Mr HUMPHREYS SECOND VINDICATION OF A Disciplinary Anti-Erastian, Orthodox, Free-admission TO THE Lords-Supper, Taken into Consideration, in a Letter occasionally written By Mr Blake Pastor of Tamworth, AND By a Friend of Truth made public.  
LONDON, Printed by A. M. for Abel Roper at the Sign of the Sun in Fleetstreet, near St Dunstans-Church, MDCLVI.   

TO THE READER.  
THe ensuing Letter, with the Answer falling into my hands, and finding Mr Blake (to whom I own much) so much concerned in them, and the truth, to which all own most, most of all interessed; I have taken the boldness to make them public. Mr Humphreys seems much to value his judgement, (as indeed it is to be valued) and I believe that thou wilt see that it is to be equally valued, where he dissents from him, as, where he agrees with him. It is the thoughts of some, that his Arguments have not been satisfyingly answered, insomuch that there is no small triumph with many, who are resolvedly on his party. If now it shall appear by that which follows (referring to that which in a larger Treatise hath been already published) that, though it should be granted, that he had spoke much to his adversary, with whom he is especially engaged; yet, the cause is not by him notwithstanding gained; the Authors pains may well be deservedly acceptable, to all those that with him are dissatisfied with promiscuous Administrations, however there be not that full and desired agreement in the way in which they oppose it. If the cause be propugned (as by our Author it is) let not any be troubled that it is not done with his weapon; Sure I am, that not a few truly pious and judicious, profess already much satisfaction. In conclusion it is left to thee aequâ lance to determine, by which party Truth is most advanced, and which way fairliest tends to set up the Ordinance in its due honour, with the peace and comfort both of the Dispenser and Receiver, which was the whole design of the Author, as it is the hearty desire of  
Thy Servant in any Christian office S. E.   

For the Reverend Mr Thomas Blake Minister of Tamworth.  
REVEREND SIR,  
HAving lately Printed a little Piece of Mr. Humfrey's, being a second Vindication of a free Admission to the Lords Supper, and knowing how much he values your Judgement, both by the frequent mention he makes of you in his Book, and also by what I have formerly heard him discourse of you, I have taken the boldness to present you with one of them, desiring one line from you, which may signify you have received it, and how you approve of his endeavour in it, I am sure I shall gratify the Author by giving him some account of your thoughts, and you will in giving me the opportunity much oblige,  
Your loving Friend and Servant EDWARD BLACKMORE.  
Sir, What Errata you meet with in the Book, you must ascribe to the Authors absence.   

These for Mr Edward Blackmore Stationer at the Angel in Paul's Churchyard.  
SIR,  
I Have received that Book of Learned Mr Humphreys, which you were pleased to send me by our Carrier; for which I give you hearty thanks; I have taken the first occasion that my business would suffer, to read it over; but as for my Judgement, which you desire of the Work, it is not of that worth as to be regarded; being made public, it will undergo the Censure of more piercing eyes; To me, I confess, there is that to be found in his Writings, which is too much wanting in the Works of many, perspicuity of stile, perspicacity of Judgement, and much Candour in expressions. If all Controversies were carried on in this way, Disputes might be brought into a more narrow compass, but that is not to be expected; Some, it is to be feared, do not intent it, others may endeavour pro modulo suo, that which they cannot reach. Many Scriptures, (if I can judge any thing) as well in the Book, as the Postscript, are both obiter, and ex industriâ much cleared, which I have ever thought to have been impertinently brought into this Dispute; yet though I must join with him (the force of Truth evincing it) as to the acknowledgement of the invalidity of some Arguments, and impertinency of some Scriptures, alleged against his Tenent; yet I cannot do so, in his conclusion; But still am where I was, and must profess my dissatisfaction; Some things in reference to myself, I shall take the boldness to animadvert, and afterwards happily offer somewhat more, very briefly as I shall find occasion.  
