A BOUNDARY TO THE HOLY MOUNT, OR, A BAR against Free Admission to the LORDS SUPPER. In Answer To an humble Vindication of free Admission to the LORDS SUPPER. Published by Mr. Humphrey Minister of Froome in Somersetshire. Which humble Vindication, though it profess much of piety and conscience, yet upon due trial and examination, is found worthy of Suspension, if not of a greater Censure.  
By Roger Drake Minister of Peter's Cheap London.  
He set the Porters at the gates of the House of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in.  2 Chron. 23.19. 
London, printed by A. M. for St. Bowtell, 1653.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 15. line 20. add (In an orderly way) thus, which on the same ground in an orderly way includes, etc. p. 30. l. 9 (as) left out, and as for me. p. 41. l. 7. for ann, read (and). p. 48 l. 25. for converted him, read (converted his opinion.) p. 53. l. 25. (and) left out, and a consuming one. p. 58. l. 22. for and, read (a) thus, an It may be, granted. p. ib. l. 23. add (and) 〈◊〉 no place, etc. p. 63. l. 17. leave out (we) p. ●●. l. 13. for where, read (There.) p. 68 l. 10. add (it) let him receive it. p. 71. l. 28. add (the) the obliquity. p. 73. l. 12. leave out (to) and read be done. p. 77. l. 9 for (Ex.) read Ez●k.   

THE PREFACE To the READER.  
IT's one of the Devil's prime Engines to pervert Divine Ordinances quite contrary to their primitive institution: so he did in Paradise, so he did in the Jewish Church, and so he hath done a long time, and still doth in the Christian Church. No wonder then if he turn the choicest mystery of peace into a Sacrament of war, a feast of love into a bone of contention. This he did by disorder in the primitive Church, 1 Cor. 11. by Transubstantiation in the Apostasy of the Church, by Consubstantiation in the Restitution of the Church; and now by a spirit of opposition against Sacramental trial in the Reformation of the Church.  
In the managing of this unhappy Controversy, Mr. Humphrey hath appeared three times in the field in his threefold Edition, pleading free admission to the Lords Supper for all but three sorts, against whom himself is pleased to shut the Chancel door, though the worst of those three kinds is better many times then sundry of those for whom he opens the door. Should we take the boldness to ask him, by what authority he excludes any from the Sacrament (it being in his professed judgement a converting Ordinance) or by what rule of Scripture and charity he walks, in excluding the worst from the means of conversion, who need it more than the best, it would puzzle him more (and that upon good ground) than that captious Quaere of the Pharisees did our Saviour, Matth. 21.23. But whether the Lords Supper be a converting Ordinance or not, Mr. H. must needs be at a great loss, for if it convert not, then why should they receive it who are visibly unconverted? If it do convert (as well as the Word preached) then why should any at all be excluded from it?  
When this Answer was almost ready for the Press, out comes his third Edition, somewhat auctior, but I dare not say correctior. This put me upon a review, and confirmed me in my opinion, that his Doctrine of free admission is but mere Church-levelling, and will in a short time make this glorious Church like the field of the Sluggard, Prov. 24.30, 31. When I seriously weigh his lose Principles held forth to the world in this Treatise, with his being so excessively favourable to the loser and profaner sort, it makes both myself and others apt to suspect, his practices may possibly be as lose as his principles. Lose principles and practices, like Esau and Jacob, Pharez and Zarah, taking each other by the heel, and striving who shall come out first. Twins they are, and its hard to say which is the Elder brother.  
My scope in this Answer is (if God shall add his blessing) 1. To convince Mr. H. and others seduced by him, how contrary his Doctrine is to Scripture, reason, and his own professed principles. 2. To prevent the further spreading of this leaven, which will sour the whole lump, and make Reformation (so much longed for, hoped for, and laboured for by the godly) to be utterly desperate. Withal I must tell him, that this fancy of his (quite contrary to the judgement and practice of the reformed Churches, of the Church of England even in the days of the Prelates, to the express letter of the Book of Common Prayer, to the declared judgement of the reverend Assembly, and to the Votes of Parliament unrepealed) hath exceedingly grieved the hearts of the godly, rejoiced and gladded the hearts of the wicked, and hath done more mischief already, then ten. Mr. Humphreys are ever like to do good. The Lord give him a sight of his error, and grace to burn this hay and stubble, before the day of the Lord come to try it, and himself for it, 1 Cor. 3.13.  
One scruple yet untouched, which may haply stumble the Reader, I must not pass. What if a person by the previous exhortation, (wherein the death of Christ is both audibly and visibly set forth) be really converted, may he not then actually partake of the Elements, and be admitted to receive by and with the Church? Answ. 1. A person at first conversion sees himself so loathsome and unworthy, that he shall not need a bridle from, but rather a spur to the Sacrament. 2. It's not enough for a person to be really clean, but he must also be judicially clean before he be admitted to communion, Levit. 14.1, 31. whenever Christ cleansed any, he still sent them to the Priest to pronounce them clean, Levit. 17.14. 3. However a man be really, the Church must proceed by the rule of visibility, and cannot admit any till he be visibly converted.  
This is a doctrine cannot well down with ignorant and profane persons; it will be a stumbling blocks to the jew, and foolishness to the Greek; from whom I can expect no better entertainment then fare my betters have been content with before me.  
I shall close with those golden though rousing expressions of the Provincial Assembly, in that excellent Piece of theirs, The Vindication of the Presbyterial Government, published Nou. 2. 1649. pag. 74. which book had Mr. H. seriously perused, it might (through God's blessing) have darted such a beam of Majesty into his conscience, as would have quenched this Ignis fatuus of his, before it had misled so many into bogs and quagmires. Their words are these: We are not ignorant that the Presbyterian Government (especially as applied in order to Sacramental trial) hath many Adversaries. The obstinately ignorant hates it, because it will not suffer him to go blindfold to hell. The profane person hates it, be●●●se it will not suffer him to eat and drink his own damnation by unworthy coming to the Sacrament. The Heretic hates it, because after two or three admonitions it rejects him. The Jesuit hates it, because it is an invincible Bulwark to keep out Popery. The Schismatic hates it, because the main design of it is to make all the Saints to be of one lip, one heart, and one way. And above all the Devil hates it, because if rightly managed, it will in a short time blow up his kingdom. Reader, let me but crave the favour Mr. H. his Prefacer doth, that thou read both this Answer and his Book with an impartial and disengaged judgement, perusing both with a single eye, and I am confident thou wilt neither be of Mr. H. his judgement nor practice, a stickler for breaking of Bounds, or removing the Landmark set first by God himself, and afterwards by the Elders of our Israel. I leave it to thy serious perusal, and both thee and it to God's blessing, and remain,  
Thine in the Lord Jesus, ROGER DRAKE. From my Study in Philip Lane, Feb. 2. 1652/ 3.  
Reader, I am desired to give thee notice, That there is now published an Answer to Mr John goodwin's Book entitled Redemption Redeemed, by Mr Kendal sometimes Fellow of Exeter College: with an Attestation by the Vicechancellor and public Professors of Divinity in Oxford.   

A Bar to free Admission to the Sacrament.  
SO winning a grace is Humility, that the very appearance of it will credit an Error, Col. 3.18. where Truth itself usherd in by pride and passion, loses much of its lustre and acceptance. But where Humility leads the Van, and Satisfaction of tender Consciences brings up the Rear, who almost dares face such an Army, or question a Cause so maintained as heterodox and unsound? No wonder Master Humphreys Free Admission finds so free and general acceptance, especially with persons already inclinable to his opinion, when the Title page is more potent to charm, than the whole Book is to convince the Reader.  
An humble Vindication of a free Admission unto the Lord's Supper. Published for the ease, support, and satisfaction of tender consciences, etc.  
So gracious a Porch cannot but promise a glorious Edifice, and by bribing the affections may soon corrupt the judgement of a weak and unsettled Christian. If Mr. Humphrey be the man this Title speaks him, I hope he will as freely admit me to write as he will admit others to receive; nor can a free debate be questioned, where a free admission is maintained. And if I may be free, I must ingenuously profess, I cannot but stumble at the very threshold, especially when I compare it with some parts of the Building. In the Title I see a profession of humility, in the Book I read many expressions that savour strongly of pride. Further, that a plea for free admission should ease and satisfy tender consciences, which both hath been, and is the trouble of tender consciences (unless it be very clearly and strongly made out) is to me a paradox both in reason and Divinity. Waving therefore the judging of persons (for who am I that I should judge my brother) I shall present to the Reader some of M. Humphreys expressions, and let the world judge whether they savour more of pride or of humility.  
When Christ offers himself, and grace, 
Pag. 11.  which are the things signified, to poor sinners, how can we have the conscience to turn them away from the signs and means thereof in this Ordinance?  
Answ. To wave at present the weakness of his Argument (which hath more rhetoric than logic) is not this a sad aspersion of unconscionableness upon those honourable, reverend, and pious persons, who after so long and serious debate, have both voted and executed the Ordinance for suspension, etc.  
Is Christ offered as a free gift in the Word, 
Pag. 16.  and must we not come without our price and money to this Ordinance? Why this is even as they conceive of Judas, who being about to sell our Saviour, went out to make his bargain at the Supper.  
What other construction will these words bear, but that the friends of Suspension with Simon Magus think grace is vendible, and with Judas are about to make a bargain of Christ at the Supper?  
Having urged the instance of Judas as a ground of free admission, he concludes in these words; And what more need 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? It seems the Patrons of Suspension are willingly ignorant, etc. a charge laid by the Apostle upon profane scoffers, 2 Pet. 3.3, 5. and by Mr. Humphrey upon pious Reformers.  
Again, page 22. he makes the selecting of people to this Ordinance, a vanity, formality, and impossibility. An heavy Censure, though weakly made out, as shall (God willing) appear in the ensuing discourse.  
Several other harsh passages I might insert, but these fore mentioned may suffice to convince the Reader, that Master Humphrey in suffering both his tongue and pen so to out-lash, sinned himself very much against the law of charity and humility. But enough of this unpleasant subject. Let us proceed to the Discourse itself, and weigh his Arguments in the balance of the Sanctuary and of sound reason.  
His subject is free admission. His ground is Matth. 26.27. compared with Mark 14.23. from precept and example. All the Apostles were bid to receive, all of them did receive, and amongst the rest Judas, though really and visibly unworthy. Answ. Ergo, Because Mr. Humphrey is so confident upon Judas his receiving the Lords Supper; namely, 1. That he did receive it. 2. That his receiving is a solid ground for free admission; I shall therefore first produce those reasons which seem weighty to me, and have moved sundry godly and learned, both ancient and modern, to be of a contrary opinion; and secondly, Shall endeavour to make good, that supposing Judas did actually receive, it makes nothing for Mr. Humphreys free admission.  
And 1. That Judas received not the Lord's Supper, these Arguments seem convincing.  
1. Christ knew him to be an hypocrite, a reprobate, and a devil, and so utterly uncapable of any good by the Sacrament.  
2. Christ's blood was shed for the remission of their sins who received the Lords Supper, compare Mat. 26.28. and Luke 22.20. It was not shed for the remission of Judas his sins; Ergo, Judas did not receive the Lords Supper.  
3. Christ promised to drink wine in his Father's Kingdom with those who received the Lords Supper; He did not promise to drink wine with Judas in his Father's Kingdom; Ergo, Judas did not receive the Lords Supper. See Matth. 26.29.  
4. Judas went out immediately after the Sop, John 13.30. This Sop was given him before the Sacrament; Ergo, he was not at the Sacrament. Yea, from John 13.1. some are of the mind, that Judas did not partake so much as of the Passeover, but only of the common Supper which immediately forwent the Passeover. See Aaron's Rod blossoming. lib. 3. cap. 9  
5. All Christ's gracious and comfortable expressions to his Apostles, were allayed with exceptions while Judas was present, not so at and after the Lord's Supper; Ergo, judas was not then present. Compare john 6.70. & 13. ver. 10.18.21. with Matth. 26.29. Luke 22. ver. 28, 29, 30. He that excepted judas in the former expressions, would much more have excepted him in the latter, had he then been present. These and the like grounds, have moved sundry both ancient and modern Writers to believe that judas did not receive the Lords Supper; namely, Clemens, Dionysius Areopagita, Hilarius, Maximus, Pachymeres, Ammonius Alexandrinus, Tatianus, Innocentius 3. Theophylactus, Rupertus Tuitiensis, & Victor Antiochenus, Among the Schoolmen, Salmeron, Turrianus, Durandus, Barradius, And of Protestants, Daneus, Kleinwitzius, Piscator, Beza, Tossanus, Musculus, Zanchius, Gomarus, Diodati, Grotius, etc. See Aaron's Rod blossoming, l. 3. c. 8.  
Mr. H. his foundation from Mark 14.23. (which as his Text is the ground, though misinterpreted and mis-applyed, of that his unhappy Discourse) will stand him in little stead. The Text says, They all drank of it. Thence Mr. Humphrey concludes, ergo, judas received the Sacrament.  
Answ. 1. Understand it of all that were present, but its easier said than proved, that Indus was present at the Lords Supper.  
2. All, in Scripture, is sometimes put for the most part, especially in order to the number of the Apostles, 1 Cor. 15.7. yea ver. 5. of the same Chapter, twelve is put for eleven by roundness of number. It's then a mere non sequitur to argue from all the Apostles drinking to judas his drinking, or from the Twelves drinking to judas his drinking, since 1. All may very well be understood of all present. 2. Because all in Scripture-phrase is put to signify the most part, and twelve in Scripture-expression is put for eleven.  
Object. But doth not our blessed Saviour immediately after the delivery of the Bread and Wine say, But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table, Luke 22. ver. 21. and if so, was not Indas then present at the Lords Supper; and if all present received, must not judas needs receive also?  
Answ. 1. I might say, the consequence is weak, to argue from presence to receiving. But that I shall not urge now, because of my former concession.  
2. It's evident, that Luke writes per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not so much observing the order of time, as the substance of the matter; which as its frequent in Scripture, so particularly the Harmony of the Evangelists evinceth it in this subject; we having two Evangelists for one, to prove that those words (Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, etc.) were spoken before, not after the Institution of the Lords Supper, and one of these Evangelists was present and received the Lords Supper, so was not Luke, who stood not so much upon the order, as upon the truth of the Narrative in this business of the Supper. See Matth. 26. ver. 21, 24, 26. Mark 14. ver. 18, 21, 22. It follows not then, that because Judas was at the Table, shared in the common Supper, yea haply in the Passover, that therefore he received the Lords Supper, or was present at it.  
But suppose he was present & received.  
1. The Apostles scarce suspected him, though discovered, John 13.28, 29.  
2. Judas had not yet actually betrayed Christ, his treason as well as Peter's denial was yet future; and its absurd to punish any for a future sin.  
3. Christ acting here 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. It's fare otherwise with us, seeing none are suspended, but 1. Such as suspend themselves by slighting or refusing due trial. 2. Such as upon trial are found unworthy through ignorance or scandal, and that only till they gain better information, or give the Church just satisfaction. By all which it appears how weak Mr. Humphreys first foundation is, and that therefore the superstructure cannot be strong. Contrà from his own proof we argue against him thus: None of the Apostles were either ignorant or scandalous, no not Judas himself, ergo, his or their receiving is no warrant for any ignorant or scandalous person to receive. The main question is about Judas, and not as to ignorance, but scandal. And scandal cannot arise, but 1. From a sin committed by a professor. 2. Known and divulged. But judas had not yet betrayed Christ, no more than Peter had denied him; ergo, he was not yet convicted of a scandalous sin. You will say judas had already done it in purpose and compact. Answ. True, yet Christ charges him not with that, but only foretells his actual treachery, which being not yet perpetrated, was no visible bar to his present receiving, but a sad effect of his unworthy receiving (supposing he did receive) the devil entering into him as well after the Sacrament as after the Sop, john 13.27. Let all ignorant and scandalous persons take heed of judas his sin (unworthy receiving) lest the fate of judas betid them; namely, 1. Spiritual possession by Satan. 2. Christ-murther. 3. Self-murder.  
State the case aright, and a mean capacity may easily apprehend how wide and wild Mr. Humphrey his conclusion is, judas a great professor, and an eminent and extraordinary Minister, plots and purposes a great sin; that he shall commit this sin, is foretold by a spirit of revelation, as also was Peter's denial and perjury. The question is, Whether either or both of them shall be suspended the Sacrament. For my part, I think neither: 1. Because those sins were not yet committed, and so not scandalous. 2. Because Christ acting as a Minister could not be both witness, judge, and executioner. If you say he acted as God or as Mediator. Answ. It's very dangerous to make Christ's Divine or Mediatory acts a precedent for imitation. Who will say, the Magistrate should not condemn the adulteress, because Christ did not condemn her? john 8.10, 11. Christ administered the Sacrament only to men, only to Ministers, after supper, in ah upper room, must we therefore do no otherwise? Whenever Mr. Humphrey preaches again upon this subject, let me entreat him to take a more pertinent Text, if at least he can find it; otherwise I must tell him, he will scarce prove himself (what he is styled) a Master of Arts.  
But to pass on. For the better managing of his cause, pag. 3. Mr. Humphrey premiseth, That in the Church God hath set up his Ordinances of the Word and Sacrament. Of these Ordinances some are capable, and some uncapable. Those that are uncapable, are either so by nature, as infants and distracted persons, or by the Churches. Censure of Excommunication, and none others.  
Before we proceed, let's see what water some of these dictates will hold. And 1. How can he prove that Infants and distracted persons are uncapable of the Sacrament by nature, especially upon his own principles: for now I shall dispute partly ad hominem and partly adrem, and I doubt not but the judicious Reader will easily reach me in both. I shall 1. instance in the word. Why are Infants and (pari ratione) distracted persons uncapable of the Word? or where hath God said they should be kept from it, unless by their crying or unseemly gestures they prove troublesome to the Congregation? I can show him the contrary, where God would have them present at the Word and Ordinances. Let him consult Deut. 29.11, 12. & 31.12. Iosh. 8.35. joel 2.16. & 2 Chron. 20.13. and that to enter into Covenant, etc. as is evident in some of the places quoted, especially the two first. If God bids them come, why should Master Humphrey say they are uncapable? 2. Suppose them uncapable, yet who knows how God may work at the Word, though not by the Word? May not that Word be an occasion of conversion to Infants, which is an instrument of conversion to elder persons?  
Infant's indeed may be uncapable in an active, but not in a passive sense; as to apprehension and understanding, not as to Divine Impressions. God can work upon persons at or by his Ordinances, occasionally or instrumentally, when he is honoured by their active or passive presentation before him, which may be the case of blind and deaf persons, as well as of Infants and innocents', and upon which account (as well as out of a desire to honour God) some pious persons have thought it their duty to attend upon the public Ministry, though they were deaf. Why should not I believe that Christ is willing to speak immediately to him that loves to be where Christ speaks mediately? If men can speak by signs as well as words, sure Christ can much more speak by his Spirit to such deaf persons. If some in hearing do not hear, Isa. 6.9, 10. why may not others hear in not hearing? An hearing heart is better than an hearing ear. More might be added, but I must contract.  
Next, for the Lords Supper. Supposing that Mr. Humphrey is for Paedobaptism. I ask him in the next place, 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. Then I answer, No more can grossly ignorant persons; who therefore (pari ratione) upon Mr. Humphrey his principles, and according to truth, must be kept away: but that they cannot be unless discerned, nor can they be discerned unless tried; and who have more authority to try them, than such as are over them in the Lord, and delegated for that purpose both by God and man?  
Further, that persons excommunicated are uncapable of the Word preached. How proves he that? Upon this account I dare challenge him and all the world for one proof of Scripture, either direct or by consequence. An excommunicate person is but as an heathen, Matth. 18.17. and heathens might be admitted to hear, why then not excommunicated persons, they needing that effectual means of conversion as much or more than Heathens.  
Lastly, Whereas in the close he adds, That none others are uncapable; and so by consequence none others ought to be kept away, What thinks he 1. of persons infected with the plague, etc. 2. What thinks he of persons stark staring drunk, or that with Zimry and Cosby shall commit actual uncleanness in the face of the Congregation, and the like? will Mr. Humphrey prostitute the Sacrament to the lusts of such bruits and swine? For shame then let him not plead that all must be admitted but infants, mad men, and excommunicated persons.  
In the same page, I wonder Mr. H. is so diffident where he may be confident. His words are these, I dare not yet positively say, for the people's part, that all are so capable that they may come as they list. For my own part, I assent to it as an undoubted truth, that none are so capable that they may come as they list. How doth this man strain at a gnat, and swallow a Camel; stumble at a straw, and leap over a block? doubts an evident truth, and pleads strongly for a lose and undoubted error, that all may be admitted pell mel. How just is it with God, that he who is confident where he should be diffident, should also be diffident where he ought to be confident?  
He asserts, 
Page 4.  Such an universal capacity for all men indefinitely, that if any come in as professing themselves ready to enter into covenant with Christ, desiring to serve him in the worship of this Ordinance (the former only excepted) the Minister and Church ought to admit him, etc.  
From this Concession ler me be bold to ask Mr. Humphrey before whom shall they make this profession? If before the Minister and the Church (as he seems to hint) then may not the Minister before the Church desire some evidence of the sincerity of this their profession? If not, then let Mr. H. show where he is forbid to make this scrutiny. If he may, then undoubtedly he may try that professor as to his knowledge and grace; and do we desire any more? nay not so much. Let Mr. H. persuade the people but to make this profession before the Eldership (we desire not to put their modesty to it before the Congregation) and we shall either admit them at present, or undertake to fit them (by God's grace) for the Sacrament, before we have done with them, if at least they will but submit to be ruled by us.  
If he mean, that the Minister must rest in that verbal profession, without any further scrutiny, then why may not a child of three years old, or a mad man be admitted, since they may easily be taught the words of that profession? Further, doth Mr. Humphrey admit none but such as make this profession? Here I appeal to his own conscience, and to his Congregation.  
If yet he fly from a verbal to a virtual profession, and think their very coming or sending their names to their Minister over night, etc. be sufficient, especially if betake this course with strangers also, then how doth he know whether they be Christians or heathen, sober or distracted, children or elder persons, excommunicated or members of the Church. So that turn which way he please, he will find himself in a noose of his own making.  
Let's now proceed to his proof from analogy of the Passover, 
Page 4. & 5.  to which he says there was a free admission.  
