey.  
Page 270. Mr. H. He concludes with a scruple to the Reader, and tells us, he hath done with Mr. Humphrey. Thus Hiram hath finished the work he had to do, the Pots and the Shovels, etc.  
Answ. See a like close of his first part, page 135, 136. I will not dispute how pertinent those applications of Scripture are; I am sure they are not very pious. Pray, Sir, If you shall see cause of writing again, however you may trample upon Mr. Drake, do not abuse the holy Scripture. It's ill jesting with such Edgetools. The Word of Salvation deserves better at our hands than to be made either an Object, or Instrument of derision.   
Soli Deo Gloria.   

A TABLE OF THE Most remarkable Passages handled in the several Sections, There being twelve Sections in the First Part, and ten in the Second Part.  

PART. I.  

SECT. II.  
ALL put for many, and the number twelve, by roundness of number, put for an inferior number.  
Ib, Luke, neither in terms, nor by necessary Consequence, affirms, that Judas was present at, or received the Lords Supper.  
Ib. Supposing Judas did receive, it makes not for Mr. Humphrey.  
Ib. That scandal wiped away, That we give more power to the Presbytery, than to Jesus Christ.  
Ib. Church-tryal of any, warrantable upon an holy jealousy about their knowledge and piety.  
Ib. We go not about, by Suspension, to punish any for a future sin.  
Ib. His Quotation out of Dr. Hamond, makes not against us, who deny not but Christian Professors, whose hearts are full of villainy, may be admitted, in case that villainy be not visible.   

SECT. III.  
DIvers middle things between a visible Covenant-relation, and truth of grace, which may be a just bar to admission.  
Ib. Mr. H. allows the Suspension of persons ipso jure excommunicate.  
How grace may be wrought in Infants by the Ordinances, or promoted.  
Infants are naturally uncapable of understanding what is done in Baptism, as well as in the Lord's Supper.  
Suspension owned both by the ancient and modern Church.   

SECT. iv  
MR. H. acknowledges a signified Profession, and what it is.  
A word for tender Consciences, who through scruple stand off from the Sacrament.  
1 Cor. 11. About the Lord's Supper, and our address to it, opened.  
What it is to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  
How any is bound to apply Damnation to himself at the Sacrament.  
The distinction between eating and sealing damnation. Comfort to trembling Souls about this particular.  
Whether Moral instruments cannot Convey a thing that is real.   

SECT. V  
MOral, as well as Levitical uncleanness, was a bar to the Passover.  
All unclean persons must be kept from those holy things which cannot convert, but prejudice them in statu quo. Niddui a Bar to the Passover. The Parallel between the Passover and the Lords Supper.  
How far the Corinthians scandals were a bar to the Sacrament.  
All not put for an absolute universal, nor for all of a kind.  
1 Cor. 10. 21. opened and vindicated.  
1 Cor. 10. v. 3, 4, 5. vindicated.  
The right way of settling tender Consciences.  
The Parable of the Feast, Mat. 22. and Luk. 14 vindicated.  
Mat. 3. about John's Baptism, vindicated, Acts 2. 41, 42, 46. vindicated.  
Who are federally holy, or not.  
Revel. 22. 17. vindicated.  
How the Covenant by the Sacrament is sealed to all the world.  
How far men may be compelled to trial, and that trial about the truth of men's profession, rightly managed, is no entering upon the throne or secrets of God.   

SECT. VI  
THe latitude of the Covenant tender is no solid ground for free Admission to the Sacrament, as received.  
In what sense, and upon what account a Minister may say to a Receiver of the Sacrament, Christ is thine, etc.  
A Church-member may be visibly in the state of Nature.  
The Minister doth not seal to a lie, by giving the Sacrament to those who are visibly worthy, yet really unworthy.  
Mr. H. acknowledges presence at the Sacrament to be freer than actual receiving.  
Rom. 2. 3. vindicated.  
How the word is a sealed word to Heathen, etc.  
All may be present at the Lords Supper, but all may not receive.  
In what cases a Minister may admit or suspend from the Sacrament.   

SECT. VII  
SAcraments not essential notes of a visible Church.  
Mr. H. allows a negative Suspension upon prudential grounds.  
The Parable of the Tares opened, 134   

SECT. VIII.  
ARguments to prove Suspension is a Divine Institution, backed with Humane Testimony.   

SECT. IX.  
IT's neither vain, nor impossible to select a people for the Sacrament.  
Visible Worthiness, as distinct from Church-Membership, warranted by Scripture.   