Pag. 31. Taking notice of the Title of my Treatise of the Sacraments, viz. [The Covenant sealed] he saith it is in reference to my former [The Covenant opened] But if that Treatise did open the Covenant, and this Seal it, than this doth again conceal, obsure, and darken it: For that is the use of sealing as it opposed to opening, as I have showed, Treat. of the Sacram. Pag. 327. I had thought that all would have known, that this Title [The Covenant sealed] had reference to that which I expressed in my former Title-Page [The Covenant of God entered with mankind] There I hold forth God's entrance into Covenant, and here his sealing or Ratification of it.  
Pag. 32. He quotes somewhat out of my Treatise of the Sacraments, where I set down the minimum quod sic in knowledge, which in my thoughts may give admittance to the Lords Supper; But that which he quotes is clothed in his own, and not my language: and when I go as low as I durst, and lower than perhaps some will allow, any that strictly compares my words with his Quotation, may see that he makes me to go yet lower than myself.  
Pag. 59 Ad finem. He hath these words [The Sacrament is appointed for the Church, the Church consists of unregenerate, as well as others, which is a firm and solid probation, and is indeed that strong bottom (as Mr Bl. acknowledges it, Cou. Seal. p. 247. whatsoever others have said thereof) on which not only my Book, but both his too, so far as concerns this matter are founded] 1. These two assertions (whether we take them jointly or severally) are no bottom on which an administration unto all Church Members, promiscuously may be grounded; either according to Mr H. or my opinion. He puts in his limits to exclude some Church Members, I exclude the same, and put in limits to exclude others, though not from the right, yet from the use. 2. I have nothing at all to say in that place, to either of those Assertions, which he styles a strong bottom, but only to the words of his Text [Mar. 14.33.] on which he built his whole discourse. 3. The words in my Book indeed are [strongly bottomed] but I intended, and so it was in my Copy [strangely bottomed] and accordingly in the Errata it is corrected, which easily also might be gathered from my words immediately following, where I set out not the strength, but the weakness of that bottom; which is to be wondered, that Mr H. saw not, seeing in his Postscript Sect. 1. he goes about a vindication of it from the same objection that I there make against it. I there also say, that I had in my thoughts to have given a brief answer to his Scriptures and Reasons, and can he think that I would say, that I intended a refutation, and with the same breath affirm that it was built upon a strong bottom.  
Pag. 109. He assumes to himself an Anti-Erastian, Orthodox, free admission to the Lords Table, when that is the thing under dispute, whether such admission be Orthodox or Heterodox; And in the same place charges upon me, a kind of Erastian indisciplinary suspension. Here I would demand, 1. Whether all be Erastians', as to opposition of Church Discipline, that assert suspension from the Lords Supper, (if you will so call it) by a sole ministerial power, taking in what assistance they can for the better discharge of their duty: Were the Fathers and Schoolmen, universally Erastian? and in their Times engaged against all Ecclesiastical Discipline? Was the Church of England also in like sort Erastian from the first Reformation? We have been highly charged for not reforming Discipline, but I never heard, that we were charged for abolishing of all Discipline; They were all (so far as I can possibly understand) of the same opinion that I have declared in this thing; And when they were all free from Erastianisme, how can I in following their steps, stand charged as an Erastian; or any kind of an Erastian? How is that withholding of the Sacrament, which I assert charged as indisciplinary? when I professedly affirmed that all that I say must not any way be understood, as prejudicial to Church Government, or the power of Church Censures, giving in my Reasons, withal asserting Church Government (as I was able) with Arguments and answer of Objections; though Mr H. plainly hints in the same place, that he thinks that he hath done it somewhat better: But I am well content that it be done, whosoever it is that hath done it. 2. That that which I have said, is not to make to the prejudice of the Office of ruling Elders, concerning whom there hath been in the Church so hot disputes, and after some enquiry into men's different thoughts about them, and the different bottoms on which those that do stand for them, set them; I conclude that on what bottom soever they stand, that which I have said can nothing prejudice them. Lastly, That nothing that I have said, may exempt admission to, or exclusion from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in particular, from cognizance of Church power, nor take it out of the verge of their Censures: which may be further seen in my Treat. of the Sacram. p. 265. to p. 272, I do not indeed make it any part of Discipline, yet am careful to keep it within the reach of it, whereas [indisciplinary] as I suppose is that which is without Discipline; not that which is not Discipline. Mr H. preaching, praying, fasting, Sabbath Observations, public Collections, private Admonitions, are not Discipline, yet I suppose that he will not say that they may be fairly called indisciplinary. 3. Was Erastus ever so high against promiscuous admission to the Sacrament, that he that opposes it, and would have Ministers withhold it from some, that are neither Infant, Idiot or distracted; eo nomine suffer in his Name as an Erastian, or as any kind of Erastian. I have not Erastus, and when I desired the Book, I could not buy it with money, and it is now several years since I read it; But I shall appeal to any indifferent Arbitrator to determine, whether Mr H. or I, in the point of admission to the Sacrament, more oppose or side with him. In that of excommnication we both differ from him, and otherwise I think he is much rather than I, an Erastian; though I would not hastily put any such Character or Brand upon him.  