Answ. 1. It's well he corrects himself from Numb. 9 whereby it appears there was not a free admission to the Passeover, and then where is his argument? If he plead, that only legal uncleanness excluded them, I ask him why? He will answer, because it defiled the Congregation, or the Ordinances and holy things, or both. Content. But what if it be proved that not only levitical, but also moral uncleanness defiled the holy things, and that therefore such persons also were to be kept away. For proof hereof, compare Levit. 18.24, 25. Moral pollutions defiled first the person, and then the Land, Levit. 16.16. They defiled the Sanctuary, Ezek. 23. verse 37, 39 Adulterers and Murderers, and Idolaters, coming reaking out of their sins into God's House, defiled the Sanctuary thereby, Hag. 2.14. For neglecting to build God's Temple; themselves, their actions and their Sacrifices were unclean; and though the Temple were typical and ceremonial, yet their neglecting to build it at God's command, was a direct breach of the second Commandment, and therefore a sin, or moral pollution. And that all unclean persons were to be suspended, is evident by 2 Chron. 23.19. Where jehojadah is commended for setting porters at the gates of the House of the Lord, that none which were unclean in any thing should enter in. The Lord send us many such Ichojadas. Where then were Mr. H. his eyes, who asserts so confidently page 5. But as for any spiritual pollution whatsoever, we read of none that might debar them from that Ordinance. Did he not read, or did he not mind, or did he not understand, or did he not remember any of the forementioned places? for I will not be so uncharitable as to conclude he never read over the old Testament, or that against his conscience he delivered the forementioned words, or that he quibbled and equivocated upon the present Tense for the preter Tense.  
Besides, the instance of hezekiah's Passover, shows that moral uncleanness made them more unworthy of the Passover then levitical uncleanness; the Lord then accepting the upright heart, though not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary, 2 Ch. 30.18, 19, 20.  
2. If Mr. Humphrey ground upon this instance of the Passover, than not only elder persons, but also Infants must partake of the Lords Supper, for Infants were admitted to the Passover, since all circumcised persons were to eat thereof; and if so, then where is his first distinction that makes Infants uncapable.  
3. Wherea pag. 5. he makes the secluding of unclean persons a type of our excommunication. He must excuse me if I believe not his bare dilates without proof. I thought legal types had respected Evangelicall graces, or spiritual uncleannesses, but not Evangelicall Ordinances, unless Christ, the only great and effectual Ordinance. Further, had they not the Ordinance of Excommunication amongst them as well as we, and why should that be typified which was visibly present? And here by the way let me ask Master Humphrey, whether amongst the Jews an excommunicated person might have been admitted to the Passover? That they had Excommunication is evident John 9.22, 34 & 12.42. & Matth. 18.17. and that by the rules of the Jews such were neither to be eat nor drunk with. Further, that Excommunication was not for levitical pollutions, but scandalous sins; and in particular, that not only levitical pollutions, but also scandalous sins were a bar to the receiving of the Passeover. Contrary to Mr. H. his Assertion above mentioned.  
For clearing whereof consider, that there were 3 degrees of Excommunication amongst the Jews: A person excommunicated in the first degree, was called Niddui, separated or cast out of the Synagogue, joh. 9.22. The second, Cherem, or delivered up to Satan, 1 Corinth. 5.5. 1 Tim. 1.20. The third, Schammatha, or Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16.22.  
In the Greek Church there were four degrees of Excommunication. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such were only barred the Lords Table. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such might hear only behind the Pulpit, and must departed with the Catechumeni, etc. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such might come no further than the Church porch, and might not join in Prayer, etc. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such stood quite without the Church, requesting others with tears to pray for them, and thence they were called plorantes.  
By all which it appears, 1. That Suspension is no new invention, but if juridically issued forth, was a degree of excommunication; which being in Mr. H. his judgement a bar to the Lords Supper, he must needs grant Suspension to be a bar to receiving, unless he will contradict both the truth and himself. 2. It's evident, that Excommunication is not a bar to presence at all Ordinances, since all the four degrees of excommunicated persons amongst the Greeks might partake of some Ordinances, at least without the Church. And Niddui amongst the Jews might be present at Divine Service, to teach others, and learn of others, though he might not come near any the distance of four cubits, etc. 3. It's evident, that Excommunication was not for levitical but moral pollutions (at least in the apprehension of those who excommunicated) 1. By Scripture, Mat. 18.15, 17. where obstinacy in sin is made a just ground of excommunication, If thy brother trespass against thee, etc. john 9, ver. 22, 34. & 12.42. they looked at the confession of Jesus as Christ, as a sin that deserved excommunication; which though a gross and dangerous mistake, yet evinceth that moral pollution was with them the ground of excommunication. 2. Excommunication being a Church-censure, had only sin for its object; nor did a leprous man more deserve excommunication with them, than a plaguy man doth with us. Excommunication is the key of Discipline, to shut out of heaven, Matth. 16.19. a bond to retain sin; compare Matth. 18.18. with john 20.23. a thunderclap, not against natural infirmities, but sinful enormities. Indeed persons Levitically polluted, might for present be materially excommunicated, as being separated or shut without the Camp for fear of contagion, and so are plaguy persons with us; but this is as far from formal Excommunication, as a dead body is from a living man. 3. It's evident by the practice of the Jews, amongst whom the first degree of Excommunication, called Niddui, lasted for thirty days, unless it were shortened by repentance; but only sin is the object of repentance, and not a bloody issue, or other levitical pollutions. See Buxtorf, Budaeus, Godwin, etc.  
4. It's evident that this first degree of Excommunication, 
See Aarous Rod blossoming, l. 1. c. 9 & 10. & 12.  called Niddui, was a bar in particular to the Passeover (which answers our Lord's Supper) since it signified a separation from all commerce with any man or woman for the distance of four cubits, and particularly from eating or drinking with any. And hence probably flowed that expression of the Apostle, I Cor. 5.11. With such a one no not to eat. Which is as extendable with us to our Sacramental eating, as it was with the Jews. I might bring as a proof of Excommunication Gen. 17.14. which is a cutting off from the Church of God, and that not for levitical pollutions, but for wilful omissions or commissions. See Mercer upon the place.  
His Argument then from the elder Brother the Passeover, is like Reuben, unstable as water. Let us see whether he can draw a stronger argument from the younger brother our Sacrament (as he is pleased to term it.)  
His first proof is from 1 Cor. 10.17. We being many, are all partakers of one bread. Thence he concludes, That divers of the Corinthians were ready to go to Idols. verse 14. yet all were admitted to the Sacrament.  
Answ. 1. The dehortation doth not necessarily prove they were Idolaters, though indeed too many of them, especially the stronger Christians, abused their liberty in eating things sacrificed to Idols, to the offence of their weaker brethren, and sometimes (which was more scandalous) in the Idols Temple: this they did as apprehending the thing was indifferent; and by using their utmost liberty, went beyond the bounds, judging any place of eating lawful (and that without weighing circumstances) as well as any meats lawful, 1 Cor. 8.10. This, though bad, was not (especially before sufficient admonition given) a just bar to their receiving.  
2. Yet taking it for granted, many of them were guilty of greater sins, as appears pears by 1 Cor. 15. & 2 Cor. 12.21. How proves he from the place, that all these were notwithstanding admitted. As all Jews might eat the Passeover, so all Church Members might receive the Lords Supper. All circumcised persons had a right to the Passeover, yet some of them might not enjoy it at all times, Numb. 9.7. So all baptised persons have a right to the Lords Supper, yet may not always actually use this their right; nay not all true converts neither, till they be worthy actually as well as habitually. A person may be capable in actu primo, yet not in actu secundo. All the Priests had a right to the holy things, yet were not permitted at any time to make use of that right, Levit. 22.2, 7.  
3. Supposing all did receive it promiscuously, how proves he from this place, that the Apostle did allow that free admission? doth the drawing an argument from practice, allow that practice? Then by arguing from baptising for the dead, the Apostle should allow baptising for the dead, 1 Cor. 15.29. From their actual communicating the Apostle proves they were one body; and secondly, That they ought not to communicate with Idols. Doth this manner of arguing necessarily justify their admitting all to communicate pell mel at any time?  
Whereas pag. 7. he urges, That they were drunken together at the Lords Table.  
Answ. 1. Then it seems they were not drunk before, but at the Table; and how can that be a let to receiving which was caused by receiving, unless he will make the Effect an impediment to the Cause, the Consequent to the Antecedent.  
2. But granting this drunkenness were at their love Feasts, which preceded the Lord's Supper, I answer, It's more than Mr. H. can prove, that they were drunken in the ordinary and strict sense, since in Scripture phrase the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Shachar signify, though liberal drinking, yet within the bounds of temperance, as is evident, john 3.10. Gen. 43.34. Cant. 5.1. And the Apostle reproves them rather for disorder and uncharitableness, then for excess; that they stayed not for their Brethren, whereby the rich fed and drunk liberally when the poor were hungry and thirsty. Compare ver. 22. &c 33. 3. What Logic is in this consequence (supposing they were drunk indeed?) Saint Paul reproves them for coming drunk to the Sacrament; ergo, they ought to come to the Sacrament, even though they be drunk. Is not the quite contrary more rational, St. Paul reproved them for coming when drunk to the Sacrament; ergo, they ought not to come when drunk to the Sacrament.  
His next proof is from 1 Cor. 10.4, 5. By the way, where he says, They were all admitted freely to our Sacrament. He speaks gratis. Indeed, if he speak as to the thing signified, undoubtedly their and our Sacraments are all one, and thus even Circumcision and the Passeover were the same with our Baptism and the Lords Supper; but as to the outward elements, I think there's a great difference between their Manna and our Bread, their Water out of the rock, and our Wine, But for the thing itself, if he will make that a precedent for free admission, than unbaptized persons, yea persons distracted, Infants, and excommunicated persons, by this rule may partake of the Lords Supper, as there uncircumcised persons, etc. did partake of those Sacraments. Yea, many who were born after their passing the Sea, and so not baptised neither, yet eaten of the Manna, and drank of the rocks. Witness 1. The mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with them, Exod. 12.38. 2. Many of the Israelites themselves who were uncircumcised in the wilderness, Josh. 5.5. yet did eat of the Manna and drank of the rock.  
2. Their partaking universally of that Sacramental Meat and Drink, is no argument for our free admission, till Mr. H. can make out as great a necessity for our universal receiving as for theirs; namely, that all who receive not, must both starve and choke, that Sacramental Bread and Water being their daily and necessary repast. Nor will Mr. H. evade this answer by his parallels pag. 8. which do not run on four feet, as we say. And however their Sacraments and ours, their condition and ours may agree in divers respects; and it be very true, that God is not well pleased with many Receivers amongst us, no more then amongst them; yet herein is a manifest difference, that 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 they must either receive those Sacraments or die. I hope there is not such an absolute necessity of our Sacramental Bread and Wine. Had God made our daily food (as he did to them) a Sacrament, I say then it were cruelty and murder to deny any man the Sacrament, and then not only monthly, but also weekly, yea daily Sacraments had been necessary: but that must have been by accident, not from the nature of a Sacrament.  
His next Argument is drawn from the general invitation to the Marriage Feast, 
Page 9  Matth. 22, & Luke 14.  
Answ. 1. Let him prove, that by the Marriage Feast is there meant in particular the Lord's Supper. Christ indeed is the Feast to which all are invited; the Ordinances, and especially the Word and Sacraments, are the Dishes in which this Feast is served. Now the question is not, Whether all aught to come to the Feast? but, Whether all must eat of the Feast in the Dish of the Sacrament, as well as of the Word? The former is asserted, but not proved by Mr. Humphrey.  
2. Since the main scope of the parable is to hold forth the rejecting of the Jews and calling of the Gentiles (which is the rule Mr. H. himself goes by pag. 9) Mat. 22.43. compared with Mat. 22.1. will it not follow then, that not only Church members, but also Heathen should immediately be admitted, yea forced to this Sacrament.  
3. Yet further, if all must be admitted, 
Lu. 14 29  how came the unthankful Guests to be excluded by the Lords own command? who yet had fare better excuses to keep from the Sacrament than many of our Professors have, Luke 14. 18, 20.  
4. If this be meant particularly of the Lords Supper, then let me ask Mr. H. whether some worldly occasions may not justly excuse our absence? and whether all are judged there unworthy, who are sometimes kept from the Lords Supper by their worldly occasions? The weightiest occasions cannot excuse any from the Marriage Feast. But I think Mr. H. will not deny, but some worldly occasions may excuse a man from the Sacrament, as is evident by analogy, Numb. 9.10.  
More might be added to show the weakness of his plea from these parables. But whereas he adds pag. 10. Now who is that faithful steward, that gives the household their portion of meat in due season, but these that are thus doing, that is, who admit all comers, as himself there interprets. What a gross, senseless, and profane interpretation is this? For 1. What an easy matter is it to be a faithful steward, if this faithfulness lie in admitting all pell mel to the Sacrament. 2. Will it not follow by this rule, that the profanest Ministers, who are most for free admission, are the most faithful stewards. 3. That the most pious and conscientious Ministers, who dare not give this bread of children to dogs, are therefore unfaithful stewards? Lord! whither will not a selfish opinion lead a man?  
Whereas he there adds, That john Baptist admitted all comers to Baptism, yea even those whom he calls vipers.  
Answ. 1. He says, but proves not, that john did baptise all comers. 2. Matth. 3.6. It's noted that they who were baptised confessed their sins, and so made public profession of their repentance. Let our people do that privately before the Eldership which these did publicly before all the world; or (if they please) let them do it publicly before all the world, as the former did, and see if we refute them to the Sacrament. Should we require confession of sins in every Receiver before admission to the Lords Supper, we should be branded with a witness, as pleaders for Auricular confession. We only desire a profession of their faith before receiving, which though weak, yet if true in the judgement of charity, we dare not refuse such. And because we are sure there can be no faith without knowledge, therefore as we ourselves have been tried by others, and that willingly, we think it our duty to try the faith and knowledge of all under our charge: and if we find any grossly ignorant, as we dare not at present admit them, so we are willing to take pains with them, by instruction to fit them for the Sacrament in future. Whether this be more pleasing to God, or the admission of all hand over head, I appeal to the Readers judgement, and to Mr. Humphrey his conserence.  
Whereas for further confirmation he adds, Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti,  
Answ. 
I mean Catechumeni.  I deny it, if taken in the latitude. For 1. Heathen may be admitted to baptism, but not to the Lords Supper, by his own grant. 2. Taking this Maxim for granted, what follows, but that as persons to be baptised must profess faith and repentance, Mat. 3.6. Act. 8.37. so must they also before receiving; which makes much for our purpose, and against Mr. Humphrey.  
His last proof is drawn from Act. 10.28. upon which instance he concludes with a rhetorical Doxology, pag. 11. I thank God I have learned this same lesson with a satisfied conscience, to esteem no man unclean, but all (unless excommunicated) free in the use of God's Ordinances.  
Answ. 1. That God, who had 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.  
2. Let Mr. Humphrey show me the force of this consequence, Peter was commanded to converse with a godly man, though levitically unclean (as not being circumcised and a proselyte) which uncleanness after the death of Christ was taken away; Ergo, Paul ought to converse with a profane Christian that is morally unclean. How suitable this is to Scripture, see 1 Cor. 5.11. Further, Peter is commanded to preach the Word to Heathen, that were comers on, and ready to receive it; ergo, Paul may administer the Sacrament to all ignorant and wicked Christians that reject Christ and his Word. I wish he would play the Logician more, and the Rhetorician less, in matters of this nature, lest he be found in the number of those, Rom. 16.18. who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.  
3. Consider how he contradicts himself as well as the truth; pag. 3. he excluded Infants and distracted persons, here his charity is so large as to exclude none but excommunicated persons.  
4. That by excluding excommunicated persons from the Word preached, he runs into an uncharitable and dangerous error, hath been formerly proved, which I will not here repeat. Much more might be added, had I leisure to follow him in his wild-goose-chace. I think he may well be accounted a Master of Arts at wresting the Scripture; and whether he hath writ more words or errors, seems to me a disputable point.  
For a further flourish, in the same Page he heaps up Texts of Scripture that hold forth the offers of free grace to all, which make as much for free admission to the seal of this Sacrament, as an offer of pardon to all rebels, proves, that even those rebels must have their pardons sealed who stand out against their Prince, as well as those that come in and submit upon pardon offered. Let Mr. Humphrey and all the world know, that we desire to keep none from the seal, who will please to make it out to us, that (but in the judgement of charity) they have a right to the thing signified. Which may serve to take away that wonder of his, How we can have the conscience to turn them away from the signs and means of grace in this Ordinance, to whom the Gospel offers Christ freely.  
Answ. 1. With what conscience can he exclude Infants, distracted and excommunicated persons, to whom the Gospel offers Christ as freely as to any? yea each of which may have the things signified, and yet be denied the sign.  
2. Not general offers of Christ, but our actual receiving of him visibly, is the rule of admission to the Sacrament. But how many persons do visibly reject Christ, at least by consequence, Tit. 1.16. and they who visibly reject the thing signified, may justly be debarred the sign, till they manifest their repentance. Thus much for his proofs from Scripture. Let us now proceed to his reasons, and see whether he be better at argument then at quotation.  
His first Argument is, The Sacraments are verbum visibile, a visible Gospel, etc. therefore the same latitude must be granted to them both (meaning the Word preached and the Sacrament) in their administration. And here he triumphs (poor man) before the victory, in these words immediately following, Upon this ground, me thinks, I stand as upon a rock, against which all objections, like waves, do but dash themselves in pieces.  
Answ. 1. If the Sacrament have the same latitude with the Word, than a Turk or Heathen may receive as well as a Christian; but this is contrary to Mr. Humphrey his professed principles, as well as to the truth itself.  
2. His consequence will not hold, unless he can prove that verbum visibile converts as well as verbum audibile, and that it was instituted for that purpose.  
3. Though it should convert, it proves only that all should be present, not that all should receive.  
4. Granting his foundation, I retort it upon himself. As the Word preached is applicable to all, so also the Sacraments; But the Word preached is not immediately applicable to all; I mean as to that part of its gracious offer which is particularly tendered and sealed in the Sacrament. For instance, there are some righteous persons (in their own conceit) that Christ came not to call. Mat. 9.13. many self-justitiaries and conceited Laodiceans, to whom in that condition mercy is not immediately applicable; But to whom in statu quo, the Covenant is not applicable, to them the seals of it are not applicable; and where such may be discerned by their gross ignorance or scandal, they are visibly as well as really unworthy, and should not be permitted to receive, where there is a just Authority to exclude them.  
2. To come a little closer to Mr. H. As the Word preached may be heard by all, yet cannot be applied to all in divers things, so the word visible (the Lord's Supper) may be seen by all, but ought not to be applied to all in divers cases; namely, when that which is sealed in the Sacrament is not immediately applicable to them by the Word, for the Word and Sacrament must go hand in hand together. Ergo, where the covenant of grace is not visibly applicable, there the visible sign of that covenant is not applicable. But the covenant of grace is visibly unapplicable to many persons in the bosom of the visible Church; ergo. And thus Mr. H. his rock proves but a quicksand, and his visible Word makes against himself.  
His amplification from pag. 11. to the 15. is as impertinent as his Argument is weak. We easily grant, the Lords Supper declares the covenant of grace as a sign, and ratifies it as a seal; but that it's therefore to be applied to all, is a mere non sequitur. Indeed where grace is freely offered by an audible word, all may, yea and should hear it; and where it's offered by a visible word, all have liberty to see it, and so may be present at the administration of the Lords Supper, as well as at preaching and Baptism: But that all aught actually to partake (be they in what state they will, unless uncapable by age, dotage, or excommunication) is a new light started by Mr. Humphrey, which like an ignis fatuus will lead thousands into utter darkness. Had Mr. H. either read or understood our meaning (as easily he might, had he pleased, by what is extant in print in a first and second discourse by the Antiquaerist) he would not have shot so wide at rovers as now he doth. The hinge of the controversy turns not upon this point, Whether all may be present when the covenant of grace is signed, offered, and sealed in the Sacrament, but whether all present may actually partake thereof; and in particular those who visibly reject the covenant of grace that is signed, offered, and sealed by it. To keep to Mr. H. his own similitude, pag. 14. A general pardon sent by a Prince, may be offered to all Rebels within his Dominion, all of them may hear the pardon read, and if need be, see it sealed; upon which some come in and submit really, others professedly stand out against pardon offered; a third sort seemingly submit, yet secretly carry about them daggers or poison to murder their Prince. The King knows this, and his Ambassadors strongly suspect it. Now I ask Mr. H. 1. Whether pardon shall be sealed particularly to them that openly stand it out? 2. Whether the Ambassadors ought not to try all that submit, that it may appear who submit really and who treacherously; and the latter being found out, is Mr. Humphrey of the mind that pardon should particularly be sealed to them, as well as to those who submit really? If so, I think he is a better friend to Traitors then to good Subjects or good Government. Apply this case to the Lords Supper, and it will quickly put an end to this controversy, now again unhappily raised by Mr. Humphrey, to the no small joy of profane and ignorant persons, and grief of God's people. Every Sacrament seals, 1. The truth of the covenant of grace. 2. It's general offer. 3. By some of the Sacramental actions it doth instrumentally apply the Covenant to every worthy Receiver, and to none else. Now (if Mr. H. and other dissenters will please to understand us aright) all may see the truth of the Covenant of Grace, and its general offer sealed, and so may be present at the whole administration, which is made up of several Ordinances, the sight and hearing whereof may be very profitable for all sorts. But that the Covenant of Grace should be instrumentally applied, per sigilla, to all sorts, is in a manner as bad as if it should be applied to them by word of mouth, and haply in some sense worse. Dares Mr. H. say to any person visibly in the state of nature, Sir, be assured that Christ and all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are actually and for ever yours? And will he dare to seal that which he dares not say? The language of every actual giving is. Christ is thine in particular, and of every actual receiving is, Christ is mine in particular. And shall any Minister dare solemnly to deceive any self-deceiving person, and confirm him in presumption, to the ruin of his soul, when he may regularly prevent that mischief? If this be not a strengthening of the hands of the wicked, Ezek. 13.22. I beseech you what is?  
To answer therefore briefly to his four Considerations, held forth by way of conclusion, pag. 15.16. & 17. To the first I answer, Those whom we would not baptise, bade they been to have been baptised at years of discretion, those we cannot admit to the Lords Supper, though baptised in their infancy. And I ask Mr. H. whether there be not many such in England, who yet are neither children, nor fools, nor excommunicated? And here let Mr. H. remember his own rule, p. 10. Adultis cadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti.  