SECT. X.  
ADmission to the Passover, no warrant for Mr. Humphrey his Free Admission.  
Mat. 5, vers. 23, and 25. vindicated.  
Doubting Christians in what cases they may and must receive, though unregenerate persons ought not to receive.  
Mr. Humphrey his stating of the Controversy, for himself, and for us, examined.   

SECT. XI.  
Mr. Humphrey his innocency, in admitting all Intelligent Church-members, tried.   

SECT. XII.  
THe Command, Drink you all of it, no Argument to prove Mr. H. his free Admission.    

PART. II.  

SECT. I.  
MAt. 7. 6. opened and vindicated.   

SECT. II.  
SAcramental trial not so burdensome as divers make it.  
Suspension far milder than the greater excommunication.   

SECT. III.  
WHat Mr. H. means by visible Saint, and what we mean thereby.   

SECT. iv  
MR. H. holds none are visible blanks within the Church.  
How faith is sealed in the Sacrament.  
Mr. H. Holds, that God by the Sacrament ingaegs not to give a man faith. rejoinder, page 71. whence it follows, that the Sacrament doth not convert.  
How the Sacraments confirm faith formally, and consequentially.  
The Sacraments are seals, though they do not confirm every Receiver.  
Historical and particular assent are often divided in the Regenerate.  
In the Sacrament God seals to the Regenerate the condition, as well as the benefits following upon the condition.  
The difference between Gods and the Ministers sealing to a visible Blank.  
Mr. H. is not for the admission of all Church-members de facto, unless they be also Church-members de jure. This Jus is the very foundation of Church-membership; and what it is.  
The Sacrament ●eals to the inward, as well as to the outward Covenant. How the Sacrament is a tropical, yet a proper seal.  
Mr. Calvin very zealous against Mr. H. his free Admission.  
How the Sacraments are Gods Seals, faiths Seals, and the Covenants Seals.  
Faith is given by virtue of the Covenant made with man.  
The conditionality of the Covenant of grace is no bar to its absoluteness.  
How the Assumption and Conclusion of the Syllogism of Assurance are in Scripture by Consequence.  
One and the same thing may be an object both of faith and sense.  
In what he must be lost who will be a worthy Receiver.  
How the Sacrament is a Seal of faith, subjectively.   

SECT. V  
We agree all Church-members must be admitted without a known Bar, but differ about this known Bar.   

SECT. VI  
THe confirmation of faith, a primary end of the Lords Supper.  
The Lord's Supper no Converting Ordinance.  
Mr. H. his twelve Arguments to prove it a Converting Ordinance answered; and one example.   

SECT. VII.  
IOhn 13. 1. opened.   

SECT. VIII.  
WHat is meant by Self-examination, 1 Cor. 11. 28.  
Mr. H. hesitates, whether common grace differ gradually or specifically from saving grace.  
It's no harsh expression to say, the Sacrament is poison to the unworthy Receiver.   

SECT. IX.  
A Digression to tender Consciences.  
Not the accidental good effects of sin, or bad effects of duty, but the natural, shall be imputed.   

SECT. X.  
MR. H. his relative cutting off from Ordinances, examined.    
FINIS.   


ERRATA in the first part.  
Page 22. in the Margin, read page 22. p. 60. l. 9 for six r. ten, p. 67. l. 9 for Paul's r. Paul's, p. 80. l. 15. for he r. the, p. 85 l. 19 r. Adultis, p 105. l. 13. r. Mr. H. p 155. l. 31. for own r. one, p. 131. l. 10. for principle r. principal. p. 103. l. 27. del. in, and the Comma. p. 96. l. 27. for to so r. so to, p. 205. l. 13. r Bar. ib. l. 26. for thus r. this. p. 214. l. 13. r. unintelligent, p. 220. l. 11. for there r. therefore, p 221. l. 32. for is grace, r grace is.   

ERRATA in the second part.  
PAge 353 line 13. for si r. is, p. 389. line 22. read medius, p. 420. l. 24. r. Baptising, p. 463. l. 18. for is r. in, p. 468. l. 22. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 472. l. 2. for 12. r. 22.   

WHereas page 22. towards the latter end, I say, there is no mention of Excommunication jure or facto, in the 24 page of Mr. Humphrey his Vindication; nor, to my remembrance, in any part of his Vindication: I perceive now, upon better information, that those terms are used page 4. of Mr. H. his Vindication; but the page being misquoted by his Printer, occasioned my mistake; which therefore I thought myself bound here to give notice of.