Pag. 103. He hath these words [That there is a possibility (upon what is said) of edification to all intelligent Church-Members, though scandalous, (Covena. Seal. p. 240.) or ignorant (p. 133.) Mr B. cannot ingenously deny.] Intelligent, ignorant Church Members, will be the wonder of many, unless the terms were better explained, and with some distinction further cleared. I suppose that by [Intelligent] he understands one of the principles and use of Reason, a man that is no Infant, Idiot or distracted person, as he is wont to explain himself; And that by [Ignorant] he means such a one as is not seen, but wholly or grossly to seek in Christian Mysteries; This is the most favourable Interpretation that I can give of this strange conjunction of intelligence, and ignorance in the same person. But when a man is otherwise intelligent, and of as acute parts, as Mr H. can reasonably imagine, but versus hoc, respective to Christ and Christian Mysteries, knowing nothing; I suppose there is no more hopes of his edification in his communicating in this Ordinance, then if he were in Mr H. his sense non intelligent If an intelligent rational man, shall undertake the employment of a Tailor, but wholly ignorant how to shape a Garment, such a one that knows the use neither of shears no needle; I shall no less keep him out of my work, then if he were an Infant, Idiot, or distracted; And I suppose a man of parallel ignorance in Christian Mysteries, should be in like manner dealt with at the Lords Table, according to Mr Hs. own principles, who still yields that non-intelligent men should be denied admittance. But Mr H. says, that I cannot ingenuously deny a possibility of the edification of such intelligent ignorant persons by the Sacrament. Certain it is that I do deny it, whether ingenuously or disingenuously, I must leave it to others to determine; you or he, if you please may consult what I have said, p. 230. of my Treat. of the Sacrament, where you may find in the Margin these words, (grossly ignorant are in an incapacity) viz. of edification at the Lords Table. And whereas p. 233. is quoted (where he says I confess a possibility of such edification) I wish that the place may be seen, and then it will soon appear, that I there speak of edification by the Word, accompanying the Sacrament (as the objection there made, led me to it) at the instant of Receiving, and not by the Sacrament itself: And as to that I say indeed, I will not determine an absolute impossibility, but withal affirm, little moral probability, or possibility; that a man coming in his ignorance for the Lords Supper (as is there objected) should receive such instruction, at that instant from the word; as to come a knowing man at that time to the participation of it; and if it do happen, I say it is to a wonder, if not to a miracle. So that this concession of mine (I suppose) the Reader will judge might well have been spared, and when these things are laid together, some happily will think that the most harsh of his adversaries (as he styles some) have found more candid dealing from his Pen then myself, whom yet he seems willing through a great part of his Treatise to represent as of his own party.  