To the second. The question is not about the freeness of the offer, but about the freeness of acceptance; and whether they who visibly reject grace freely offered, aught to be admitted to the sign and seal of that grace. And here let me ask Mr. H. again, whether his conscience did not check him for aspersing us with that soul slander, pag. 16. That we admit none but such as are qualified to our own mind. Doth not Mr. H. know that we plead not only the Word of God (which is abundantly enough) but also the Authority of Parliament, for what we do in this point; by whose Ordinance, not repealed, we are civilly enabled to do what we do; and have also from them (after mature deliberation with the Assembly of Divines) a rule to walk by, against which if we transgress, we are accountable to the civil Magistrate; and dares he notwithstanding charge us with admittance of none but such as are qualified to our mind? Or, 2. That in thus doing, we will not let people come without their price and money to this Ordinance? Do godly Parents and Masters, by keeping their children and servants from the Sacrament till they be sufficiently instructed in the main grounds of Religion, do they, I say, in this pious act put them upon it, not to come to the Lords Supper, till they can bring their price and money to this Ordinance? and yet shall godly Ministers and Elders, who are spiritual parents, and also specially enabled by the Magistrate, a civil Parent, to do the like, be judged (by one scarce out of the shell, either in Learning or Divinity) as if they were all the children of Simon Magus, and drove a bargain of Christ and the Sacrament for money, because they are careful that persons visibly unqualified, and who think to purchase Christ and grace for money, may not have either him or it upon such base terms? 3. Is he not yet more ashamed, in the same page to affirm, Why this is even as they conceive of Judas, who being about to sell our Saviour, went out to make his bargain at the Supper. It seems, if Mr. H. may be judge, 1. We are a company of Judasses'. 2. We betray Christ, because we will not suffer others to murder him. 3. We drive a bargain for the buying and selling of Christ, because we use a rod made by Christ and public Authority, to whip the buyers and sellers out of God's Temple. Thus in the judgement of greater and wiser men then Mr. H. Christ was an enemy to Caesar, Paul a seditious fellow, etc. The very mention of this slander is enough to refute it. I say no more, but the Lord rebuke and forgive the Author of it.  
To his third Consideration I answer, 1. It's very dubitable, whether full conviction be enough to conversion; yea, the stronger conviction is in the understanding, the higher doth the will and affections rise against it (if not conquered and sanctified by grace, Rom. 7.8, 9) yea to the commission of the sin against the holy Ghost, Heb. 6.4, 5, 6.  
2. That by application of the seal, the message of reconciliation comes in its full virtue, for the working this conviction and faith unto salvation, is both a gross and implicated error, as hath in part been formerly proved. For 1. Conviction of the truth and general offer of the Covenant comes not by the Sacrament, as sealing and applying to persons (which rather conduceth to the faith of particular evidence) but as signifying and offering Christ to all, who therefore may with great profit be present at the Ordinance. 2. Conviction that Christ is mine in particular, cannot be wrought by actual receiving in any but the worthy receiver, and such is no ignorant person, or any that lives and lies in a known sin, who therefore cannot receive but to his own prejudice, nor by Church-officers be admitted to receive (if visibly so) without their prejudice also, who suffer him to contract the guilt of Christ's body and blood, to eat and drink judgement to himself, and to do an act that cannot either convert or edify him in statu quo, but aggravate his sin and judgement; as hereafter (by God's assistance) shall more fully appear.  
Before I pass to his fourth consideration, there lies in the way one objection which is worth the answering, which seems to cross our former assertion.  
Object. Christ suffered Judas to partake of the Lords Supper as well as the rest, yet by that act sealed not to him that Christ was his, and himself was in the state of grace, etc. for then he must have sealed to a falsity, etc. Ergo, the act of giving and receiving in the Sacrament is no seal of evidence to any, much less to all.  
Answ. Supposing the objection were true; actual giving and receiving, seals either Christ or judgement to every Receiver, and he that eats and drinks not Christ, eats and drinks judgement to himself, 1 Cor. 11.29.  
2. In its own nature and primary intention it seals Christ and mercy.  
3. The Minister in his acting ex officio, applies mercy charitatiuè to all the Receivers who are visibly worthy.  
4. When therefore the Minister sees any present who are visibly unworthy, if he he enabled by judicial power, he must not permit him to receive: if not (as it falls out where no Presbytery is settled) he must either persuade such a person to forbear, or else in plain terms tell him the danger of his unworthy receiving, and that he will prove a murderer of Christ, as our Saviour did unto Judas: by which forewarning, I humbly conceive where Church-Government is not settled, the Minister may clear his own soul, as having not power of himself to admit or keep back without judicial process, wherein himself cannot be both judge and witness, And thus both word and seal go together, and assure particular mercy or judgement to Receivers, as they are worthy or unworthy; as the Priest's word went along with the bitter water, to do the honest woman good, but the adulteress hurt, Numb. 5.19, 22, 27, 29. Contra, though the Word make most worse, yet it makes very many bad ones good: but the Sacrament makes only good ones better.  
Object. But doth not the Minister seal to a lie, by giving the Sacrament to those who are visibly worthy, yet really unworthy?  
Answ. He may possibly seal to an untruth, but doth not seal to a lie, as admitting that person whom in charity (being approved upon due trial) he may and aught to judge worthy: As I may speak comfort to one whom I judge to be in the state of grace, yet may very easily be mistaken about his condition. 2. If the Minister notwithstanding suspect a person, though legally approved, he may and aught the more carefully to warn him to look to it he be what he professes himself to be, lest otherwise for all man's approbation, he eat and drink judgement to himself. 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 to the Classis, in case he perceive the Eldership prevaricate and conspire to admit unworthy ones out of by-respects; as they likewise may do of the Minister. But all this doth not countenance the admission of any who may be regularly suspended, no more then of him who is to be excommunicated, but is not, through corruption of the Eldership.  
For his fourth Consideration, 
Pag. 26.  we grant the Gospel is the Gospel of peace, etc. yet it's as true, that wherever it comes it occasions war; not of its own nature, but by means of humane corruption, Mat. 10.34, 35. and that by means of separation which it makes wherever it comes. And is it any wonder then, that the seals of this Gospel by making separation, make also division? Where the promises are not applicable so much as visibly, there sure the seals of those promises are not applicable; the denial whereof yet must needs vex hypocrites, who by this means are pried into, and uncased, as a soulsearching Ministry doth; and no wonder then if the devil of contention be conjured up, and Gods Jeremies, who separate the precious from the vile, be men of contention to the whole Earth. Cain will be angry if Abel find better acceptance than himself; and hypocrites, who care least for real goodness, yet are very ambitious of all the privileges of piety, and proclaim war against such as deny them, though never so justly, (as the Pharisees did against our Saviour) but I pray who deserve blame for this contention, God's faithful Ministers or hypocrites themselves, who by visible unworthiness deprive themselves of those privileges, and yet malign Christ's Stewards, who dare not be so lavish and prodigal of their Master's provisions as these persons would have them. What therefore he adds by way of rhetorical amplification is frivolous as to his purpose, since none are Saints but such sinners, and none to be approved for Saints by the Church, but such as acknowledge themselves great sinners. But the question is, Whether such as think themselves righteous, though easily convinceable of gross ignorance or wickedness (as the Pharisees) are to be admitted to this Sacrament amongst humbled and repenting sinners?  
His provision inserred in his third Edition, pag. 17. will stand him in little stead, since his very stating the question, overthrows his great Diana of free Admission.  
For 1. He will have free Admission, and yet himself rails about the Communion Table from Infants, distracted persons, etc. He that cries out of Suspension, yet takes upon himself to suspend a world of persons far more worthy then, or not so unworthy as many he presumes to admit. Shall the Lord's Supper be free for blasphemers, murderers, etc. and not free for Infants, distracted persons? etc.  
2. If he can prove it is against Scripture-order and decency, to admit to the Lords Supper a person visibly worthy, though unbaptised, I will easily prove its more against order and decency to admit to the Lords Supper a person visibly unworthy, though baptised. Had Constantine the great and Julian the Apostate been contemporary, I should rather have admitted the former to receive, when unbaptised, than the latter, though baptised.  
3. Whatever Mr. H. insinuates in the close of his Provision, we are as much both for Order and for the Ordinances as himself; and could not the Ordinances be had without disorder, we had rather dispense with Order, than part with the Ordinances. The difference then between us is this, We plead for, and (blessed be God) enjoy the Lord's Supper with order and decency; Mr. H. pleads for it, and enjoys it with disorder and confusion, whatever he pretends in his Provision to the contrary.  
His second Argument he draws from the nature of the visible Church; which he defines or describes to be a number of such as make profession of Jesus Christ, and so are Saints by calling, whatever they are in truth. The essential marks whereof (whereby it subsists as visible) is the preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments. Now unless men will be so bold as to divest our mixed Congregations (and so consequently all England formerly) of the name of the visible Church, they cannot take from us one of its essential notes, in the free use of this Ordinance.  
Answ. 1. His description is liable enough to exception, since a visible Church strictly is not a bare number of Professors, but of such as combine for Church ends. The Church is a Corporation, and not members as so, make a body, but as united either by virtual or actual consent, etc. and that either in their distinct Societies, which we call Parishes or particular Congregations, or in their Representees and Officers delegated for the public concernment of particular Churches, either in a Classis, Province, Nation, divers Nations, or the whole world, whence arise Classical, Provincial, Nationall, or Ecumenical Assemblies, etc.  
But supposing this to be his meaning, though not so clearly expressed,  
2. I ask him in the next place, Whether all Professors or Saints by calling, are eo nomine to be admitted to the Lords Supper; if so, then why doth he shut out children and distracted persons, who are as truly Saints by calling, and professors as others. It's apparent than that outward profession is not the ultimate reason of admission, unless accompanied with suitable knowledge and conversation, at least visibly; and that gross ignorance appearing, or a scandalous conversation, do so far contradict Mr. H. his outside profession, as to make that person for present visibly unworthy.  
3. Taking it for granted, that the Word and Sacraments are notes of a true visible Church, how doth it follow that ours are not true Churches, unless every particular member may partake of the Lords Supper? How many children and servants were in the days of the Prelates kept from the Lords Supper, till they could give some tolerable account of their faith, and of the nature and use of the Sacrament; yet never was such a mad inference as this drawn from it, that therefore the Church of England was not a true visible Church. And certainly, if the denial of some Church privilege (though unjustly) were enough to un-Church a people, I scarce know where there is any one true visible Church in all the world.  
4. Therefore let all the world take notice of the too too gross fallacy of this Argument, The Word and Sacraments are notes of a true visible Church; Ergo, Without free admission we have no true visible Church. May not any ordinary capacity easily discern there are four terms in this Syllogism.  
The Syllogism should run thus: The Word and Sacraments are essential notes of a true visible Church; Ergo, without the Word and Sacraments there is no true visible Church. But that Mr. H. saw well enough would conclude nothing against us, who (blessed be God) have both Word and Sacraments, and therefore in stead thereof (against the known rules of Logic) he shuffles in free Admission into the conclusion, which was not at all in the premises. A clear evidence he is more skilled in Sophistry then in Logic, and can better deceive then convince.  
If on the other hand, he will make free admission to the Lords Supper an essential mark of a true visible Church; let him see how he is confuted by the practice of our Church under the Prelates, in which many were kept from the Lords Supper, that were neither children, fools, nor excommunicated, and that without any prejudice to the essence of our Churches, as was before instanced. Yea, the very Rubric before the Communion in the Book of Common-Prayer, shows the fondness of this opinion; the Curate being there authorized to suspend scandalous and malicious persons without (I hope) any prejudice to the true being of our Churches. Yea, the very Exhortation in the Communion commands such to bewail their sins, and not to come, lest after the taking of the Sacrament, the Devil entered into them as he did into Judas. Now were it a duty for all to come, than were it a sin to forbid any to come.  
Object. If yet he will object, This practice of ours, if it be not against the nature and essence, yet it's against the wellbeing of a true visible Church, when the members thereof, or any of them, are denied their just privileges.  
Answ. 1. True, if the Lords Supper were a privilege due to all Members; but this is the thing to be proved on Mr. Humphrey his part; and in the proof whereof (though his great Diana) he falls so exceeding short.  
2. The well being of a Church consists much in its Government and Discipline, (of which not one word from Mr. H. in his notes of a true visible Church) Good Government lies in the Geometrical (not Arithmetical) administration of privileges and Censures: the lowest of which last (Admonition) and highest (Excommunication) we have clear enough in the Scripture: but because Suspension and the like, are not in terms mentioned in Scripture, therefore Mr. H. will have it wholly expunged; as if because a man will not be gained by words, there were no other way but presently to knock him on the head. Certainly, he that puts the extremes, cannot deny the middle from one extreme to another. And as he who hath power of life and death, hath much more power to mulct, imprison, etc. so the Church who hath power to excommunicate, hath much more power to suspend, as being an inferior Censure, and but the way to that highest. Will Mr. H. deny, that the well-being of a Church lies much in its purity, and this in the knowledge and conversation of the Members? and whether our way or his conduce more to this, let all the world judge. Let Mr. H. tell me ingenuously, whether he would have all grossly ignorant persons excommunicated? I hope he is more charitable, and thinks they rather need instruction. And is not this previous trial before the Eldership used of purpose, that ignorant persons might be put upon enquiry after knowledge. as ever they value the privilege of Sacramental communion. Nor is the proper end of it exclusion from, but preparation of all sorts for the Sacrament, for which in few months (by God's grace) we dare undertake to fit the meanest, if they will be ruled by us. Contra, if Mr. H. his free Admission obtain universally without check, see if in a few years a Chaos of darkness and ignorance do not overspread the face of this glorious Church. But I see I must contract.  
For his confirmation of this argument from the parable of the field, etc. which he styles an invincible support, pag. 17. Alas poor man, how feeble must he needs be, when his best strength is but weakness? If the Tares and Wheat must be separated till the day of judgement, than I pray what will become of Excommunication? It's apparent by the parable, 1. That the Tares were sown by the carelessness of the Servants, or other Church members, Matth. 13.25. 2. That the prohibition to take them away, was not absolute, but only with a caution or proviso, verse 29. And in truth, so tender is the Lord of the Wheat, that he had rather many Tares should stand, than one ear of Corn should be plucked up. Where therefore there is danger of wronging the wheat, better let the tares stand; not so if we can separate them without prejudice to, yea with advantage of the wheat: And therefore a bare suspicion is not enough to keep any from the Sacrament, but by gross ignorance or scandal it must appear he is a tore, and not wheat, before he can be suspended judicially. For as for negative suspension before trial, that is not properly a Church Censure (no more than the non-admitting of Infants or distracted persons) but only a prudential forbearing to administer the Lords Supper to a person, till he have been approved as visibly worthy, which yet may issue out into a formal Suspension, if any shall wilfully obtrude without trial, or upon trial shall be found visibly unworthy, and yet will not be persuaded to forbear till better prepared.  
For his instance of Christ's converse with Publicans and sinners; it makes much for us, and against himself. Such Publicans and sinners who are not ashamed publicly to profess their repentance and high respects to Christ, shall be very welcome to us as the worthiest receivers; but the question is, Whether blind and scandalous Pharisees ought to be admitted with these Publicans and sinners?  
For his grand instance of Judas, it hath been already answered. Only I cannot but stand amazed at his high flown confidence and censoriousness, pag. 19 The evidence of which fact (he means of Christ's admitting Judas to receive the Lords Supper) has ever appeared so fully to the Church, that this alone has been ground sufficient to deduce their right of free admission; and what need more indeed be urged, but that men when they are willing not to see, will let their hand (put over their eyes) be enough to blind them.  
Answ. 1. Sundry famous Lights in the Church believed this long before Mr. H. either preached or wrote, and yet thought it not ground enough for free admission. But haply Mr. H. is so charitable, as to judge not only the reformed Churches, but also the whole Church of England (ever since the dawning of Reformation after the Marian persecution to this day) to have wilfully put their hands over their eyes, and knowingly to have sinned against their consciences. We may well bear this sharp censure with the more comfort and patience, considering we suffer with so good company.  
2. See you not how the vizard of humility falls off, and both his breath and pen savour rankly of pride in this unchristian censure? Were we as bad as Mr. H. would make us, we had undoubtedly made a great progress in the high way to the sin against the holy Ghost, and deserved ourselves not only to be suspended, but also to be excommunicated. In the mean time I must be bold to tell Mr. H. that he who takes upon himself to be so free an admitter of others, deserves, I fear, more than suspension for this his scandalous and wicked censure of the generality of the most pious persons of all the reformed Churches, and particularly his own Nation.  
His third reason he takes from the nature of Christian communion and Church fellowship, which ought to be in charity, in humility, without judging, every one esteeming others better than themselves, etc. especially in the Minister, who is to be gentle to all, suffering the evil (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to win them by this free way to repentance. And how impossible is this, if we must go to censuring of men's worthiness and unworthiness, preferring ourselves; rejecting others; the ready way to nothing but heart burn and divisions, as we have too sad experience already in most Congregations.  
Answ. 1. When men are out of the right way once, whither will they not ramble? Rash judgement and private judgement cannot stand with charity and humility (out of his own mouth I condemn the man, who may well be styled Master of Arts at rash and private judging,) ergo, true and public judging cannot stand with charity and humility. Doth he not in this deal with the Church, as some Anabaptists deal with the State, take away the Sword of Government, and so make a fair bridge for universal Toleration.  
2. If there must be no judging in the Church, where then are Church Censures and Excommunication?  
3. Ephesus is commended for trying and judging, Rev. 2.2. and that she could not bear those that were evil, etc. and not therefore charged by Christ as proud or uncharitable.  
4. The Apostle 1 Cor. 5.12,13. commands them to judge Church Members, that is (in Mr. H. his Language) to be proud and uncharitable.  
5. Do we desire anymore of the meanest than we submit to ourselves; yea, to a far stricter trial than they are like to undergo? how then do we lift up ourselves above them, or esteem ourselves better than they?  
6. Doth the gentleness required in a Minister, forbidden him to try and instruct his people? I thought gentleness there required, had been rather a qualification then a prohibition of Ministerial trial.  
7. Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signify a suffering the people in their sins, that Ministers should be dumb dogs, and drowsy shepherds, suffering the sheep to ramble as they please, and the swine to wallow as they please, &c, and admit them to the same privileges with the best? Such a Minister may well be counted a good fellow, but sure Christ will never reckon him for a good and faithful shepherd. Doth Mr. Humphrey think the way to bring to repentance, is to suffer them in their sins? ot that there is no way to reduce them, but either admonition or excommunication? May not persons be won by denial of some privileges due to regular members, if they have not lost all spiritual ingenuity?  
8. That hereby heart burn and divisions are occasioned, blame not this excellent course, which of its own nature is a means of love and unity by the mutual communication of Pastor and Flock, Elders and People, in gifts and graces: but the pride of most, and ignorance or prejudice of some well meaning people, who will not submit to this easy yoke, Psal. 2.1, 3. Matth. 11.29. nor do consider, that the ruling Elders are either elected or eligible, 1. By themselves. 2. Out of themselves. 3. For their advantage, to allay the power of Ministers, who if sole Judges of Sacramental worthiness, might at least be under a temptation to wrong weaker Christians, and through passion or prejudice to keep them away, whom Christ would have to be admitted.  
9 If by trying and judging others, we prefer ourselves before others, than there must be no trying or judging of any in the Church; quite contrary to the Scripture, and the power of the Keys given to Church-Officers. Besides, let the Reader further take notice of the uncharitableness of this man. 1. In charging us to prefer ourselves before others. True indeed, what the Apostle saith of blessing, Heb. 7.7. that may we of trial and judgement, The Trier and Judge is in that act above him that is tried and judged: but did we prefer ourselves to this superiority? or were we called to it both by Civil and Ecclesiastical Authority? Doth not Mr. Humphrey try and judge others in the exercise of his Ministry, doth he therefore prefer himself above his people? indeed if he ran before he was sent, well may he bear that charge. But we challenge Mr. Humphrey and all the world, to name any among us who take upon them to try or judge others, before they were called to that Office. Let him take heed lest in this rash censure he be not like Corah and his company, Numb. 16.3.  
3. To load us the more, he brands us in the close with the odious charge of rejecting others, as if that were all the work of the Presbytery, to sit and reject their brethren. He takes no notice how many are admitted, to the mutual comfort and edification of themselves and those who are over them in the Lord, who bless God for the care our Builders take in purging and repairing God's House and the new Jerusalem, however 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, Neh. 6.17, 18, 19 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.  
For amplification of his third Argument, 
Page 20.  he presents the example of the Pharisee and Publican; and insinuates that we at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 act the Pharisee.  
Answ. 1. How doth it follow, that by trial of others we think better of ourselves then of others, as the Pharisee did here? His judgement was purely private. 2. Without any trial: Ours is public, upon just and indifferent trial, whereby often we are brought to think better of others, worse of ourselves, but never to think better of ourselves then others, whom yet in some cases we dare not admit, since its possible one really worthy may be suspended, and another only visibly worthy may be admitted; since in this, as well as other trials, the Eider-ship must proceed only secundum allegata & probata, and he who is worthy personally, may be unworthy dispositively. And here again he chargeth us with superstition and uncharitableness, because we will not admit all freely; as if there were no Mean between profaneness and superstition, between charity and licentiousness.  
His second instance for amplification, is from Luk. 5.31, 32. (the quotation is mistaken by his Printer, and the sense by himself) wherein Christ is represented as a Physician only of the sick, and came to call, not the righteous, but sinners.  
Answ. 1. What is this against us who make it our design to admit none but such sick ones and sinners as Christ did?  
2. It makes much against himself, if he will urge it in order to the Sacrament, since its evident Christ here makes a distinction and separation; and 1. Would not have all admitted; and 2. In particular he rejects sound and righteous ones, namely that were so in their own conceit, and such were most of the Pharisees: and do we suspend any others than those who eaten wiser in their own eyes then seven men that can render a reason, and fit for the Lords Supper (if themselves may be judges) than the best of the approved or approvers?  
Pag. 22. His third instance is John 8. from the woman taken in adultery, accused by the Pharisees, but not condemned by our Saviour.  