Pag. 112. He is pleased to bring an Argument against me, to prove that ignorant men are in a capacity to edify by the Sacrament, and so to be admitted, which he also touches upon, p. 35. Were not those words (saith he) of our Lord to his Disciples? This is my Body broken for you, This is the New Testament in my Blood which was shed for remission of sins, teaching words, informing them of his death and mystery of our Redemption. Who can deny this? And were not the Disciples ignorant at that time of his death and mystery of our Redemption? Mark. 9.31, 32. Luk. 9 44, 45. with Luk. 24.7, 8. Joh. 20.9. And what then will follow for the ignorant is clear. But if the intelligent Reader please to take a view of those Scriptures, he will soon see, that they do not show, that the Disciples were ignorant of his death; at the time of the institution of this Supper, as is affirmed, but of his Resurrection only; And not simply ignorant or unbelieving in the Doctrine of the Resurrection (being not of the party of the Sadduces, and well knowing, that in this Christ had opposed them, Mat. 22.23. Mark. 12.18.) but of his Resurrection on the third day. They were seen in the Mysteries of Redemption, according to the measure of the dispensation of Gospel Mysteries, in the time that they lived, and it is not to be doubted, but that they were better seen in it, than those that at the time of Christ's birth waited for Redemption in Israel, Luk 2.38. Those did expect a Redemption by a Messiah in God's way; which yet was not explicitly made known: And the twelve might well further believe it and expect it to be by his death whom they had received as their Messiah, though as yet they understood not, that he should rise the third day from the dead, as those Scriptures speak: That more dim light is therefore no plea for their blindness, that in the clear daylight see nothing.  
Pag. 25. Mr H. in his own defence distinguishes between the non intelligent as Infants, idiots, and distracted, and ignorant ones, respective to their admission to the Lords Table, affirming that it is the ignorant man's duty to communicate: he is under an Obligation to it, whereas it is no duty of those, that are thus non intelligent, they are upon that account disobliged. And is it not their duty in like sort not to be ignorant? as in duty they should communicate, so in duty they ought to be qualified to communicate: They are not to be admitted to one part of their duty, when another part (which is greater and more necessary) is so grossly and visibly neglected. Every one that is under Obligation to duty is not immediately to act according to that duty. An unclean Israelite was under an Obligation to receive the Passover, and yet not to be admitted in his uncleanness. It must be confessed, that it is an ignorant man's duty (bearing the Name Christian) to receive the Lords Supper, but he is to do his duty and the Pastor to see quantum in se that he orderly do it, which cannot be done without helping him to some precious knowledge. Suppose a distracted person hath brought himself into that condition, by his own pride, inordinate passion, or otherwise, as I have known the case visibly of too many, I suppose such a one is no less under an Obligation to communicate, than an ignorant man, who by his own negligence is held in blindness: yet I believe Mr H. doth not think that in this distraction he is to have admission.  
Pag. 100 Bending himself especially against those that look upon suspension from the Sacrament, as a judicial Censure, he takes notice of some other Divines that look upon it only as a prudential, pastoral duty; which [some] he may well take notice to be the fare greater party, especially if he look back to former Ages, and either of both of these are his opposites, neither of them judging his promiscuous free admission (as he judges it) to be Orthodox; Both agree that there should be a bar, though there is not so full an Argument, whether it be juridically to be laid, as a penalty, or incumbent on the Pastor's care, as the prudential discharge of his duty: I wish Mr H. to take into consideration, how much it is that he yields to the latter, and how much cause he hath, wholly to come up to them, and not they to him: He confesses that a Pastoral inspection into the state of the Flock is needful, that as other Ordinances, so, this of the Sacrament is to be so administered as that all may be edified, that actual Church-Members by the Pastor's care must be excluded, that are in an unedifying condition; instancing in Infants, idiots, and distracted. Now every Pastor that judges that ignorance obstructs edification as well as Infancy, idiotism, and distraction, is as well to take care for the non-admission of the ignorant as he is for the non-admission of the other, which (as I think) he calls non-intelligent: This is my case, and therefore I dare not admit (and as I think I may not according to Mr H. his principles) without some cognizance had of their knowledge that offer themselves to communicate; having so largely (as he knows) made it appear that such are in no present capacity of edification. Some ignorant ones I think are not to be juridically censured, yet none that may be justly termed ignorant, in Christian Mystries, can to their benefit (as I conceive) be received; As for the scandalous, when Mr H. grants p. 114, 115. that a forbearance of the Lords Supper may be advised many times to unprepared unfit persons when we judge it Christian prudence, conducible through a more solemn address thereunto, towards a further improvement of it to their souls, and so may the same be asserted happily as I judge of it, (saith he,) ex quadam convenientiâ ob majorem reverentiam, as the Schoolmen speak in some other cases out of the Sacrament, To which that of his p. 34. may be added, Indeed I conceive a forbearance sometimes, for all this may be pionsly advised, upon the account of prudence, and the solemnity of the Ordinance to do more good by it. When he I say yields thus much, Divines that have the same thoughts, and further think (as they believe there is just cause) that men of a profligate course do not only meanly esteem of the Sacrament (as it appears Mr H. thinks) and bring a hard report upon the Church where they reside, but also declare themselves resolved against the terms or duties required in that Covenant, that this Ordinance sealeth; may well believe that this prudence is to arise to a necessity (for the right discharge of their duty) of their present non-admission. And for Reasons that I have given, I still believe that such have little comfort in coming; nor their Pastors in admitting, unless they be brought to acknowledgement, and promise of amendment; And in such cases, where there is any such work or willingness professed, this is a further engaging Ordinance, and lays yet a greater tie upon men's spirits, though happily it may be justly feared, that a through change through grace, is not as yet wrought, What others have seen I know not, I believe that I have through God's mercy seen much fruit to my comfort, in this way of engagement of such men, rather than to have waited till I could say, I fully believed a through sanctifying work.  
There is one assertion which Mr H. often reiterates, The same qualifications are required to effectual prayer, and other parts of God's worship, as to the Sacrament; and as the want hereof puts no bar to the one, no more does it to the other; It is manifest that the same grace is required of a person to be accepted of God in one part of God's worship, as in another. There is the same outward privilege, and the same inward qualification held forth alike in the Scripture unto this and other Ordinances. Pag. 47.102.105. Those Phrases of [effectual prayer, acceptation of God] seem to be put in for a blind. If it be understood of efficacy, to present prevalency in prayer, or acceptation of God to salvation, than it is not to be doubted, but the grace of faith and repentance are required in our attendance on all Ordinances appointed of God. But will Mr H. say, that like qualifications are required in all Ordinances for the attainment of any benefit or profit in them, which is the thing in question, he will then meet with many dissenters: If this be his judgement, then as soon as he puts his Child to his Catechism, he must take him to the Sacrament: And as soon as with his approbation any Child comes to be chatechised; he must call on him, or his Parents for him to come also for this Sacramental Communion. Will he affirm that the same qualifications are required in one that feeds on Milk, as in him that feeds on strong Meat: I am sure that the Apostle was not of that mind, Heb. 5.11, 12, 13, 14. Nor yet our Saviour Christ, Mark. 4.33. Christ did prudentially consider the qualifications of his Disciples, and upon account of their deficiency held them off for a time from some higher duties, Mat. 9.15, 16. Luk. 5.37.38. And St Paul adviseth the like prudence, Rom. 14.1. If there be no more expected in a Communicant then is of each person in their respective addresses to all other, even the first leading Ordinances, and all Ordinances call for equal abilities in every one that profits by them, I think most Pastors have hitherto much erred in their judgement, and more is needful to be spoken then yet hath been said by Mr H. for the rectifying of them: and till that be made known, a further care I think is required in Pastors, then as yet by him is willingly confessed.  
In the mean time Mr Humphreys candour is by all to be acknowledged, and much magnified, in giving so much reverence and respect to those whom he judges in this thing to be his greatest adversaries, Which by them indeed is so highly deserved, and especially his tender respect had both to such Pastors that differ from him in opinion; and the people committed to them, expressed in his Postscript Sect. 9 Professing himself to reverence the piety, zeal, and pains of many Ministers that prudentially take this occasion to look into the state of their Flocks, for their admonition and institution, And bewailing as he says the frowardness and offwardnesse of most unto so easy a submission, utterly disliking at the bottom of his heart the spirits of such Christians, who either out of consciousness of their own ignorance, or haughtiness of their minds, will be contented to be deprived of the Sacrament, rather than give an account of their Faith to those that ask it in the spirit of meekness for their edification. This I cannot but note for his honour, hearty wishing that all that approve of his judgement would be followers of him in this likewise. Taking to heart his pious advice, that they do not run their Souls upon their great spiritual disadvantage. Thus I have endeavoured, as briefly and plainly as I can to satisfy your desires. Let all due respects I pray you, as you have opportunity be tendered to him from  
His and your loving Friend THOMAS BLAKE. Tamworth July 15.  
FINIS.