Answ. 1. Doth this man take the Scripture for a nose of wax, that he perverts it so grossly, cither through ignorance, instability, or prejudice? (to say no worse) what is this to our Sacramental trial? The Pharisees came to trap Christ with a practical case and a civil case, John 8.5, 6. Had Christ bid them stone her, he had been accused to the Romans as stirring the Jews up to act the supreme power which was taken from them by the Romans; see John 18.31. Had he forbidden them to stone her, he had been slandered to the Jews, as an enemy to, and contradictor of the Law of Moses. Our Saviour at first waves answering to so captious a question, ver. 6. But when that would not satisfy their malicious importunity, he gives them so wise an answer, as 1. He avoided both extremes; and 2. He caught them who came to catch him; And for the woman, though he condemn not her person either to civil death, as being no civil Judge, Luk. 12.14. nor eternally, as not coming (in the state of humiliation) to destroy, but to save, Luk. 9.56. John 12.47. yet he condemns her sin, and gives her good counsel, John 8.11. What is this to our keeping persons visibly unworthy from the Sacrament, and that by just authority in a public and judicial way? I wonder this man doth not now condemn the civil Magistrate for executing adulterers, incestuous persons, Sodomites, etc. which Christ and his Apostles would not, 1 Cor. 5.1, 6, 9, 11. only they judged them spiritually, shown them the danger of those sins, and God's mercy in pardoning and purging them. Are not many justly cut off both by the Civil and Ecclesiastical Sword, whom yet Christ, as absolute Lord of life and death, may pardon? Shall not man do justice, because Christ shows mercy? Had this woman been stoned to death, had that been any bar to Christ's Pardon? The most righteous Judge in the world is conscious of the seeds of incest, murder, etc. in himself, shall he not therefore condemn such persons legally convicted before him? The most pious Minister or Church Officer is conscious of the like, shall he not therefore either suspend or excommunicate such persons, when legally converged and convicted upon just trial? David himself was actually guilty both of murder and adultery, was it ever after unlawful for him as a King and Judge, to condemn such persons? Indeed the consciousness of our own weakness and guilt, should make us put forth such acts with abundance of selfreflection and pity to such offenders, but hath not the left show of warrant to root up or make void the power of trial and judgement, either in Church or State. Foolish pity mars a City in this case, shall the wolf be spared to worry the sheep? If such pity be not the greatest cruelty both to soul and body, I know not what is.  
Pag. 22. His fourth reason arises from the vanity, formality, and impossibility of selecting people to this Ordinance. For put the case you will have a gathered company, I pray whom do you account to be fit and worthy receivers? if not all that make profession as we do mixedly, than those only that have an interest in Christ, and are true Believers. Well, but how will you be able to know them? The heart of man is deceitful above all things, who can know it? And if we can hardly discover our own hearts, how shall we ever discern others? So that all will come but to those that have the fairest show, those that seem such; and you cannot be secured but there may be and will be some hypocrites; and so this true partaking, as all one body and one blood, in such a mixed communion as you pretend, vanishes, and there can be no such matter. But now if men here stand upon a formal purity, and will have the outward purest Church they can, they go to separating again (as we have daily testimony) till they are quite separated one from another; even as in the peeling of an onion, where you may peel and peel till you have brought all to nothing, unless to a few tears perchance, with which the eyes of good men must needs run over in the doing.  
Answ. 1. Here Mr. Humphrey thinks he hath us fast: But let me entreat him not to boast before he put off his harness. And that both himself and others may see how wide he roves from the mark, we shall deny both his Extremes, and tell him that neither bate profession on the one hand, nor troth of grace on the other hand, is the rule we walk by in admitting persons to the Sacrament, if considered quatenus. Can not all the art Mr. Humphrey hath, think of medium participationis, between these two extremes, which will do very good service for his conviction and our justification?  
1. Therefore let him know, that we look at his rule of bare profession, as a very lose principle, which will open a door not only for the wickedest varlets, as murderers, etc. but also for children and fools, contrary to his own principles, now in print. And indeed, if bare procession were enough to warrant admission to the Sacrament, how dares Mr. Humphrey excommunicate any baptised person, though he be the wickedest villain that ever Tyburn groaned for, since even the worst of them are professors, as well as the truest Nathanael? Therefore say we, Profession, if joined with sufficiency of knowledge in fundamentals, and suitable practice in conversation, at least negatively, that there be no evidence against a person, as living after conviction in a known sin; this is the rule we walk by in admission to the Sacraments; though withal, we do not neglect inquiry after truth of grace, so far as may stand with charity.  
2. Let him and the world know, that truth of grace in the heart on the other hand is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper. The reason is, because we cannot admit divers persons, though we should infallibly know they had truth of grace; as 1. Children and fools, divers of whom undoubtedly have truth of grace in their hearts; and that because they cannot examine themselves, nor discern the Lords body according to the rule of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.28, 29. Nor 2. Such, who though they have truth of grace, yet fall into some foul and scandalous sin, for which they deserve excommunication itself, and much more suspension, which is but an inferior degree of excommunication. As truth of grace cannot excuse a man from death, if he be a murderer, etc. so neither can it excuse him from Church Censures, if he be foully scandalous, especially if wilful; which yet for a time may stand with truth of grace, witness Asa, 2 Chr. 16.10, 12. Doth not Mr. Humphrey know that a person habitually worthy may be actually unworthy? or that a person invisibly unworthy may be visibly worthy; and contra? Did he never hear of the worthiness of person and the worthiness of preparation, visible worthiness and real worthiness? Real and complete worthiness (I mean as to its parts, when a person hath grace, and in some measure of truth labours to fit himself) is only known to God: outward or visible worthiness may be known to man by due search and trial, accompanied with charity and prudence, in which better to fail on the right hand then on the left; and where we see competent knowledge and have nothing to object against a man's conversation, the person professing his universal subjection to Christ, and desire to receive for his further edification, the Eldership ought to give such a one the right hand of fellowship. And should he afterwards be uncased, the same power of the Keys which admitted him, can either suspend or excommunicate him, according to the demerit of his carriage.  
And whereas he objects, That do what we can, hypocrites will creep in: That we easily grant, but it's nothing to his purpose, since not hypocrites simply, but hypocrites as uncased, or godly men as grossly extravagant, are the object of Church Censures. The best use therefore can be made of his peeled onion, is to draw tears from his own and others eyes for these extravagant discourses of his, whereby he hath (as much as in him lies) troubled the Church, hindered Reformation, strengthened the hands of the wicked, and sadned the hearts of the righteous, whom God hath not made sad, Ezek. 13.22. Had we the peeling of his onion, we would take off only the skin, and make good use of the pulp, either for food, sauce, or medicine. And so much good do him with his Onion, whether he feed upon it, or weep over it.  
Pag. 23. His fifth reason he gathers from the uniformity of the service of God. If all other Worship lies in common, it is an entrenchment upon the common liberty, to put an enclosure upon the Sacrament.  
Answ. 1. Let him answer himself; if all other worship lie in common (for this I suppose he means by uniformity) for children and distracted persons (unless they trouble the Congregation) why doth Mr. H. enclose the Lords Supper from them? Let him extricate himself, and then see if we come not out at the same gap. Where hath Christ in terminis forbidden children and distracted persons to receive? If Mr. H. can exclude them by consequence, the same or like consequence will serve us to exclude divers far more unfit to receive then either of them.  
2. Must all Divine Service be laid in common, because most parts of it are? Why then not all time, because six parts of time are so? why not all places and persons, because many are? Let us bless God so much of his Service lies in common, and not quarrel that all lies not in common, since the best are unworthy that any part of God's Worship should lie in common.  
3. There is no part of God's Worship so enclosed, but all persons of age and discretion may enjoy it, if the fault be not their own, and that upon very honourable and equal, yea easy conditions.  
4. As in every Ordinance some part is in common, some part enclosed, so is it in the Sacrament. In every Ordinance a great part of the Letter is common to all, the spirit of it is enclosed. In prayer I can bless God for truth of grace wrought in some, but can I without lying praise him for true grace wrought in all? In preaching the Minister ought to apply some commands universally, others to such and such states, conditions, and sexes; threaten to obstinate sinners, promises to the penitent, etc. Is not here a plain enclosure? If all parts of prayer or preaching be not applicable to all, shall all parts of the Sacrament be applicable to all? We deny not but all may be present at the exhortation, consecration, administration; but the question is, Whether all may actually receive, and whether the seal may be applied to them whom the Covenant of grace in statu quo is visibly inapplicable.  
Hereby also will appear the weakness of what he adds by way of amplification, Are all the commands of God universal? why not (Do this) also?  
Answ. 1. Many commands of God are not universal, as was showed before; and why then may not this be of that number?  
2. If this command of actual receiving be universal, why doth himself limit it by excluding some persons?  
3. Then it were a sin for the Minister or any other to persuade any to forbear the Sacrament, though he came with his hands embrued in blood, or actually drunk, or played the part of Zimri or Cosby in the face of the Congregation immediately before the Sacrament: For neither can my wickedness, nor the persuasion of any creature, lose the bands of an universal command. Were I certain this were Mr. H. his judgement, as I have ground to suspect from what he delivers pag. 7. haply I might say more to him, but till then shall forbear.  
What further he objects is truth, That an unregenerate man sins in every service and duty, yet must not▪ thereupon plead a quietus est from service: but there is not par ratio in order to receiving. 1. Because it's not every man's duty to receive. 2, Because other duties, though sinfully by him performed (instance particularly in hearing the Word preached) may be means of his conversion, not so the Sacrament unworthily received; of which more hereafter.  
In the same Page he throws his glove, first to the Independents, then to the Presbyterians. To the former in these words:  
Let our Independents answer, Why do you allow a Syntax in the whole Service of God besides, and bring in a Quae genus of Anomalás and Heteroclites only at this Ordinance?  
Ans. 1. The Independents are much beholding to him for his favourable opinion of them, as good Proficients in Christ's School. They are good Grammarians indeed, if they have perfected the Christian Grammar so, as to leave in it but one Anomalum or Heteroclite.  
2. I think it's rather optandum then credendum, that they allow a Syntaxis in the whole Service of God besides.  
3. Yet as to free admission in order unto presence at all Ordinances, I believe they (as well as we) allow a syntax in the whole worship of God.  
4. Heteroclites and Anomala's are no more absurd in Worship, than they are in Grammar. As no rule in Grammar but bath its exception, so no part of Worship but hath its enclosure. Of which afterward.  
And therefore though I cannot justify any of the Independents in separating from our Congregations, yet if in excluding from the Lords Supper persons visibly unworthy, they act upon the same principles with us; in so doing, though they bring in a Quae genus of Anomalacs and Heteroclites at the Lords Supper, yet they violate not the Syntax of Divine Worship. If they walk by other rules or principles not warranted, let them plead for themselves, I am not of their Counsel.  
But for his challenge to the Presbyterians (or at least some of them) How we can admit of children as Members of the visible Church (being born of Christian Parents) unto Baptism, and yet turn away the Parents of those children from the Sacrament? Those that have gone about to answer this, had better haply have said nothing: for our free course of Baptism and a denial of this, is such a seam-rent as will never be handsomely drawn up, though stitched together. Nevertheless in yielding the one, they have granted the other.  
Answ. 1. How can Mr. H. admit the children themselves to Baptism, and yet deny them the Lords Supper? If herein he act by faith, let him show a Divine Precept by which he excludes them. If he bring a proof by consequence, let him consider if that or a like consequence will not exclude others (as well as children) for whom he keeps the door open.  
2. How can himself admit children to Baptism, and yet excludes their parents from the Lords Supper? If the parents of a child baptised be either distracted or excommunicated, Mr. H. being Judge, they ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper; whereby its apparent, that even in Mr. H. his judgement, the child's baptism is no necessary medium to prove the Parents must be admitted to the Lords Supper; which yet he urgeth against us, but forgets how he wounds himself with the same weapon.  
3. To come closer to the Objection; two things by way of answer are very considerable, 1. That we clear and justify the promiscuous baptising of children of Christian Parents, be the Parents themselves never so unworthy. 2. That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptism, is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper.  
For the first of these: We admit children to Baptism, 1. By virtue of their remote parents, who may be good though their immediate parents be bad, Acts 2.39. The promise is made to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, etc. To your children indefinitely, not to your next children only. Which is yet more evident by comparing Levit. 26.45. & Micah 7.20. where the Covenant of Ancestors and Parents extends to the children for many generations, till the children themselves in person renounce the Covenant. This also is hinted in the Text under the notion of them that are afar off, which is extendable not only to remoteness of place or of state, but also to remoteness of time; that is, as Beza notes, to your children in remote ages to come, Omnibus longè post futuris. Nor is it in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Gentiles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ephes. 2.17. and so opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but future generations are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In this particular, mercy triumphs over justice, in that God who punishes the parent's sin to the fourth generation, extends Covenant-mercy to a thousand generations, Exod. 20. ver. 5, 6. Nor was Peter's design here to foretell the calling of the Gentiles, but to encourage his Auditors to faith and repentance; since (as Beza well notes upon the place) the mystery of the Gentiles votation was not yet known to Peter himself, nor was expedient to be revealed to these new Converts, had he known it never so well. As the Covenant of Adam, so the Covenant of Abraham; as the Covenant of Works, so the Covenant of Grace is extendible to many generations: and where the root is holy, there not only the immediate, but also the most remote branches are federally holy, Rom. 11.16. and that whether the branches be natural or engrafted, ver. 17.  
2. Children may be admitted by stipulation of others to see them educated in the faith into which they are baptised, be the parents themselves never so wicked, yea excommunicated, yea Papists, and thus bastards and foundlings may be baptised. See Amesius his Cases, lib. 4. cap. 27. Nay upon this account divers learned men very probably conceive, that even Heathen children may be baptised, if once taken into a Christian Family, where the Governor or Governors undertake for their Christian education, and they are out of the power of their Heathen parents; for by being members of a Christian Family, they are made members of the visible Church, as civil, though not natural children of Christians. I am sure this Doctrine is consonant to the Analogy of Circumcision, Genes. 17.12. where not only the child born in the house, but also bought with money, was to be circumcised, yea bought of strangers, and not of the seed of Abraham, as is express and evident in the Text. Thus an Heathen born in the house, or bought with money might eat of the holy things, Levit. 21.11.  
3. These is something considerable in the immediate parents, which makes their children capable of Baptism; and 1. Though they transgress, yet they do not renounce the Covenant (as Turks do.) 2. They are Members of the visible Church till excommunicated, and why may not the children be admitted to the same privilege the parents yet enjoy? provided their tender age be capable of that privilege; and children are as capable of Baptism as they were of Circumcision, both being passive Ordinances.  
The second thing to be cleared is, That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptism, is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper. This is evident, 1. Because more is required to make a person capable of the Lords Supper, than an Infant capable of Baptism.  
2. Personal unworthiness may easily appear in the parent, which cannot appear in the Infant.  
3. It is not simple membership gives an immediate right to the Lords Supper: and therefore though the parent's membership do regularly make the child capable of Church membership (and so give it a right to Baptism) yet neither his own nor his child's Church membership can make the parent capable of the Lords Supper, a privilege not for every Church member, but for a visibly worthy Church member. Suppose the same person (Timothy for instance) baptised regularly in his riper years, yea and admitted to the Lords Supper also, as visibly worthy: afterwards he walks scandalously; he is 1. Admonished. 2. Suspended. 3. If persisting obstinate, dismembered. I beseech you what irregular proceeding is here?  
4. Therefore if the promiscuous admission of children to Baptism is no ground for their own promiscuous admission to the Lords Supper, much less is the promiscuous dimission of children to Baptism, any ground of their parents promiscuous dimission to the Lords Supper. The parent gives to his child what himself hath, namely Church membership, but cannot thence claim what is the privilege of a worthy Church member, namely Sacramental Communion. The son of a Jew or Proselyte (being clean) might eat of the Passeover, when at the same time the father (in whose right the child was circumcised) being unclean, might not partake of that Sacrament. A Priest's son or daughter might in their father's right (being clean) eat of the holy things: when at the same time the father himself (being unclean) was forbid to eat of them. Compare Levit. 10.14. Numb. 18.11. & Levit. 22.4, 6. There is par ratio of moral pollutions. A wicked parent who deserves the highest degree of excommunication, yet being a Church member, his child shall be baptised in his right, and by Baptism be solemnly admitted into the privilege of Church membership, which yet the father enjoys; when at the same time the father shall be debarred the privilege of a worthy Church member; namely, Sacramental communion at the Lords Table. The parents federal holiness shall benefit his child at the very same time when his antifoederall wickedness shall prejudice himself.  
There is then no seam rend in our practices or principles, unless it be in Mr. H. his brain, which if we can neither draw nor stitch, well may it be our sorrow, but we trust it shall never be our sin.  
In his third Edition, pag. 25. he makes an addition to fortify his fifth reason, by impeaching us, That by urging our form as necessary, we violate a branch of Christian liberty, equalizing Ordinances of men, Col. 2.18, 20. with Divine Ordinances; which humane Ordinances, though we might submit to as prudential only, yet he dares not suffer them to creep into the seat of God, namely conscience. It's ill putting God's Worship upon stilts, lest by seeking to advance it higher, we give it a fall into dangerous scruples and divisions.  
Answ. 1. Let the Reader take notice that (in Mr. H. his judgement) the putting of a bar to free admission is an humane, not a Divine Ordinance. Can we be of his faith, we would be more against this bar then himself is. We bless God that an humane Ordinance doth civilly or ecclesiastically back a Divine Ordinance, but like not the pressing of humane inventions upon conscience, especially in Divine Worship.  
2. We ask him, whether his excluding of Infants and distracted persons, be a Divine Ordinance? If so, let us see his patent out of Scripture either in terms or by consequence; and if the very same or a like Divine Patent do not exclude all persons visibly unworthy, we shall be of Mr. H. his Religion, to admit all pell mel.  
3. Supposing the bar to free admission had been only a prudential humane Ordinance, I say Mr. Humphrey had done God and the Church more service in submitting to it, then in disputing against it; since 1. As a prudential it is not against the rule of Scripture. 2. And therefore might by consequence be deduced from Scripture, as a thing 1. Lawful. 2, Expedient. 3. Commanded by lawful authority, Civil and Ecclesiastical, yea in the very times of the Prelates. And if the lawful commands of Superiors (caeteris paribus) be not obligatory to conscience, let Mr. H. race out the fifth Commandment.  
4. We put God's Worship no more upon stilts than himself doth, excluding only persons that are visibly uncapable of the Lords Supper; and if distracted persons are uncapable in his judgement, scandalous persons are more uncapable in our judgement. Therefore in his rejoinder der let him either justify us, or condemn himself.  
His sixth and last Argument is drawn from his innocency in free admission, and that upon a sixfold account: 1. Because therein he doth but his duty.  
Answ. This is but petitio principii, the main thing to be proved, especially if he lay it down as a general rule for all Ministers.  
2. Because he hath no power to turn away any.  
Answ. I take this for one of the truest passages in all his book, upon supposition that he hath no Presbytery settled in his Congregation. But little doth Mr. H. consider how this concession makes against himself, and subverts a main argument of his, drawn from the example of Judas: For supposing him to have been visibly unworthy, yet say we, Christ as a Minister had no juridical power to turn him or any other away, since he could not legally be both Judge and Witness; and there being then no Presbytery constituted to try unworthy Receivers by. Which also at this day is the case of most Parishes in England. And for my own part, I much doubt whether a Minister by his own power can exclude any Church member from the Sacrament.  
3. Because he hopes the best of all.  
Answ. 1. So did the Angel of Ephesus, who yet tried and uncased the false Apostles, Rev. 2.2, 4. 2. So did the Apostle Paul, who yet commanded Christians to mark and avoid unworthy Church members, Rom. 16.17. & 1 Cor. 5.11. & 2 Thess. 3.14, 15. 3. So must Magistrates, yet I hope they may and do condemn Malefactors. 4. If this be a good argument, may not Mr. H. as well conclude, I hope the best of all, therefore I will excommunicate none. Though charity hope the best, yet it is not stark blind; and I think it's no mean point of charity to prevent the ruin of many poor souls, who rush on headlong to contract the guilt of the Body and Blood of the Lord.  
4. Because he knows God can turn even the worst at this Ordinance if he please.  
Answ. 1. Suppose a scandalous Professor actually converted by the preceding exercises at the Sacrament, this is not ground enough for the Church to permit him at that time to receive, since the rule they walk by is visible worthiness. 2. The question is not what absolutely God can do, but what God doth or hath undertaken to do. Let Mr. H. show one promise or precedent for so much as one person coming to the Lords Supper in the state of nature, and converted by it or at it. 3. Whatever any may be by the exhortation, etc. at the Sacrament, yet the main question is, Whether any be converted by actual receiving the outward Elements, who immediately before receiving was unconverted. A promise or precedent in this kind will be much to the purpose; but till then, we must crave pardon if we hold not free admission in order to participation, though we shall not deny free admission in order to univerfall presence at the whole Service. Prove actual receiving a converting Ordinance, and we shall be as zealous for free admission as Mr. H. can be.  
5. Because he endeavours his utmost de jure that all come prepared.  
Answ. 1. So high a commendation were fit to come out of any man's mouth then Mr. H. Prov. 22.7. 2. It's a commendation too high for any mortal.  
3. I shall be bold to tell him, that in this self Encomium he speaks falsely. Did ever any mere man since the fall endeavour his utmost de jure that all his Flock might be worthy receivers (such are all that come prepared.) Doth he not know that one worthy in Christ's account, must 1. Be converted. 2. Unblameable, yea exemplary in his conversation. 3. Actually prepared, by exciting and acting the Sacramental graces? And hath Mr. H. endeavoured his utmost de jure that all his people should be such? nay, hath he endeavoured his utmost de jure that himself may be such? Did he never since he was a Minister fail (through carelessness, yea wilfulness sometimes) in praying for his people, in preaching, in example, in private reproof, admonition, encouragement, trial? etc. Is he without sins of weakness, carelessness, yea sometimes wilfulness as a Minister? and dares he cry at Christ's Bar (as he boasts in his Book) That he hath endeavoured his utmost de jure that all come prepared? If this smell not strong of sublime Pharisaisme, Luk. 18.11,12. I beseech you what doth? You saw his pride formerly in censuring others, and very many far his betters, mark now how the bladder swells with self conceit and applause. The Lord help him to see the beam in his own eye, who is so quicksighted to espy a moat in his Brother's eye.  
It's well therefore that in his last and third Edition he gins in part to cry peccavi, pag. 26. in these words: This I suppose, but woe is me if I justify myself, who am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, eminent only in our failings.  
Ans. 1. It seems then this proud and confident assertion proves at last (by his own grant) but a supposition. 2. Suppositions, though false, may be grounds of truth, but false suppositions asserted (as here) are many times dangerous and pernicious untruths. 3. For any to assert he hath endeavoured his utmost de jure in a course or series of actions, is a most dangerous falsehood both for the Assertor and the receivers. 4. That his own conscience checked him for this proud and false assertion, is apparent by those expressions, But woe is me if I justify myself, etc. Yet what higher self justification can there be, then to stand upon tiptoes with God, and say, I have endeavoured my utmost de jure? A godly man may in humility and sincerity use the words of the Pharisee, I thank thee, O God, I am not like other men. But what godly man dares say to God, I have endeavoured my utmost de jure? The Lord give him grace fully and publicly to retract, and not to minse or excuse his pride in this particular, lest God one day show him to his cost the vanity of his former assertion and latter supposition, and he be found in the number of those righteous ones, who need no repentance of pardon, Matth. 3.13. Luk. 15.7.  
6. He humbly confesseth all their and his own sins (as Hezekiah) desiring true repentance, and a pardon for all his and their omissions.  
Answ. 1. If here he speak really, and confess and beg pardon for his Ministerial as well as personal omissions, I cannot but approve it as an act of humility after his former vaunting. But then note how he contradicts his former proud assertion (I wish his book and heart too were fuller of such contradictions, both for his own and his people's sake.) If he have done his utmost de jure, what need he desire pardon for his omissions? If he be guilty of too many omissions, how hath he endeavoured his utmost de jure?  
2. Will confession of our own and others sins serve the turn, without proportionable endeavour to reform ourselves and others in our places? What is this but to lie in the ditch and cry God help us? And if the unworthiest may enjoy the privileges of the most penitent and humble Christians, is this like to reform, or to harden them, as if they were as good as the best? Should a Physician thus venture the issue upon God, and give physic that might kill as well as cure, I think no wise man would judge it an act of faith, but of high presumption. on Should any only give warning of danger, and not labour actually what he could to prevent it, all his warning will not quit him of murder before God. Is crying after a wand'ring sheep enough to save it out of the pit? the Apostle Judas sure was of another mind, Judas vers. 23. pulling them out of the fire.  
3. What doth he in his confession and prayer for pardon, more than we do, be Communicants either really or visibly never so worthy in an Evangelicall sense? only here we go beyond him in our actual care and endeavour to fit all sorts for the Sacrament by personal and particular examination, counsel and prayer, which he doth not: yet he thinks he hath endeavoured his utmost de jure; we, though we do far more than Mr. H. are assured we fall very short of doing or endeavouring out utmost de jure, and believe that the best Minister under heaven never yet endeavoured his utmost de jure to fit his people for the Lords Supper. Upon all which accounts well weighed, I believe Mr. H. hath little cause to boast of his innocency, or bring that for an argument to justify his free admission, as he doth pag. 25.  
Two other considerations he is pleased to add ex abundanti: the first drawn from the command and good of coming, p. 25.  
For the Command, I ask, Where doth Christ command all to receive? If it be urged, He bid all the Apostles to receive,  
An. Were there no other Church members but the Apostles? what thinks he of Mark, Luke, Nathanael, and many other Disciples that received not?  
I, but he bid all present to receive, yea Judas himself.  
Ans. 1. Supposing Judas were present, he as well as the rest being an eminent professor. 2. A very knowing person. 3. Not legally convinced of scandal, I see not how he could have been denied the Sacrament.  
I, but the Apostle bids all members of the Church of Corinth come and receive.  
Ans. 1. Let him show that also if he can from the Text, 1 Cor. 11. 2. I am sure he convinces and threatens all that come unworthily, but I see not where he commands all to receive absolutely. 3. Why should Mr. H. or any put those asunder which God hath joined together; namely, examination and receiving. The Apostle 1 Cor. 11.28. says, Let a man examine himself and so let him eat; Mr. H. says, Let a man eat though he do not examine himself.  
Object. Upon this account a natural man also should not attend the Word preached, since he cannot hear it worthily before conversion.  
Answ. Not so, the Word is the instrument of conversion, so not the Sacrament, therefore natural men as well as others must hear that, but may not receive this. And this leads me to answer the other branch of his first Argument drawn from the good of coming, because its a means by which they who want grace may receive it, etc.  
Answ. 1. An Ordinance may be a means of grace in order either to conversion or edification. In order to conversion we deny that actual receiving is a means of grace: In order to edification, we acknowledge it to be a singular means of grace to the worthy receiver; but what is this to Mr. H. his purpose?  
If he say, The Word and Prayer in order to consecration may convert.  
Answ. That we deny not, and therefore here permit a freer dimission then M. H. namely, both for children, distracted and excommunicated persons to attend the Sacrament; but not actually to receive till they be actually capable as persons visibly worthy.  
2. Want of grace is either gradual and sensible, or total and insensible. The Sacrament (as before) is an especial means of grace for the former, but not for the latter. But this will come hereafter to be disputed in its proper place, which makes me here to pass it over only with a touch. By the way let the Reader observe these words of Mr. H. pag. 26.  
Though we may scruple how an unregenerate man can receive it as a pledge, yet as it is a means whereby grace is conveyed, there is no difficulty.  
Doth not the former branch justify what hath formerly been proved, that the Lords Supper being a special pledge of grace, may not be applied to one visibly unworthy? and where is Mr. H. then (himself being judge) if we prove it's no means of grace in order to conversion? But that work I shall suspend till I come to clear the grand objection about the converting power of the Sacrament.  
His last supernumerary Argument is drawn from the evil of omission, ibid. This he confirms from the parallel neglect of Circumcision and the Passeover, of which whosoever were guilty were in danger to be cut off.  
An. There's a wide difference between not receiving and neglecting of the Sacrament; the latter is a great sin, so not the former. Nor doth that man, who being convinced of his present unfitness, forbears receiving, sin as a neglector, but rather shows his high respect of the Sacrament.  
For his instance from Matth. 22. it hath been answered already. Only where now he adds, That those which came not to the Feast were destroyed.  
Answ. In that he goes beyond the Text, which says indeed, that they who murdered his servants were destroyed; not so of the rest, but only that they were excluded the Supper. And though it be a truth by consequence they were destroyed, as being judicially deprived of Christ and of his grace, yet that makes not for, but against Mr. Humphrey, and shows clearly that by that Marriage Feast is not meant the lords Supper, there being many saved who never taste of the Lords Supper, but none can be saved who taste not of the Marriage Feast.  
Whereas therefore he adds in the same Paragraph, They are most unworthy of all who come not in to the Supper.  
Answ. 1. It will not hold water on either hand, since 1. Those who murdered the Servants that invited them were more unworthy. 2. If we may judge by the penalty, he that came without the Wedding Garment was more unworthy, the neglecters being for present only deprived of the Supper, but he bond hand and foot and cast into utter darkness, Matthew 22.13. 2. Dare Master Humphrey say they are unwornthy who come not always to the Lords Supper? May not some scruple of conscience, yea sometimes worldly occasions, justly excuse a person for not coming? But I am sure he that comes not to the Marriage Feast is always unwornthy; another clear evidence that by the Marriage Feast is not meant the Lords Supper.  
To draw then to a close of our answer to his first part, In opposition to Mr. H. his assertion, pag. 26, 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; true, but first they must be prepared. All must be admitted to receive; true, but first they must be visibly worthy. We keep not any away for fear of accident all scandal, or of committing an uncertain sin, in the doing, as Mr. H. would make the world believe pag. 26. (I speak as to the rule we walk by, for what particular men upon occasion may do through weakness or otherwise, I am no Patron of that) but to prevent certain scandal by the admission of persons visibly unworthy, as also the sin and ruin of unworthy receivers, who being admitted, would murder Christ, and eat and drink judgement to themselves; as also our own partaking with other men's sins, and bring accessary to the ruin of their poor souls: from all which guilt I beseech the Lord to free Mr. Humphrey, and others of his mind and practice, who by this lose principle of free admission, etc. have laid the axe to the root of reformation. And whereas he is pleased to charge us in a rhetorical way, as doing evil (by suspending from the Sacrament) that good may come of it, and that therefore our damnation is just, We shall make no other return but this, to beseech God to forgive him, as we hearty do, this bitter spirit of censoriousness.  
Whatever therefore he may think of the child of his own begetting, as appears by that expression in the foot of the same Page, I will not give you my reasons by the heap, but by the weight, I leave it to the indifferent Readers judgement, whether Mr. H. be not better at number then at weight. For my own part, I conceive that one good argument (which makes no number) would have weighed far more in the balance of the Sanctuary, and of solid reason, than all his eight arguments heaped up together.  
I like his caution in the close, That no man take occasion from hence to presume; but I fear one single caution will not be able either to prevent or redress the Tithe of that mischief which is in part already and every day will be more and more wrought by his eight Arguments.  
And here I should lay down my weapons, but that I perceive he is resolved upon a skirmish after the pitched battle. Haply he may be better at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than he hath been at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Too many in our days are better at pulling down then at building up; I shall make bold to try whether Mr. H. be of the number. Nor shall I blame him if he pull down only rotten houses, provided he hurt not himself or his neighbours by their downfall.  

The second part answeered.  
PAssing his premonitory Preface, I come directly to his Objections & Answers. The Doctrine of free admission will take away the use of the keys, excommunicate Excommunication, and leave us no Discipline in the Church.  
Obj. 1 This Objection I conceive Mr. H. might have spared, there being no great strength in it against free admission, in his sense, which admits not excommunicated persons.  
Yet withal I must tell him, that his satisfaction of the objection is unsatisfactory, and not we, but himself will be found guilty of false surmises about Excommunication and Suspension.  
And here I value not what the Objection surmises, since Mr. H. may frame it as he please, and so make it surmise what he will: but if thereby he intends to insinuate, that we look at Church Discipline as lying solely in Suspension, I must tell him, he acts not the part of a fair respondent. 1. Therefore for negative Suspension (which is a bare non-admission) we account it no part of Church Discipline, no more than himself doth the non admission of Infants or mad folk. 2. For positive Suspension (whereby 1. Persons upon trial found unworthy by the Eldership. 2. Persons who obstinately refuse trial, yet will obtrude themselves upon the Sacrament, are by vote of the Eldership denied participation) this we say is an act of Church Discipline, and a lesser degree of Excommunication, whereof I conceive there is a threefold degree, 1. From private communion, 2 Thess. 3.14. 2. Not only from private but also from Sacramental Communion, 1. Cor. 5.11. Eating there being extended to Sacramental eating as well as domestical eating; as is cleared by the Antiquaerist in his Vindication or Answer to Suspension suspended, to which therefore I refer. 3. From Church membership, Mat. 18.17, 18. & 1 Cor. 5.5.  
Yet withal I add, this positive susspension is not issued out against any, unless by their obstinacy they force the Eldership to it. For 1. if a person upon trial be found ignorant, the Eldership doth not presently proceed to Suspension, but entreat him to forbear a Sacrament or two, till he have attained to some competency of knowledge, in order whereunto they give him direction, and offer him their assistance. If for all this he thrust himself upon the Sacrament, they desire him to forbear, and tell him they dare not admit him till more capable. And lastly, if all this will not serve, they are forced to issue out a Vote of Suspension, which yet I believe is very rare, since too many suspend themselves by keeping away because they will not be tried. 2. If a person be found scandalous, they admonish him being before them, if he profess repentance, and be willing to give satisfaction, they dare not refuse him: otherwise they proceed with him as with the former after conviction. And if the sin and scandal be great, and aggravated by obstinacy, they proceed not only to Suspension, but also to dismembership. Having given this account of out judgement and practice, let us weigh Mr. H. his judgement about Church Censures.  
Pag. 31. He saith, They are punishments upon scandalous persons (after a legal conviction) whereby they are debarred from Christian society in general.  
Answ. 1. In this description he surmises amiss, by omitting one main end of Church Censures, namely the amendment of the party censured, 1 Cor. 5.5.  
2. In restraining them only to scandalous persons as to practice, which are extendible to any wilful sinner; and if persons wilfully ignorant be not wilful sinners, I know not who are, 2 Pet. 3.5.  
3. In debarring persons censured of all Christian society in general. And here I challenge Master Humphrey and all the world to show me any one place in Scripture, which requires that persons excommunicated should not be present at any public Ordinance. I grant, that by Excommunication they are made as Heathen and Publicans, and are in status quo no Church members, Matth. 18.17. but I see no place that proves persons out of the Church may not be present at any public Ordinance. I am sure 1 Corinth. 14.24, favours the contrary. He is therefore much mistaken about us, who neither shut the Church doors nor the Chancel doors against any person censured, but admit them to be present at all Ordinances; nor do we believe their presence will leaven any, since spiritual defilement is not contracted by presence, but by connivance or imitation, etc. And therefore if any gratify profane persons, it must be they who exclude from all Ordinances, not we who admit them to be present at all Ordinances, though we restrain them from actual receiving, and that upon very weighty reasons, yet withal let me tell Mr. Humphrey that he is mistaken in saying, pag. 32. That profane persons never care to come to the Sacrament. Did he never hear of poor ignorant and profane creatures, that must needs come and eat their Maker at Easter especially? or is he only a stranger in Israel, and knows not these things? May not ignorant and profane ones desire the Sacrament partly out of custom and fashion, partly because they apprehend its a disgrace for them to be turned away, and for many such trivial grounds?  
For his second snrmise, pag. 32. That Suspension is instituted only in reference to the Ordinances, to keep them pure and holy, if the Sacrament especially would he defied otherwise to the Receivers.  
Answ. 1. We think the Ordinances are defiled only to those who use them sinfully. 2. That persons are defiled not by presence with unworthy Receivers, but by partaking in their sins. 3. That they partake in the sins of unworthy Receivers, who do not their duty to reform them, or to keep them from receiving in case they will not be reform.  
It's therefore false which he asserts, pag. 32. That Church Censures concern not those who are admitted to the Ordinances, but are used in reference only to offenders, etc.  
For 1. It concerns all Church members in their places to look to it, that Church Censures be duly executed. 2. Their very execution doth much concern Church members, by fear to keep then from those inordinate courses which bring Church Censures upon others. And its considerable how he contradicts himself in the close of this paragraph, when he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the ends of Church Censures. And I appeal to all the world, whether admonition (which better renders the sense of the first Greek word) satisfying the Congregation, and warning or example, concern more of the Congregation but the parties offending?  
His third pretended surmise is, That we conceive there is a most near essential relation between this Excommunication and the Communion, as if it were a part of it, at least some necessary antecedent, as if the Sacrament could not be administered without it.  
Answ. 1. The Objection itself propounded pag. 30. and elevated to the height of Mr. Humphrey his design, infers no such mad consequence. For granting it were a truth, that free admission did takeaway the use of the Keys, etc. how doth it follow from thence, that there is an essential relation between Excommunication and the Communion? or (which is more gross) that Excommunication is a part of the Communion? Do not essentialiter relata put or take away each other? but doth the taking away of Excommunication take away the Communion? what is this, but to conclude that the admitting of all sorts to the Communion takes away the Communion? So belike there is a Communion which all partake of, and yet there is no Communion because all partake of it. Is not this excellent Logic? The Sun shines which all men see, and yet it doth not shine because all men see it. It's therefore both a false inference and an absurd falsity in itself, that there is an essential relation between Excommunication and the Coram union, since the Communion may be without Excommunication, and Excommunication without the Communion. (I speak as to matter of fact, not as to jus or fas, for I believe all Ordidinances should be maintained in the Church, yet withal that the absence of one Ordinance doth not null another.) There is indeed a near relation between the Communion and Excommunication in point of duty, since we must not separate those things which God hath joined (God having commanded all his Ordinances to be used) but not in point of being or existence, since they depend not so one upon the other, that all must needs be abolished if one be universally neglected.  
The latter surmise framed by Mr. H. is fare more absurd, as if either we or the objection by him propounded made Excommunication a part of the Communion. What is this but a contradiction in terminis, to make keeping from the Sacrament a part of the Sacrament, or keeping from receiving a part of receiving! From such receiving we shall suspend no unworthy person. We wish Mr. Humphrey much good with such contradictions, but desire him not to pin them upon our sleeve. 2. How follows it from the Objection that Excommunication is a part of Communion? The Argument must stand thus, If free admission to the Communion excommunicate Excommunication, than Excommunication is a part of the Communion; but free admission doth so. Ergo. Do not the Antecedent and the Consequent here hang together like ropes of sand? Is it not rather true, that if free admission to the Communion excommunicate Excommunication, than Excommunication is no part of the Communion? Is it not against nature for one part to excommunicate another?  
His distinction between acts of Discipline and acts of Worship makes little for his purpose. We grant them indeed to be distinct things; yet withal we add, that acts of Discipline are no bars to acts of Worship, excepting only actual receiving in the Sacrament; (If he please to call that an act of Worship) I must therefore pass his following discourse pag. 33. & 34. as wholly impertinent, and tell him, that the friends of Suspension are more both for Discipline and Worship than he is. 1. Because we are for all the parts and degrees of Discipline, he is only for some of them. 2. We exclude no excommunicated person from any part of public Worship but only from actual receiving; Contra, he excludes all excommunicate persons from all public acts of Worship, pag. 31.  
2 Object. The most of men are wholly unfit, and not capable of this Ordinance, as wanting both the preparatory and executory part, etc. therefore no free admission hither.  
Answ. I commend Mr. H. who will be sure to choose Adversaries weak enough: He may well say there is manifest weakness in this Argument. But he doth ill to right against our weakest Arguments, and then triumph as if we had no stronger.  
We have showed formerly, That fitness or unfitness absolutely considered is no rule for the Church's admission or suspension, but either of these as visible. We say not, that all who are unfit must be kept from the Sacrament, but only all who are visibly unfit. 2. That for the discerning of those who are visibly unfit, the Church must proceed by a rule to find them out. 3. That trial by examination of persons, and witness if need be, is a Scripture and approved rule. 4. That all are bound to submit either to public or private trial, as God offers occasion for either, when it may be for God's glory and their own or others edification, yea though it should tend to their outward prejudice, 1 Pet. 3.15. 5. That being discovered to be unfit, they ought to repent and study to be fit, but not to thrust themselves against light and conviction upon the Sacrament, When God says, Let a man so cat, 1 Cor. 11.28. how dares any man say, Let him eat though not so? 6. If notwithstanding persons visibly unfit will thrust themselves upon the Sacrament, it's the Church's duty not to let them eat and drink judgement to themselves, by murdering the Lord of glory, unless Mr. H. be of cain's Religion, that Church Officers are not their brethren's keepers, Genes. 4.9. Neither let him object, That then they may as well keep him from hearing, etc. for in part it hath, and (God willing) shall be more fully showed, that there is a wide difference between hearing and receiving.  
Now let's hear what Mr. H. hath to say against this Objection of his own framing.  
And first I thank him that pag 35. he lays down, That the Church can but look upon an outward capacity. He might have added (since contrariorum eadem est ratio) That the Church may also look upon and judge of outward incapacity, but see and judge of it they cannot without evidence and trial; therefore 3. They may inquire after persons capable or uncapable. 4. Since trial is in vain without execution, therefore they ought to admit all persons outwardly capable, and suspend all persons outwardly incapable; otherwise how shall they suspend (negatively at least) Infants, distracted and excommunicated persons?  
As to his three Answers, I answer briefly, 1. A natural man must hear, pray, etc. though he cannot do them rightly, because these are converting Ordinances, so is not the Lords Supper, I mean as to actual receiving; he may therefore hear, etc. but not receive. I wonder a wise man should mistake a mountain for a feather.  
2. It's true, every man must do what he can: but many things are naturally possible which are morally impossible; and thus I cannot do that which I may not, that is impossible which is unlawful. Let him prove that actual receiving is a debt on the part of a natural man, or that to admit a person visibly unworthy is a debt on the Church's part, and we shall be far enough from hindering any in the payment of their debts either to God or man.  
3. In his last Answer, though he have borrowed a good distinction from Master Pemble, yet he shuffles woefully in the application of it. In a legal sense no man is either worthy, or receives worthily; in an Evangelicall sense no man receives worthily, but he is a worthy Receiver, But I ask Mr. H. whether he dares apply either branch of this distinction to all whom he admits so freely? To come to his own words, Do all that he admits. 1. Labour their best to prepare their hearts. 2. Judge and humble themselves really before God. 3. Come to Christ heavy laden. 4. Look at themselves as dogs, and yet importune Christ for the crumbs of mercy? I say then he hath the worthiest Congregation in the world. 2. All his Communicants are not only worthy, bun eminently godly. But now to retort. How easy were it to evince the contrary against most whom he would have admitted. For 1. How many ignorant ones are therein our Congregations, that scarce know their right hands from their left in matters of Religion. 2. How many profane ones, swearers, drunkards, etc. 3. How many outwardly pious, who upon trial might easily be uncased, to live in some known sin. Each of these fearing (and that not without cause) to be uncased before the Eldership, no wonder they are so averse to trial, lest their sheep's clothing should be pulled off, and themselves discovered to be ignorant, profane, or hypocritical, critical, far enough from the forementioned graces of humility, repentance, and faith. If he object that such persons should be excommunicated, I answer, 1. Whoever deserve Excommunication, do much more deserve Suspension; and it seems then, that the Presbyterians offend rather in being too favourable then too rigid. 2. We deny not, but in case of obstinacy or foul scandal, dismembering may follow Suspension, the greater Excommunication the lesser. 3. I hope Mr. Humphrey is more charitable then to profess that all ignorant persons should be excommunicated. I am sure we are so charitable, as by Suspension to put them upon endeavours after knowledge, that they may be fitted for, and so comfortably admitted to the Sacrament, Which his free admission is not like to do; but rather to harden and flatter them in their ignorance.  
He notes well, pag. 37. That on the unworthy receivers part, the Ordinance is taken in vain, against the third Commandment. But whereas he adds, not so on the admitters part.  
Ans. The admitters having regularly the power of the Keys, if they admit persons visibly unworthy, are accessary to their guilt; as any one is an accessary in God's account, who prevents not the sin of his neighbour when he hath power to do it.  
3 Object. Holy things to holy men.  
An. I may say of this as of the former, There is little strength in it. Yet withal, Mr. H. his Answer falls short, and is too too feeble likewise. For 1. All outward holy things are not to be administered to all outwardly holy persons, since Infants and distracted persons (if Christians) are outwardly (yea divers of them inwardly) holy, yet by Mr. H. his vote are not capable of the Sacrament. 2. Some things outwardly holy may be administered to persons not so much as outwardly holy by profession, Mat. 28.19. & 1 Cor. 14.24. 3. What is bare profession if contradicted by profaneness? That which cannot secure a man from Excommunication, but rather makes him capable of it, much less can secure him against Suspension, an inferior Censure. But such is bare profession if accompanied with profaneness. 4. Many persons excommunicated do still profess, and so are outwardly holy, yet these Mr. H. will have excluded from all Ordinances. From all which I conclude, 1. That M. H. his Answer may vie with the Objection for weakness. 2. That M. H. here as well as other where contradicts himself, in saying that the same person at the same time must be admitted to all the Ordinances, and yet he must be admitted to none of the Ordinances; to all the Ordinances as a professor, to none of the Ordinances as excommunicated; a cruel assertion and a flat contradiction.  
For the Reply pag. 38, & 39 Do we not hereby make ourselves one with the wicked with whom we join and so have communion with Belial? His answer is good, That joining with a wicked man's person is not having communion with Belial, but accompanying of him in his evil ways.  
But our difference here with M. H. is not so much about joining with the wicked, as accompanying of him in his evil ways: It being first his sin to receive unworthily; Secondly, The people's sin who know him to be unworthy and do not inform the Church: Thirdly, The Church's fault if they study not the discovery of persons unworthy, or admit them to the Sacrament when visibly unworthy: Nor is presence with the wicked at Ordinances, but fostering of them in their sins, communion with Belial, which I wish too many do not fall into by this free admission, pleaded for with more strength of affection then power of conviction.  
We easily agree with him, That wicked persons in the Church, are in some sense in Christ and sanctified by him: But if this be enough for admission to the Lords Supper, then why doth himself shut the Chancel door (as he other where calls it) against Infants arid mad men, who are as much if not more in Christ, and as much if not more sanctified than the former, and against whom himself dares not shut the Church door. Therefore say I, if M. H. be really for free admission, let him excluded none out of the Chancel that are within die Church. For the places of Scripture that he quotes page 40. I am confident the Orthodox interpretation of them, will never open the Chancel to grossly ignorant or profane Church-members; the latter of which are so far from having right to be admitted into the Chancel, that they deserve to be shut out of the Church.  
To close up this third Objection: How gross is that assertion pag. 41. That there is an historical visible faith, that gives an outward Church-right unto the Elements.  
For than first excommunicated persons have a right to the Elements, who though cast out for their profaneness, have still an historical faith, since excommunication doth not deprive you of their historical faith, yet cuts them off 1. from visible Church-membership, 2. from visible Christ-membership.  
2. Saving faith itself doth not always give a right to the Elements (it being possible that a godly man for some foul scandal may be excommunicated) much less than doth visible historical faith, when contradicted especially by customary profaneness.  
3. As historical faith gives not a right to Christ (for that the devils have, james 2.19.) but the faith of adhesion seated in the will not in the understanding, so not visible historical faith, but visible faith of adhesion gives a Church-right to Christ sacramental, and should any man profess historical faith but protest against faith of adhesion, I appeal to M. H. his conscience, whether he durst admit such a wretch to the Sacrament. For my own part,, should any person profess, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, the only Saviour and Mediator between God and man, but I will not rest upon him for righteousness and salvation; let this man be never so pious outwardly, I should sooner admit a common adulterer, etc. then him.  
Objection 4. page 41. The Seal is set to a blank if be admitted.  
An. 1. For understanding this Objection the better, we must know, that what the Philosopher said in general, that Anima est rasa tabula, is too true of all men since the fall in order unto saving grace. They are Tabulae, as capable of the Spirits writing; they are rasae tabulae, which notes 1. They are naturally destitute of this writing. 2. This writing was razed out by Adam's fall, and thus all men naturally are blanks, in order to the writing of the new Covenant in their hearts: The similitude you have 2 Cor. 3.3. Heb. 8.10.  
2. This Blank is either visible or invisible. To God all blanks are visible, and he may use his liberty to set his seal where he pleases, by commanding to baptise all Infants of believing parents, etc. and to admit to the Lords Supper all visible Saints that are Church-members.  
The Question is then, Whether man may apply the Seals to visible blanks. It's clear he may not; for then Heathen themselves before instruction and profession, as also their Infants might be baptised. I assume, But there are visible blanks in the Church as well as in the world, namely persons that are as notoriously ignorant and profane as Heathen, and who if they had not been baptised in their infancy, should not be now admitted to baptism, without evidence first given of their knowledge and piety. Therefore say I, seeing (according to M. H. his own rule) Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti, they who at present would be uncapable of baptism had they not been baptised, are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper though baptised in their infancy. The Objection thus stated we conceive to be good: Let's see now what M. H. hath to object against it. I shall at present pass his first distinction as waved yet by himself.  
Page 41, and 42. He conceive it's a general mistake, that people take the Sacrament to be a Seal to their faith, and if there be m true faith, that it is set (they think) to a blanks.  
Answ. 1. Sacramental seals (as others) relate either to parties or to things. 1. To parties, namely the Covenanters on both parts, God and the creature in Covenant; from God to the creature they seal the Covenant of grace, from the creature to God they seal dutifulness and thankfulness. Here we say, the Church cannot apply the seals of the Covenant to any who are visibly out of the Covenant; but in our Congregations there are many grossly ignorant and profane persons visibly out of the Covenant. You will say, they are visibly in the Covenant as Church-members and professors though at large; True, but their visible profession is not equivalent to their visible ignorance and profaneness, no more than profession of honesty is to open cheating: as a cheater uncased loses the repute and privileges of an honest man, so an hypocrite uncased forfeits the privileges of his profession, and the Church both may and aught to take the forfeiture, till the breach made upon his profession be repaired by a new profession of his repentance and promise of reformation, yea and visible reformation too, so far as it can be had: and certainty, if such a person may be denied all public Ordinances (in M. H. his judgement) much more may he be denied one Ordinance. He that deserves the greater penalty, much more deserves the less.  
Secondly, To come nearer to his Answer: Sacramental Seals relate to things as well as to persons: And thus as Seals, 1. They confirm the Covenant. 2. They confirm the faith of the worthy receiver. 3. They confirm judgement to the unworthy receiver. To apply the distinction: 1. All sorts may be present to see the Covenant sealed. 2. None but persons Evangelically worthy may partake, these only having faith to be confirmed. 3. None visibly unworthy may by the Church be admitted to partake, as being visibly without faith, either in the habit or actings thereof; which last I note in reference to godly persons who sometimes may be justly either suspended or excommunicated. 4. Supposing they may be admitted on the Minister's part where the power of the Keys is imperfect, yet to clear his own soul the Minister is to deal plainly with every unworthy receiver, and let him know that he will but betray and murder Christ, as our Saviour did to judas (supposing he did receive,) and that the Sacrament which confirms other men's faith, will confirm his unbelief and seal judgement unto him. To sum up all: That which confirms or ratifies is tropically a Seal; but the Sacrament doth confirm faith and ratify the Covenant to faith, Ergo, It's both a seal of faith, and a seal to faith; & contra, where there is no faith to confirm, as to that particular it must needs seal to a blank, as sealing to a blank is a known expression to note the application of a seal to a paper that hath no writings, and where nothing is writ there nothing can be confirmed.  
2. That the Sacrament seals Christ's blood in particular for pardon to the receivers by virtue of its primitive institution, is evident by comparing Matth. 26.28. with Luk. 22.20. The latter place saith, This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you: the former place showeth for what end, namely for remission of sins. The language then of the Sacrament given to every receiver is; the body and blood of Christ is thine for the remission of thy sins, and how dares any Minister say or seal this to a person known to be grossly ignorant or profane?  
Pag. 42. God doth not attest our faith, but the truth of his own promises, but the Sacraments are Seals properly of the Covenant.  
Answ. 1. I know none so simple as to assert that God doth in terminis 
* My meaning is, the Sacrament doth not say in express terms thou Roger believest, no more than the word doth, but only by consequence.  attest our faith in the Sacrament, as M. H. seems to insinuate; the Sacrament doth not so attest but suppose and require faith, and then seals the Covenant to faith. 2. In vain doth it seal the Covenant, if to no persons: A Covenant cannot be but with some body, and if it be sealed it must be sealed to those with whom it is made: therefore the Covenant being sealed in the Sacrament, it must be sealed to some body, and sealed regularly it cannot be to those who visibly reject it: but grossly ignorant and profane persons uncased, do visibly reject the Covenant of grace, Ergo, the Covenant of grace cannot regularly be applied to them by the Seals. 3. If the Sacraments are seals properly of the Covenant, why may not Infants and distracted persons partake of them, who have a more visible right to it then grossly ignorant and profane persons have? 4. As the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant, so they may be applied to the Covenant before all, but the Covenant may not by them be applied or sealed to any but to persons visibly worthy. It's well therefore in the same page he corrects himself, and grants the Sacraments may be seals of our faith consecutiuè, because they confirm and strengthen faith: But he shuffles in saying, They are not formaliter, and in a true and proper sense seals unto any thing but the Covenant. In a proper sense a seal is an artificial thing fit to make a visible representation or impression and confirmation. This the Sacrament is not properly but figuratively to the Covenant itself, namely as it hath the office of a seal, which is to represent and confirm, and this it doth to faith as well as to the Covenant: For 1. As it represents the Covenant, it must needs represent faith as an especial branch promised in the Covenant. 2. As it confirms the Covenant, so it confirms faith gradually offered and promised in it, and thereby also confirms faith inherent in the worthy receiver, as a Bond sealed unto me confirms my belief that the particulars sealed unto shall be performed, and if this be not to seal in a formal and proper sense (theologically) I know not what is. And thus increase of faith and all other graces are sealed by the Sacrament to the worthy receiver, but neither the beginnings nor increase of faith are sealed to the unworthy receiver.  
Nor will his instance of Circumcision, pag. 43. help him as to the point in hand, since Circumcision was applied to none but visible Saints, either by Covenant, election, or by actual profession, not contradicted by living in scandalous sins, or notorious ignorance of the Covenant of grace, which is the rule we walk by in admission or non-admission.  
And as little advantage will his cause gain by his illustration (here again repeated) drawn from a Proclamation sealed and offered to rebels that refuse it. True, the similitude holds in some particulars: 1. The Covenant of grace is proclaimed by the Minister. 2. The truth of it is sealed by the Sacrament. 3. The benefits of it offered to all, and therefore we deny not but all sorts may be present at the Ordinance, as all rebels whether obstinate or submissive may be present at the Proclamation and sealing of a Pardon. But what is offering a sealed Pardon in general and conditionally, to the particular application and sealing of the same Pardon to singular persons? Or how can a Commissioner without breach of his trust, assure (either by word of mouth or seal.) pardon to a Traitor that visibly stands out against his Prince? In like manner at the Sacrament, not only the Elements do represent and seal the Covenant of grace as to its truth in general, but some of the Sacramental actions (as giving and receiving) do particularly apply it to every receiver: And how dares any Minister, having regular power to deny it, by word and seal apply the Covenant of grace to any person that visibly rejects it? To illustrate this by the initial Sacrament; Baptism when ever administered, seals the Covenant of grace as well as the Lords Supper; but only to the person baptised doth it make particular application of the Covenant, and therefore cannot be applied to any unbaptized person that is visibly out of the Covenant, be he born of Heathen or of Christian Parents: But all who are visibly in the state of nature are visibly out of the Covenant, and such are grossly ignorant, and scandalous persons wilfully persisting in both. Since therefore both Sacraments seal one and the same Covenant, he who should not be admitted to the first were he unbaptised, must not pari ratione be admitted to the second though baptised.  
Page. 44. Rep. by M. H. But is it not alsurd for a man to set his seal where there hath been no agreement and transactions before, etc. M. H. grants its absurd on the receivers part; but as for the Minister or Church who offer it as a seal on God's part, there is a true seal to a true copy, and nothing out of order.  
Answ. There's nothing out of order if the Minister proceed not to delivery of the writing and seal to those who visibly refuse the Covenant offered. But should M. H. or any else deliver a purchase sealed to a person who refused the bargain, let himself be Judge whether it were not an act both disorderly and imprudent: And as disorderly is it to deliver unto any person bond and seal for the promised Land who visibly prefers Egypt and Babylon before it. God will not Ministers should deliver precious pearls to such swine.  
What he adds Pag. 45. is also weak, in which respect he doth well to cover the nakedness of it with a blind and misty parenthesis. His words are these: As they are Gods seals, for the same reason they cannot be seals of faith, because God seals not imaginably to our part of the Covenant which is faith.  
Answ. 1. Both the assertion itself and its reason are false. For  
First, Are they not Gods seals, 1. As relating to God's Covenant. 2. As instituted by God himself to ratify his Covenant.  
Secondly, Is not faith itself and every saving grace promised in the New Covenant? unless M. H. will professedly turn Pelagian, and make faith only the birth of man's freewill.  
Thirdly, 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? Not a seal from faith authoritatively as from God, but a seal of faith as a branch of the Covenant promised, and as a seal to faith actually laying hold on the Covenant. If the Covenant of grace undertake not for our part of the Covenant, we are in a worse condition now under the Covenant of grace than we were under the Covenant of works, since then Adam had perfection of grace to back freewill; but in fallen man freewill either hath no grace inherent, or but weak grace to act it, and impossible were it for any either to convert or persevere, unless God undertaken both for the infusion and supporting of grace.  
Object. If faith and grace be a part of the Covenant that is sealed by the Sacrament, than the best way were free admission, that the Covenant, and so faith itself may be sealed to all.  
Answ. Not so: For 1. Though the Covenant offer grace to all conditionally, yet it promiseth not grace absolutely to any but the elect and persons effectually called: to the first it promiseth initial grace, to the latter it promiseth progress and perseverance in grace. Now the seal can secure no more than what is in the writing: but saving grace is not absolutely promised to all, in the Covenant, ergò it cannot be sealed to all in the Sacrament. The offer of grace indeed is sealed to all present whether they receive it or no; but the promise of grace can be sealed to none but the Legatees of the new Covenant, and such are only persons elected or effectually called, understand me here as to the spiritual and saving branches of the Covenant: and that is done on God's part every Sacrament.  
Secondly, As for the Church and the Minister, who cannot judge infallibly who are elected and effectually called, they must proceed by the rule of visibility, sealing the promises by the Sacrament, to them and them only who upon just trial tempered with charity appear to be visible Legatees. And as Christ himself respects not good words and outward profession when contradicted by our carriage, Matth. 7.21, 22, 23. no more must the Church when men's carriage doth visibly contradict their profession.  
Thirdly, The Lord's Supper being a Sacrament of nourishment, seals not properly initial, but progressive grace; nor can the Church apply it for conversion but edification: and how are they capable of edification in grace who are destitute of all grace, or of visible edification who are destitute of visible grace?  
Fourthly, In the Lord's Supper, not only sanctification but also the comforts of the Covenant are sealed to the receivers, but how can the comforts of holiness be sealed to unholy persons, or by the Minister applied to those who are visibly unholy, Ezek. 13.19, 21.  
Pag. 46. He speaks clearly and truly, That an unregenerate man cannot receive the Sacrament as a seal of his faith. For how can faith be sealed to where it is not? But what follows immediately, Yet the Church can give it as a seal of the Covenant, is either ambiguous or false; 
Gal. 3.1.  ambiguous if he take giving for giving out or holding forth, for thus Christ may be given to all, whether they receive or no; but this is nothing to his purpose, and proves only that all may be present, but not that all may receive. It's false if understood of the delivery of the Elements to all persons who may be present. 1. In Mr. Humphrey his sense, who cannot Scripturally or rationally exclude either Infants, distracted or excommunicated persons from presence, yet will not admit them actually to receive. 2. It's false in our sense, who can admit either ignorant or scandalous persons to be present, but neither of them to receive.  
His illustration ibid. drawn from the Word preached, makes against him if rightly stated. True, there may be true preaching, though the hearers apply not the Word by faith. But can there be true preaching, where the Minister applies the Word wrong, binding where he should lose, and losing where he should bind with the Key of Doctrine? No more doth that Minister do his duty, who in the Lord's Supper loses where he should bind, and seals comfort to him who is not a visible Saint.  
Whereas in the close of pag. 46. he would make us believe there is not one tittle of Scripture to prove the Sacraments to he man's seals,  
Answ. 1. He speaks darkly and ambiguously, as if he would make us believe they were not man's seals because they are Gods seals; by which Logic he might as well prove the Sabbath were not man's because it is Gods, and the Gospel were not man's because it is Gods, yea that nothing were man's because all things were Gods, as if humane propriety contradicted Divine Supremacy.  
2. If he mean the Sacraments are not man's seals by institution, That is true, but nothing to his purpose. The broad seal is not mine by institution, yet I may truly say the broad seal is mine, when I have a patent or pardon sealed by it.  
3. Doth not the final cause give as true propriety as the efficient, nay usually more? A seal, a suit, an house, etc. is more his for whom it is made, than his that makes it. God indeed hath a double propriety in the Sacrament, as made both by him and for him, namely to seal his Covenant, etc. but it being made for man also, man hath a true propriety in it, as he for whom either a seal or a meal is made, hath in both. It's ridiculous therefore he would seem at least to assert, The Sacraments are not man's seals, and yet grant pag. 47. They are man's seals in use. Doth he not know that a Sacrament extra usum hath no being, and so is neither God's seal nor man's seal? and that in use it is both God's seal and man's seal, a seal from God to man, and from man to God?  
The Covenant indeed stands sealed by God to all conditionally, but will that acquit the Church in delivering the signs to all, as Mr. H. would have it pag. 47. Then why may not even Heathen or excommunicated persons receive, to whom the Covenant is offered and sealed conditionally?  
Again, That the tenor of the Gospel is sealed absolutely by the Sacrament, but not our interest in it, as he notes in the same page, is true in the first branch, but false in the second, since not only the tenor of the Covenant is sealed absolutely to the worthy Receiver, but also his interest in it. 2. To those who are visibly worthy, the Minister seals their visible interest; which visible interest, because some in the Church have not, therefore the Minister cannot seal it to them by giving them the Elements, but by consecration and application of the Sacrament to others before their eyes, doth seal even to the standers by the tenor of the Gospel in the Lord's Supper, as well as in Baptism. In both Sacraments the offer of grace is sealed to all, yea even to Heathen etc. but real interest is sealed only to real Saints and worthy Receivers, as visible interest to visible Saints.  
Grant the Word speaks not particularly of any man's single interest by name▪ yet it doth by signs, and whosoever finds those signs in himself, hath as true an interest in the Covenant, as if he were mentioned in it by name. The Scripture faith not particularly of Mr. H. that he shall rise at the day of judgement, yet I hope Mr. H. doubts not of his resurrection in particular: nor doth the Scripture say Mr. H. shall be saved, yet if Mr. H. have saving faith, it doth as particularly assure him of salvation, as if he were mentioned by name, etc. Now the seals run parallel with the Covenant, and assure conditional salvation to all, visible salvation to visible Saints, real salvation to real Saints, to the first by the outward administration, to the second by visible application, to the third by real and spiritual application.  
Whereas therefore page 48. Mr. H. pleaseth himself with this Embryon of his own brain, which being formerly conceived by a piercing and godly man converted his opinion, as he says.  

And, if I mistake not, this piercing godly man is far from Mr. H. his judgement of free admission.  Ans. 1. I hope that godly person (if so) was converted before Mr. Humphrey his Embryon was hatched. 2. I see little of conversion or piety in admitting all pell mel to the Sacrament. 3. I wish his conversion by entertainment of this opinion, be not like that of the Galatians. It's a common error in these lose times, to mistake perversion for conversion: Such conversion calls for repentance, which I wish to this godly man.  
For further confirmation, pag. 48. he propounds the tenor of the Covenant in a syllogism, thus, He that believes shall be saved; add, I believe, Ergo, I shall be saved. Then he denies that the Sacrament seals either the minor or the conclusion.  
Answ. The Sacrament seals what the Covenant of grace promises, but the Covenant of grace promises (and not only offers) salvation to particular persons, Rom. 10.9. That if thou shalt confess, etc. thou shalt be saved. This is evident by the promise of salvation to believers in general, Mark. 16.16. John 3.16. What is promised to a whole kind, is promised to every particular of that kind. Let Mr. H. tell me how the Sacrament seals the offer of grace to him in particular, and I will tell him how it may also seal the promise of grace or salvation to him or any else in particular. Where is it said in Scripture, I offer to thee John Humphrey Minister of Froome, etc. grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; will Mr. H. yet deny the offer of grace is made as particularly to him, as if he had been named in Scripture? Or where is it said, Thou John Humphrey shalt not commit adultery, etc. yet doth not that command reach him as particularly as if he were named? He that says, Omnis homo est animal rationale, doth he not as truly say that Mr. H. is Animal rationale, as if he had mentioned him by name? In like manner, when the Scripture says, All that believe shall be saved, doth it not say, that Mr. H. believing shall be saved? If therefore Mr. H. de facto do believe, it promises salvation as particularly to him as if he were mentioned by name; or that I believing shall be saved, as if my name were in the promise. Where the condition is performed, there the promise is absolute; but when I believe, the condition is performed, Ergo, the promise, That I shall be saved, is absolute. This premised, I resume, What the Covenant promiseth, that the Sacrament seals. The Covenant promises that I shall be saved in particular, Ergo, the Sacrament seals that I shall be saved in particular: But this is the conclusion which Mr. H. denied to be sealed by the Sacrament.  
Next for the minor of his syllogism namely, That I believe, I shall prove against him, that this is also sealed in the Sacrament, not to all Receivers, but to all worthy Receivers, thus, as formerly, What the Covenant ensures, that the Sacrament seals; the Covenant assures me that I believe; Ergo, the Sacrament seals to me that I believe. The minor, which only is questionable, I prove thus: That which gives to me clear evidence that I believe, that assures me I believe. The Covenant gives me clear evidence that I believe; Ergo. The minor is good, because the Covenant affords infallible signs and evidences of faith in what heart soever it is; and so of faith in my heart particularly, or in any other heart whatsoever. As therefore by the properties of a man, I may know myself to be a man, so by the properties of faith held forth in the Covenant, I may know myself to have faith. That Gospel which says, He who receives Christ for righteousness, etc. believes, the same Gospel says, That I receiving Christ for righteousness do believe, and so by consequence it faith absolutely, that I believe. But what the Covenant affirms, that the Sacrament seals or ratifies; namely, that I believe in particular. And this is the minor which Mr. H. denies to be sealed by the Sacrament.  
For clearer explication, consider that the minor or assumption of the Syllogism of assurance depends partly upon faith, and partly upon sense or experience; upon faith, that the evidence is right in actu signato, and not a false evidence; upon sense or experience, in actu exercito, that this right evidence is in me. For as a false evidence in me, so a right evidence without me, are both equally null and invalid as to assurance. For example, Would I know my faith is right, and thereby come to assurance that I am in the state of grace? I must look into the Word by a direct act of my understanding for a true and undoubted evidence of faith, and into mine own heart by a reflex act, whether that true evidence of saving faith be indeed in me. As in the Syllogism of assurance about my particular resurrection at the day of judgement, the major, That all men shall rise, is in terms in Scripture: the minor, That I John or Roger am a man, is not expressly in Scripture, but depends partly upon faith, as to the essential notes of a man recorded in Scripture, partly upon sense, I finding by a reflex act, that those essential signs of humanity are in me; from both which the conclusion flows necessarily, that I in particular shall rise at the day of judgement. And indeed, had not a conclusion drawn partly from faith and partly from sense been firm, Christ's apparitions had not been a solid argument to confirm the resurrection, which yet he proves partly by Scripture out of Moses, the Prophets and Psalms; partly by sense and experience, Luk. 24 39, 46. and though it be possible in some cases sense may be deceived, yet a man in his right wits may easily know that hic & nunc sense is not deceived: And were not this true, no man could possibly be convinced of his estate, or that he is a sinner, or that his life is frail and short, or that faith and repentance is his duty, or any other Divine truth that concerns himself in particular, since it's no where said in Scripture, Thou Roger art a sinner, thy life in particular is frail and short, faith and repentance is thy duty; but all these in Scripture are expressed only in general terms. Yet I hope it's as true de fide that faith and repentance is my duty, as if the Scripture should say, Thou Roger must believe and repent, etc. The major then in the Syllogism of assurance is in terms de fide. The minor also (as to the truth of the evidence) is expressly de fide, but as to the inbeing of the evidence, it depends upon sense and experience; the conclusion is de fide by necessary consequence, though not in express terms. Now whatsoever is de fide, that is sealed in the Sacrament; so are all three Propositions in the Syllogism (though the minor is partly of faith and partly of sense) therefore all three Propositions of the Syllogism of assurance are sealed by the Sacrament; contrary to Mr. H. his Assertion. And since the minor in the Syllogism of assurance (namely, that I believe) is the conclusion in the pros-Syllogisme, it follows necessarily, that this Proposition (I believe) is de fide by consequence, though not de fide in terms.  
Object. The Sacrament supposeth assurance, and therefore doth not work assurance; It supposeth I believe and repent (which therefore must be made out by previous examination) doth not evidence that I believe and repent, and therefore doth not seal the minor or assumption in the Syllogism of assurance.  
Answ. 1. As the Sacrament works grace, so it works assurance of grace, and as it is a means of grace, so it is a means of assurance. Now 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, partly by acting grace, and partly by holding forth, applying, and sealing the promises of the Covenant to every worthy Receiver. What therefore the Word doth audibly (in order to confirmation) that the Sacrament doth visibly; what the Word applies generally, that the Sacrament applies particularly; what the Word applies by one sense, that the Sacrament applies by all our senses, and therefore must needs be a more powerful means of assurance than the Word. The Word indeed is the instrumental cause of initial grace, and ordinarily of initial assurance: but the Sacrament may be sometimes the means of initial assurance, and ordinarily is the means and instrument of progressive assurance. My meaning is, that whosoever comes to the Sacrament rightly prepared, having both truth of grace and the evidence of grace, this man or woman shall go away from the Sacrament with more degrees of grace, and clearer evidence of grace; and he or she that comes to the Lords Supper with the worthiness of person, and of preparation, though haply he may want evidence, yet may go away from the Sacrament triumphing in the assurance of God's love. He that comes to the Sacrament with the Prophet's fear, I am undone, etc. may go away from it with this assurance, Thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged, Isa. 6.5, 7. As I at the Sacrament assure God of my obedience, so God at the Sacrament assures me of his love; and if I be real in my assurance as to uprightness, God is as real in his assurance as to my comfort, Psal. 18.25. God in an especial manner in the Sacrament delights to show himself upright with the upright; and than if ever leads his Spouse into the wine cellar or banqueting house, and spreads his banner of love over her, Cant. 2.4. When she is sick of love, than he stays her with flagons, and comforts her with apples; His left hand is under her head, and his right hand doth embrace her. Then in an especial manner he kisseth her with the kisses of his mouth, Cant. 1.1. and though Judas did, Jesus will never give a treacherous kiss.  
The major himself grants is sealed in the Sacrament, the minor and conclusion we have proved to be sealed in the Sacrament. Whereby it appears that the whole Syllogism of assurance is sealed by the Sacrament to the worthy Receiver, but only the major Proposition to persons really unworthy. Withal, hereby it is evident, that the Sacrament is not only Gods seal, but also the seal of faith and of the believer, whatever Mr. H. pretends to the contrary. And so I pass to the fifth Objection, pag. 49.  
Object. 5. The Covenant belongs not to all, therefore the Seals neither.  
Mr. H. answers, The Covenant belongs to all conditionally, according to the tenor of the Gospel, that whosoever believes shall be saved.  
Answ. So the Sacrament belongs to all conditionally, but only to worthy Receivers absolutely. Pag. 50. he saves me a labour, and answers himself in these words, If you will resolve to accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour, to forsake sin, etc. lo here is the seal of God on his part, etc. Here indeed he shows, That as the Covenant, so the Sacrament belongs to all conditionally. But what if most do not, will not accept of Christ, etc. (which is de facto the case of grossly ignorant and profane persons) will Mr. H. invite these also to receive the Seals together with the former?  
Hear him in his own words, pag. 51. To speak sincerely, if we should propose two men, one that is not in Covenant with Christ, and one that is, this Sacrament doth more ingenuously belong unto the first, etc. If this be not a rare and new Light, I know not what is. Now you have the man painted by himself in his own colours. Come ye drunkards, whoremasters, murderers, and all the rabble of hell, here is sincere and comfortable Doctrine for you indeed, The Sacrament doth more ingenuously belong to you then to any that are in covenant with Christ. I but Mr. H. means this, in case they now resolve to enter into Covenant with Christ, ibid. Absurd, and a contradiction in adjecto, as if he who in truth resolves to enter into Covenant with Christ, were not at that very instant in covenant with Christ. He would say, if he could hit it, The Sacrament belongs more properly to weak then to strong believers: but by an ill gloss he corrupts the Text, and instead of a weak believer renders one out of Covenant, and for a strong believer, one in Covenant. We grant, the duty of the Covenant belongs to all, but not the promise of the Covenant till its duty be performed. In like manner, preparation belongs to all, but not actual receiving till that duty be performed. All are not bid to eat absolutely, but so to eat, 1 Cor. 11.28.  
In the same page by distinguishing the Covenant from its benefit, he seems to make a distinction without a difference, as if the benefit of the Covenant were not an essential part of the Covenant. Haply by Covenant he means the duty or condition of the Covenant which indeed is of epidemical concernment: yet because in the same place he speaks of a free tender and offer; that crosses this construction, and seems to carry it, that by Covenant there, must be meant the benefit of the Covenant which is tendered conditionally to all; but than what sense can be made of his distinction, The benefit of the Covenant belongs not to any out of Christ, but the Covenant itself belongs to all, that is, the benefit of the Covenant (as his sense carries it) belongs to all? Is not here a contradiction in terminis? The benefit of the Covenant belongs not to any out of Christ, yet the benefit of the Covenant belongs to all. If it belongs to all, how doth it not belong to any out of Christ? contrà, if it belongs to none out of Christ, how doth it belong to all? But no wonder he falls into self-contradiction, who will venture to contradict the truth.  

Rep. He would say Sacrament.  But what right doth this give him to the Covenant? Pag. 52. M. H. distinguisheth of a right of Obligation and a right of Privilege; and as to the former he there avouches an Universal right to every Ordinance, they being duties of worship which is of universal command: for proof he quotes, Isa. 66.23.  
Answ. If all be bound to come without exception, then why doth himself exclude children and distracted persons?  
Secondly, All Christians have a mediate, but only prepared Christians an immediate right to the Sacrament, as all Israel had a mediate, but only purified persons an immediate right to the Passeover, Numb. 9.10.  
Thirdly, All are obliged to every part of worship, but 1. Not at all times, since affirmative precepts bind not ad semper. 2. Not in all cases, as an unconverted person is not bound to praise God for his conversion, etc. which he hath not.  
To apply the distinction: The time of every Sacrament is not a fit season for every person, whether it be by his own default, or by divine providence. 2. In case of present incapacity, receiving, though an act of worship, is not sinfully omitted unless that omission be joined with contempt of the Ordinance. His quotation is rather a prediction then a command; and supposing it be both, yet it must be understood with the forementioned limitations.  
Fourthly, In a strict sense, Actual receiving is not an act of worship, no more than preaching, consecrating and distributing the Elements is. And if it be not properly an act of worship, than his argument falls of itself: or if it be in a large sense (as the other acts forementioned) yet by them its apparent that all persons are not obliged to all acts of worship, since only Ministers may preach, baptise, consecrate and give the Elements, which yet in some respect are acts of worship.  
What he adds in the same Paragraph about a poor souls doubting of his right to the Sacrament, yet resolved to give up himself to Christ, makes little for his purpose: the Question is, Whether any not resolving to give up himself to Christ, aught to receive; and whether upon his visible refusal to give up himself to Christ, the Minister is bound to give unto him the symbol of Christ?  
Object. 6 The Sacrament is not a converting, but a confirming Ordinance. Ergo.  
Answ. This indeed is one of our grand arguments against free admission, and if it be not Cannon-proof our cause must needs be in a great deal of hazard; it concerns us therefore to make it good against all M. H. his battery.  
Now for overthrow of this Argument, he pretends that our Divines look at Baptism as converting, the Lords Supper as edifying, pag. 53. The former he willingly assents to, etc.  
The Question is not what some Divines hold, but what they should hold. For our parts, we believe no Sacrament, understand it as received, is a means of Regeneration, but only of confirmation and edification: and supposing Baptism be called the Laver of Regeneration, Titus 3.5. which yet the place proves not; it's only so by way of signification and obsignation, not by way of causality. In regeneration and conversion the Word is writ in our hearts, but can any man either Scripturally or rationally, make the seal the cause of the writing? Is it not evident that Baptism doth not cause but presuppose conversion? Acts 2.42. yea and profession too in adult is, Acts 8.37. and is called by Divines the Seal of Initiation, not as it initiates us into a state of saving grace, but into the body of the visible Church, and as it may seal the truth and benefit of Regeneration to persons converted, but not work Regeneration where it is wanting. Passing therefore his flourish of denomination à parte eminentiori, let us see how he proves the Sacrament to be converting.  
His main Argument is, 
Pag. 55.  Because the Sacrament is a visible word holding forth Christ and the Covenant to the sight, as the Gospel doth to the hearing. And pag. 56. The Sacrament shows forth Christ's death, 1 Cor. 11.20. Therefore as it doth so, it is undoubtedly converting.  
Answ. Doth not M. H. know, that at the Sacrament there is a mixture of several Ordinances, as prayer, preaching or opening the words of institution, amp; c. And that those may be effectual means of conversion we deny not; upon which account we judge it fitting, that whoever will may be present at the Lords Supper as well as at Baptism. But the great Question is, Whether actual receiving be a converting Ordinance? And here we challenge the challenger, to give any one instance of a person converted by receiving the Lords Supper; or to make proof that the act of receiving doth convert. The Sacrament indeed is food to nourish, but where is it called an immortal seed to beget any to Christ?  
For his gloss page 56. There is in the Sacrament a Take for conversion, and an Eat for nourishment, It is gratis dictum, and would make against the conversion of the Apostles who were commanded to take as well as to eat, yet I hope they were not in an unconverted condition. 2. Taking and eating do both imply and call for acts of faith, but the act of faith must needs presuppose the habit of faith, and so conversion; He that says, Take, eat, supposes a man hath an hand to receive and a mouth to feed on, which not uncoverted person hath.  
Object. Why may not the command of taking Christ in the Sacrament be an instrument of Conversion, as well as the same command is in the word preached, Acts 16.31?  
Answ. Because we have neither promise nor precedent of blessing the command of taking in the Sacrament, as we have of blessing the word preached, in order to conversion. The Word is both seed and food, not so the Sacrament, which indeed may be food or physic, but not a seed of regeneration, nor is any where so called in Scripture: And to attribute that to an Ordinance which God hath not put in it, or to expect that from an Ordinance which God hath not promised to it, is will worship, an humane invention, and a breach of the second Commandment.  
I dare appeal to M. Humphrey his conscience upon this account. Suppose an unconverted person comes to the Sacrament in his pride and presumption, stouts it still against Christ laid before him as crucified in and before the consecration of the Elements by the Minister's explication and exhortation, what evidence doth the Scripture give that this man shall be converted by that one word Take, uttered by the Minister at the delivery of the Elements? I doubt not of God's power, but we must look to his revealed will. The Papists say, Hoc est corpus meum converts the Elements; M. H. says Accipite converts the receiver: we desire a clear proof of both before we can give credit to either. But suppose the word Take as a short and virtual Sermon might convert, yet what thinks he of that person who stands out against that word also, can he be converted by actual receiving? Then that rule of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.29. cannot be universally true, He that cats unworthily eats judgement to himself, etc. for he that is converted by actual receiving doth not eat judgement but mercy. 2. Suppose a man should be converted by that short exhortation, take, since that may be done by presence at the Sacrament without actual receiving, how will it follow that all must receive because some may be converted by the exhortation to receive; any more than that all must be assured of their salvation, because some are comforted by the exhortation to assurance, which is not immediately the duty, nor at all the privilege of unconverted persons in statu quo.  
Page 66. For further proof, He supposes a moral unregenerate man doth his best to prepare himself: thence he infers, Do we think now, to such a man the Ordinance is necessarily fruitless, etc. then God help us. Shall not his examination, prayers, etc. conduce more to convert him then the bare preaching of a Sermon, especially considering the Word doth but precede and is a part of the Sacrament, Accedit verbum ad Elementum, etc.  
Answ. 1. No natural man ever doth his best to prepare himself. 2. Notwithstanding all his preparatory acts he hath still the unworthiness of person, he coming (as is supposed) unconverted to the Sacrament. 3. Therefore he comes to the feast without the wedding garment, and whether conversion or confusion be the portion of such a guest let the text judge, supposing (as M. H. would have it) the marriage feast be the Lords Supper. We believe no Ordinance is the feast, but rather the dish wherein the feast is served. 4. I wonder M. H. should attribute more to a few dead acts of a natural man, then to the Word preached which is the great Ordinance set apart for the conversion of souls, Acts 26.16, 18. Rom. 10.14, 17. as if he designed to advance nature and freewill above grace. 5. Because he adds, I but the word accompanies the Sacrament, what follows thence but that any one may be present to hear and see, but only worthy communicants are to receive? and unless he can make out that actual receiving of the Elements is a converting Ordinance, 
Actual receiving is neither a word, nor an act of God, but merely an act of the creature, and an outward act too, and therefore hath not a converting power in it.  all he pleads from the antecedaneous acts will not conclude his free admission, since the fruit of the visible and audible word, or of Christ's death declared may be attained by presence at the Sacrament though a person do not actually receive. I would not here be mistaken as if I pleaded for a Sacrament without receivers, which is a contradiction in adjecto, but I see no warrant in the word why the whole Congregation should not stay at the administration of the Lords Supper (and that with much profit) as well as at the administration of Baptism, though all do not partake: nor can I look at their ancient Ite, missa est, as a divine precept, but as an humane tradition.  
For his instance pag. 57 Of a poor humbled soul hoping to meet Christ at the Sacrament, etc.  
I answer: 1. If his humiliation and hope be right, he is a worthy receiver and already converted, and so not a fit instance or medium to prove M. H. his conclusion. If his hope and humiliation be not right, than he is in the condition of the former, and by his hypocrisy draws further guilt upon himself.  
2. This poor soul if rightly humbled, hungers after Christ, rolls upon him and adheres to him, which are proper acts of saving and justifying faith, though he cannot rise up to faith of evidence; nor can any man avoid despair unless he lean upon Christ or somewhat else. All which clearly prove this person to be converted, and that therefore the Sacrament is to him only a means of edification and comfort.  
His third instance pag. 58. of the Disciples of Emaus, is to as little purpose as the two former; unless he can prove 1. That then they were in the state of nature. 2. That that breaking of bread was the Sacrament, Luk. 24.30. 3. That they were converted by that breaking of bread: Dictates so absurd, that the very naming of them may be a sufficient confutation.  
Although a man may be converted at, 
Rep. Pag. 58.  it is not by the Sacrament, it is occasionally, but not intentionally a converting Ordinance.  
Here (before I proceed any further) I must tell M. H. he frames an Objection for us very unhandsomely. A converting Ordinance occasionally, not intentionally, little better than a contradiction, the very notion of an Ordinance implying divine ordination or appointment of any thing by his revealed will as a means of conversion, edification, comfort and benefit to the creature; and how this can be properly called a not intentionally converting Ordinance, is to me a paradox. Let him prove actual receiving to be a converting Ordinance, and we shall not doubt but it is so intentionally.  
To the Reply M. H. answers, That it being granted, the matter is upon the point yielded, partly because none are expressly forbidden to come, and partly because all occasions must be taken for our salvation.  
Answ. 1. The cause is not yielded unless it be proved, that actual receiving is a converting Ordinance, since the end of conversion may be attained by presence at the Sacrament without receiving, but the danger of eating and drinking unworthily cannot be incurred without receiving, 1. Cor. 11.27, 29. which yet hath no influence in order to conversion. By presence much benefit may be gained without danger of unworthy receiving, by receiving much guilt may be contracted without hopes of benefit to the unconverted.  
Secondly, If receiving be a converting Ordinance, how dares M. H. exclude either Children, distracted or excommunicated persons from it, especially since these have most need of it, and those are best taught by sense who have not so free an exercise of reason? Yea why should Heathen be denied the Lords Supper more than the word preached, if it be a converting Ordinance? Are not they also bound to use all means and take all occasions of conversion, to use M. H. his own words?  
But if all hath been said will not take with us, M. H. at last hath found out a way, wholly to root out this subtlety which he thinks the spirit of error hath insinuated into the hearts of many godly men, by three things he hath more to say, etc.  
Answ. By the way observe this man's presumption and censoriousness; 1. In charging so many godly persons to be acted with a spirit of error in this particular. 2. In his confident undertaking wholly to root it out by what he hath to say, which though mountains in his own conceit, yet when they come to be scanned, we hope by God's assistance to make appear they scarce deserve the name of molehills; and with a sling and stone of Gods making, fear not to encounter with this great and vaunting Goliath, who by big words bids defiance to the whole host of God's Israel.  
His first grand Argument pag. 59 is this, That the Sacraments and all Ordinances are primarily and properly means of grace; and but in a remote sense means of conversion or confirmation: for this grace we receive in the use of them, converts some and strengthens others: and this grace received in the Sacrament, works in the unregenerate for their conversion.  
Answ. Is not here prime stuff worthy of a Doctor in Cathedrâ? but to answer distinctly. I must first premise that here he speaks not of relative but absolute, not of external but internal or inherent grace, for otherwise the Ordinances are means of justification and adoption as well as of holiness, of which last yet he must be understood. This premised, I answer, 1. That if the Ordinances be primarily means of grace, they must needs be primarily means of conversion and confirmation, since primary conversion is nothing else but grace at first infused, and primary confirmation is degrees of the same grace superadded.  
For further clearing whereof, and that all the world may see how M. H. instead of informing would blind and baffle the incautelous or injudicious Reader, we must understand there is a twofold conversion; one primary, when God converts and changes the heart by creating grace therein, and so making it a new and soft heart, Ezek. 36.26. turning the Wolf into a Lamb, etc. The other secondary, when by virtue of grace inherent, assisted by grace external, we turn ourselves from sin to God, Ezek. 18.31, 32. Now since there is no inherent grace, but it's formally, and not only efficiently converting or confirming, its impossible initial grace should be wrought but conversion (which is a change of principles) must needs be wrought immediately also: and it's as impossible degrees of grace should be superadded, but thereby formally confirmation must be wrought. Is not the change from death to life greater than from a principle of life to an act of life? Now the first infusion of grace is a change from death to life, and is solely Gods act wherein the creature is merely passive, 2 Cor. 4.6. as the dark Chaos was to the light, Gen. 1.2, 3. And this is God's converting of us, or habitual conversion. Our converting of ourselves (which is M. Humphrey his sole conversion) is nothing but a reflecting of the beam upon the Son of righteousness, and in a manner nothing to the former work of divine conversion; this we call actual conversion; as habitual sanctification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, actual sanctification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His assertion then is false, That the Ordinances are remotely means of conversion, for if the Ordinances be primarily means of converting grace, they must needs be primarily means of conversion, since grace infused is primary conversion, but grace acting is secondary conversion. The same I might say of confirmation also in proportion.  
Secondly, It cannot be proved, that actual receiving is either primarily or secondarily a means of converting grace; and therefore will certainly prejudice, but cannot benefit an unconverted person.  
Thirdly, How absurd is the last clause? This grace received in the Sacrament, works in the unregenerate for their conversion. For 1. How is he unregenerate who hath received grace which formally regenerates him? 2. How can a man be regenerate, and yet at the same instant unconverted? yet if Mr. Humphrey his Doctrine be true, this will follow, since a man is regenerated by the habits of grace infused, which not only in order of nature, but also in order of time, may precede the acts of grace (it being not necessary, that grace present should act immediately or at all times.) Now since Mr. H. his conversion is nothing but the acting of grace, and the habit of grace infused may in time precede the act, and there is no conversion before the act of grace, doth it not hence necessarily follow; that a man may be regenerated, and yet at the same instant of time unconverted, that is at the same time in a state of nature, as unconverted, and yet in a state of grace as regenerated? But how absurd and dissonant is this to true Divinity?  
His second grand Argument is drawn from a distinction of conversion, which he makes double, 1. Outward from Heathenism to the profession of Christianity; He will not say the Sacrament is such a converting Ordinance. 2. An effectual conversion from profession to the truth of grace; and thus the Sacrament as a visible Word doth convert instrumentally as well as the Word preached, the Spirit being the principal cause of conversion in both Ordinances, etc. And in the close of pag. 60. he appeals to experience for the converting power of the Sacrament. This is the substance of that Paragraph.  
Answ. It's sooner said then proved, that the Sacrament hath converted any, 2. Though it should be granted, that some parts of it did convert, what is M. H. his cause the better, unless he prove that actual receiving doth convert? 3. That the Sacrament should convert only to truth of grace, and yet not convert to outward profession, is as absurd, as that the Word preached should convert only to outward profession, and not to truth of grace. Let Mr. H. show me one Scripture, 1. Why Heathen may not be present at the Sacrament as well as at the Word preached. 2. Why the visible Word may not convert to the form, as well as to the power of godliness, why it should do the greater and not the lesser. We expect not dictates but proof and Argument to convince us of this new Light.  
In the third place he descants, though to little purpose, about the Sacraments converting not intentionally, but occasionally, etc. To which we briefly answer, That whatever other parts of the Sacrament may do, yet actual receiving converts neither occasionally nor intentionally, and therefore unconverted persons ought not to receive, because this Sacramental action cannot benefit but prejudice them.  
Rep. Unregenerate men are dead in sin, and bread must not be given to dead men, etc.  
This Mr. H. makes to he a fancy. 2. Opposes, that if any bread could recover life, that bread might be given to a dead man, and such is the bread in the Sacrament, etc. 3. That if we may give Aqua vitae to dying men, than we may give Calix vitae to dead Christians, etc.  
Answ. 1. It's no wonder if strong fancies metamorphize what they please into a fancy.  
2. Sacramental receiving in the Lord's Supper notes a vital act, which a dead man cannot put forth; and be the bread never so quickening (upon Mr. H. his supposition) if a dead man cannot receive it, it will not quicken him; as the best Physic will not cure, if a living man will not, or cannot receive it. Taking and eating in the Sacrament note (not a passive, but) an active receiving, and therefore do not beget, but presuppose life; which life, grant it may be wrought by other Sacramental actions, proves only, that presence, not participation is requisite.  
3. His Simile is very lame; nor doth it follow, that because we may give Aqua vitae to a dying man, therefore we may give Calix vitae to a dead man, since a dying man hath life to be preserved, not so a dead man.  
In the close of his Reply, in his third Edition he adds three pages by way of explication, pag. 69. which I must take a little pains to scan and sift.  
And 1. He makes confirmation of the Covenant a primary end, confirmation of our faith a secuodary end of the Lords Supper.  
Answ. I wish Mr. H. did not show himself as little skilled in Morality as in Logic. Let him tell me seriously (for no doubt, being Master of Arts, he hath spent some time at the University in Ethics as well as in Logic) Is not the principal or last End the primary End? and subordinate Ends are not they secondary Ends? If so, than the next question will be, Whether the confirmation of the Covenant be not subordinate to the confirmation of our faith? In plain terms, Whether God's end in confirming the Covenant by the Sacrament as a Seal, be not to confirm the faith of the worthy Receiver? If so, than the confirmation of the Covenant hath the notion of a means in order to the confirmation of faith as an End. Now let Mr. H. himself judge whether confirmation of faith be not a primary End, and confirmation of the Covenant a secondary End, quite contrary to his former Assertion?  
In his following words he would very fain (by compliance and some concessions) court us into his own opinion, that the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance though but eventually; Which, says he, pag. 71. Will serve to blunt the strength of the Objection.  
Answ. He must pardon us if we cannot grant him that, till he can bring us better ground from Scripture and reason then yet we can see. 2. Grant the previous actions of prayer, explication, and exhortation, may be converting (upon which we yield an universal presence at the whole Ordinance) yet unless Mr. H. can prove, that actual receiving doth convert, our Argument (drawn from the non-converting power of the Sacrament) is not blunted.  
2, Whereas in the same Page he adds, When I say its a means of converting some, I take it in its full administration, requiring duties before, in, and after receiving.  
An. Then belike conversion depends more upon our preparation, celebration, and after carriages, then upon the Sacrament as an Instrument. Here is a plain falter; for a converting Ordinance (when God pleases) will convert, come the subject never so unprepared, yea with never so malicious an heart: And though preparation be necessary for all, necessitate praecepti, yet it is not necessary for conversion to any, necessitate medii, witness divers who when they came maliciously to catch the Minister, have themselves been caught and converted.  
It's more absurd which he adds, That the Sacrament is a means of conversion, by the help of after duty. For besides that, hence its apparent, this Receiver was not converted at the Sacrament, and so did but eat and drink judgement to himself. Will it not by this rule follow, that even unworthy receiving itself, is a means of conversion, since by after duty a man may be brought to a sight of his great sin, and thereby may be humbled and converted? May not any sin by this Doctrine be a means of conversion, or (in Mr. H. his phrase) a converting Ordinance, since by after carriage a man may be brought to a sight and sense of his sin, and so converted? We say, unworthy receiving, and so other sins may be occasions, but net means of conversion. God can make an antidote of poison, but he is mad who upon that account will venture to drink poison.  
In the same Page he adds, Then I hold that we who are baptised into the Church, and are bred up to a general faith (such as it is) not without its fruits; and so have a right unto the Ordinance, coming as preparedly as we can, and bewailing our unpreparedness, may find grace in the sight of God, even to the bestowing of a special justifying faith for our inward effectual conversion in the use of it. The main harvest in this field of Boaz belongs to his own reapers, yet I would afford some glean for poor Ruth the Moabitess, and suffer many a doubtful, penitently inclined, yet unregenerate soul, to come up even to the sheaves, hoping my fellow labourers will not grudge at it, though I have let fall some handfuls too on purpose for them.  
Answ. It's a novel expression to say we are baptised into the Church; we read of baptising into Christ, but not in Scripture of baptising into the Church; is it not as absurd, Baptizari in Ecclesiam, as Credere in Ecclesiam?  
2. How many are not so much as bred up to a general faith, but are as ignorant as the very Indians, that never heard of Christ?  
3. What fruits have many bred up to a general faith, unless it be open profaneness, scoffing at Religion and Duties both public and private: Shall not these (against his general Assertion) be excluded by Mr. Humphrey his own present verdict?  
4. What natural man ever did his utmost to come preparedly? and therefore by Mr. H. his own principle held forth to this Paragraph, 1. Ought not to receive. And 2. Cannot be converted by receiving. 3. His allusion to the case of Ruth, is 1. Absurd. 2. Impertinent. Absurd, in that he says, The main harvest in this field of Boaz belongs to his own reapers. This in the Letter is false, since the harvest belonged not to the reapers, but to Boaz himself; it belonged no more to the reapers, then to the oxen or asses that carried it away to Boaz his barn, nay haply not so much. 2. It's impertinent, as misapplied, he comparing unregenerate persons to Ruth the Moabitess, and yet forgetting himself, he tells us, these unregenerate persons are penitently inclined. His meaning seems to be, They are Heathen as unregenerate, and yet Christians as Professors and penitently inclined.  
Ans. Such ruth's we shall not grudge if he let some handfuls fall unto them. We undertake not to judge of men's hearts whether they be regenerate or not, but proceed by the rule of visibility, and shall willingly admit persons penitently inclined; but are withal satisfied, that persons grossly ignorant or scandalous are not in statu quo penitently inclined, and therefore by Mr. H. his own principles, are not to be admitted as receivers of the Lords Supper, though they may be present, and that with great advantage, at the whole Ordinance.  
Object. 7. Judas received not the Lord's Supper, etc.  
To evade the force of this Objection, Mr. H. in two leaves takes some pains, though to small purpose, to prove that Judas received. His ground is, Because Judas was present at the Lords Supper, and Christ bid all present to receive. Compare Luk. 22.21. Matth. 27.27. & Mark 14.23. where it's said, They all drank of the Sacramental Cup.  
Answ. 1. It's the judgement of divers learned, that Judas did not receive. 2. Grant him present at the Sacrament, it follows not thence, that he did receive. 3. Christ bidding all to receive must be limited only to those all for whom he shed his blood for remission of sins, as is evident in the words that accompany the tender of the Cup. Compare Mat. 26.28. and Luke 22.20. But Christ's blood was nor shed for Judas for the remission of sins, ergo, the Sacrament was not tendered to him▪ 4. It seems probable that Christ excluded Judas in particular in those words Luke 22.21. But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the table. As if he should have said, What hast thou (who art a Traitor) to do to receive among my faithful Disciples? 5. Supposing be did receive, 1. Christ acted (in admitting him) as a particular Minister, who alone cannot exclude any. 2. Before and at receiving he told him home his sin and danger, which I believe Mr. H. doth not to every Judas that receives at his Sacrament. Judas his instance then will not favour Mr. H. his free Admission.  
Object. 8. Unworthy Receivers are guilty of Christ blood, and eat their own damnation; therefore we must not allow free admission.  
To this Mr. H. answers, That it cannot concern the admitters and joiners, etc.  
Answ. It concerns the admitters, if any partake who are visibly unworthy, and the joiners if they know them to be unworthy, and do not complain; the rule being, that a man must receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not absolutely, 1 Cor. 11.28.  
Whereas p. 68 he adds, Every one is to examine himself, if he do not, he receives his own damnation, not ours, who do our duty, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Corinth. 11.29. (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.)  
Answ. 1. Every main is to examine himself, and so to eat; but where is it said absolutely, Let every man eat? We must mind him of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 28. as well as he minds us of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 29.  
2. The Apostles words are not to be understood restrictively and exclusively, as if self examination excluded Church examination, or as if self prejudice excluded prejudice to my neighbour; as is evident by comparing Rom. 14.12. where giving an account to God, excludes not giving an account to man, for then children and servants might refuse to give any account to their parents or masters.  
3. Though it be haply an improper expression to say, I eat judgement to another, yet undoubtedly another man's unworthy receiving may be charged upon me, when I have power to prevent it and do not. I think (as perfect as Mr. H. is) both himself and the best of God's people had need pray every day, Lord forgive me my other men's sins; especially State and Church Officers.  
4. It's as absurd in reason and Divinity, by an affirmative to exclude a negative, as it is by a negative to exclude an affirmative: to say, I must examine myself, therefore another must not examine me; or to say, Another must examine me, therefore I must not examine myself: or to say, I eat judgement to myself, therefore not to another, as to say, I eat judgement to another, therefore not to myself. Most sins and duties are reciprocal; and as guilt, so duty is usually relative as well as personal.  
Rep. But you will say, If a man drink poison, shall not I be guilty of his blood, unless I hinder him etc.  
To this Mr. H. answers, 1. Not, unless I have a quum possum. 2. He wonders any should compare the Sacrament to a cup of poison, seeing it is in its own nature a cup of blessing. 3. That it is more than we can know or aught to judge, that it proves death to any. 4. That as the Word may be preached to all (though often it prove the savour of death) so the Sacrament may be administered unto all, leaving the issue to God, etc. This for the admitters part, pag. 68.70.  
Answ. 1. His quum possit must be understood either of a natural or a moral ability. I believe that whoever hath a natural, hath at the same time a moral ability to hinder his brother from murdering himself by poison. In plain English, whoever can, aught to hinder his brother from drinking of poison. cain's Religion may be indeed, Am I my brother's keeper? but Christ's Religion is, He that saves not life, destroys it. I must preserve my neighbour's life by all lawful means; but undoubtedly its a lawful means by violence to hinder my neighbour from self murder.  
2. His wonder deserves to be wondered at. If one man's corporal food be another man's poison (though in itself wholesome, as Cheese, etc.) why may not one man's spiritual food be another man's poison? Nay, the same food is at one time good nourishment, at another time poison to the same man, namely flesh, etc. in a strong fever. The same Word is a favour of life and a savour of death, and why not the same Sacrament, and what is a deadly savour but poison? Christ is a precious corner stone to some, a stone of stumbling to others; and if Christ personal be so, why not Christ Sacramental?  
3. If I may know and judge when the Word is poison to any, why not as well, yea better, when the Sacrament is poison? I may know the Word is so by its effects or consequents: I may know the Sacrament is so, both by its causes and effects; as if a grossly ignorant or profane person come to receive, and if after receiving I see a man as bad or worse then formerly.  
4. As the Word may be preached before all, so the Sacrament may be administered before all, but as the Word is not applied by all, nor divers parts of it applicable to all, so neither aught the Sacrament to be applied to all by actual receiving. If any man will give his neighbour poison, and leave the issue to God, the Magistrate may more justly give him an halter, and leave the issue to God.  
Next Mr. H. proceeds to the Receivers part, and tells us, pag. 70. That a double duty is required of him, 1. A principal, Do this. 2. An accessary, Let a man examine himself. We are bound to come. and to come worthily. If a man fails in the one, and is not sufficiently prepared, I dare not say that he must keep (I am sure it will not excuse him) from the other, etc.  
Answ. 1. Let the Reader note how absurdly Mr. H. makes receiving to be the principal duty, and actual worthiness but accessary. What carnal Divinity is this, to make the matter and carcase of a duty the principal, and the spirit of a duty accessary; the form of godliness the principal and the power of godliness the accessary? Is not this principal Divinity, and very pleasing to some of Mr. H. his principal Receivers?  
2. His doubtful, expression about coming, though unprepared, evidences his hesitancy about that particular, and not without just cause. True, he that is bound to come, is bound to come worthily; but not, contra, he that is bound to come worthily, is bound to come absolutely, no more than he that was bound to come circumcised and pure to the Passeover, was bound to come absolutesy. Every Jew was bound to be circumcised, pure, and so to come to the Passeover; but had he neglected Circumcision and Purification, he was not to eat the Passeover at that time. In like manner, every Christian is bound to be, 1. Habitually worthy. 2. Actually worthy. 3. And so to receive, 1 Cor. 11.28. yet is not bound to receive, but rather to abstain if he want either of the former. The Apostle doth not say, Let a man eat absolutely; but so let him eat.  
3. Sinful unpreparedness will not excuse a man from guilt, but unpreparedness either sinful or lawful, will excuse him from receiving. A negative unpreparedness will excuse children and those who have urgent and just occasions that hinder them from receiving; not so privative unpreparedness. He that traveled of purpose to avoid the Passeover, sinned; not so he who had just and necessary occasions to travel, Numb. 9.10, 13. But be unpreparedness negative or privative, that man at present ought not to receive, though he sin in bringing a sinful necessity of abstinence upon himself. None are threatened simply for not receiving, but all are threatened in case they receive unworthily.  
For further explication and confirmation, Mr. H. propounds three Queries.  
Qu. Whether the very eating and drinking of an unworthy Receiver be damnation? He means, Whether it deserve damnation? He answers, by distinguishing between the act of receiving, which is good, and the unworthiness, which makes the sin only; and concludes, That his abstinence from, is a greater sin than his unworthy receiving of the Sacrament, etc. pag. 71.  
Answ. 1. Receiving is always a sin in him that is unworthy, 1. Because he cannot but receive unworthily, but that act which cannot be abstracted from sinful pravity in dominion, is necessarily sin. 2. Because he is threatened, but God threatens for nothing but sin. Eating is not in itself a sin, yet for a common person to eat the sin-offering, was a sin: So receiving simply is no sin, but an unworthy person cannot receive without sin. There is no sinful act in the world, but notionally you may abstract sinfulness from it, but really you cannot when it comes to be acted; no more can you from an unworthy persons receiving, which is sinful, 1. In the manner. 2. As prohibited to such a person in statu quo. He is bound indeed to get worthiness, and then to receive: but he is not bound to receive till he be Evangelically worthy. As a natural man ought first to get grace and then assurance, but not to study assurance without grace.  
2. Abstinence from the Sacrament arises out of contempt, or from a grounded evidence and consciousness of Evangelicall unworthiness. The former is more sinful than bare receiving; the latter is warrantable, yea commendable, 1. If it humble the man, though but legally. 2. If it put him upon care and diligence to prepare for the next Sacrament.  
2. Qu. pag. 72. His second Quaere is, Whether receiving the Sacrament unworthily is otherwise damnable then praying and hearing unworthily?  
Answ. It is, and that 1. Because praying and hearing are universal duties, I mean for all sorts, be they children, distracted, or excommunicated, or otherwise unworthy, so is not receiving in Mr. H. his own judgement. 2. Because praying and hearing are means of conversion, so is not actual receiving. His superstructure upon the coutrary supposition I omit, since that will tumble down of itself, the foundation failing.  
3 Qu. His third Quaere, pag. 74. is, Whether an unregenerate man conceiving himself not worthy, must never come to the Sacrament for fear of eating his damnation? The sum of his Answer is, That upon the same ground he must also abstain from hearing, since he cannot but hear sinfully, and so provoke God, etc.  
Answ. 1. Not so, unless it can be proved the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance.  
2. Grant some parts or acts at the Sacrament may convert, this proves only that all may and aught to be present, to see and hear Christ crucified; but it makes nothing for actual receiving, which ever makes an unworthy person eat damnation, and therefore doth not convert him. He that hears unworthily may be converted, not so he that receives unworthily, at that time.  
3. In the close of this Quaere, He can put no medium between receiving unworthily, and an open refusing to receive. I shall therefore help him at a dead lift, and entreat so much charity of him, as to believe that all abstainers are not open refusers and tramplers upon the blood of Christ, no more than he who forbore the Passeover being in a journey, or unclean was. Yea some godly persons, but out of fear of unworthiness, dare not sometimes come; will he say these trample upon Christ's blood? Why may not legal conviction fright a natural man, as well as a godly man from receiving? Sense of unworthiness may prevail upon a Demas as well as upon a Nathanael, and make him afraid of the signs as well as of the thing signified, yet neither of them at that time like swine trample upon the blood of the Covenant, but think it infinitely too good for them.  
In his new Edition, pag. 85. he inserts three pages more for amplification of the eighth Objection. He takes upon him to answer a question of his own propounding. His Question is misty, and his Answer is in part false. The sum of his Answer is, The alteration is made only in us, the seal is the same, and what is sealed is the same.  
Answ. Is not here an apparent falsity, as to the latter branch of the Answer, unless he will make salvation and damnation to be one and the same thing? If salvation be sealed to the worthy, damnation to the unworthy Receivers, then surely though the seal be the same, yet what is sealed is not the same thing. As (to use his own similitude) though the Sun be the same, yet the sunshine and the shadow, or light and darkness are not the same, but privative contraries. But no wonder if lose principles produce such lose conclusions.  
Rep. But suppose a poor soul doubts of his faith, does this bring any relief to him uncertain of the Condition?  
Answ. Methinks it doth; the condition of the Covenant may be considered as in esse, already wrought in us, or in fieri, as to be done or performed of us. The Receiver seals not necessarily to the condition in esse, but in fieri obliging himself for the future to believe and obey, etc.  
Answ. 1. True, the Sacrament may bring relief to a doubting soul, who hath indeed truth of grace, but doubts of it. But what relief can it bring to one that doubts groundedly, and hath no grace at all? 1. It cannot convert him (understand me still of actual receiving) as hath been formerly showed. 2. It cannot confirm him, unless it be in sin, by sealing judgement to him. For can he be confirmed in grace who hath no grace at all?  
2. Where he says, The Receiver seals not necessarily to the condition in esse, but in fieri, I answer, He seals as necessarily (in point of duty) to the condition in esse or de praesenti, as in fieri or de futuro, and that man who engages not to believe at present, plays the hypocrite in engaging to believe hereafter. It is not with elicit as with imperate acts; in the former, he that truly wills them, doth in part perform them, whence Divines make a true desire of faith one degree of faith, and he that in truth desires and resolves to believe hereafter, may as well act that resolution now, since faith itself as well as the resolution of faith is an act of the will. And this M. H. would speak in those words, Page 86. If he resolve now for the time to come without procrastination to walk according to the Covenant. Is not faith the first step of this walk? He that resolves in truth to believe, cannot but desire to believe, and the true desire of faith, is both Scripturally and by the consent of Divines one degree of faith.  
Thirdly, By the very act of receiving, he seals to faith in esse or de praesenti in point of profession; the very language of his receiving the Elements is, I receive Christ signified and offered to me in particular by them; and therefore he that receives the Elements and doth not act faith at the same instant, he plays the hypocrite woefully, mocks God and Christ, and as the mockers of Christ were guilty of his death, so is every unworthy receiver.  
Pag. 86. He proceeds. The faith therefore that is absolutely requisite to a believer is not assurance, but consists, I take it, of these two things only, 1. An historical assent to the Gospel, etc. 2. A resolution to submit to the Government of Christ, etc. Let a man then but believe his Creed, and resolve to go on in no known sin, that is the main, etc. pag. 87.  
Answ. 1. I easily grant assurance is not absolutely requisite as a means, but only in point of duty (namely that every one is bound to labour after it,) and in order unto our benè esse or comfort. 2. Against every Sacrament a Christian is bound in an especial manner by soulsearching examination, to make out his evidence; and if he have truth of grace and take pains to search, he will by God's grace find so much truth in himself, as may bring him to some assent about his good estate, though usually this assent be much assaulted and weakened with doubting, for removing whereof the Sacrament is an especial help. But 3. Whereas M. H. professeth to know no other kinds or ingredients of saving or justifying faith, but only an historical assent and a good purpose or resolution. 1. I must tell him he is very defective on the one hand as omitting the special act of justifying faith, namely adherence or leaning upon Christ for justifycation and salvation, which is an act of the will, not of the understanding; nor will his historical faith for kind go beyond the faith of hypocrites, yea of devils, jam. 2.19. and will aggravate a man's damnation if the faith of adherence follow not upon it. 2. I must also tell him he is as excessive on the other in mistaking a good resolution for a constitutive part of faith, which is either an antecedent or a consequent and effect of faith, antecedent if it be a Legal, consequent if an evangelical resolution. I wish M. H. would study fundamentals better, before he come to be so critical about superstructures.  
By his following discourse pag. 89. its apparent he speaks very confusedly about the spiritual estate of a Christian. For 1. He supposeth a man hath not saving grace, and yet that at the same time he is willing to accept of Christ, to leave sin and yield to Christ's terms, all which are most precious saving graces. Afterwards he compares these graces to a little gold mixed with much dross in a lump of Ore, yet at last concludes God can make grace of these least beginnings, as if at present they were not grace till God does as it were transubstantiate them and turn our water into wine. By all which its apparent the man doth not sibi constare, and no wonder then if he bring his Reader into a labyrinth.  
Object. 9 The Ordinance is polluted if all be admitted. 
Pag. 76.  The sum of his Answer is, That the Ordinance is defiled only to the unworthy receiver, not to the admitters or joiners.  
Answ. Though we place no great confidence in this Argument, nor believe the presence or actual receiving of a wicked person doth simply defile either the Sacrament or the communicants (as had an unclean man eaten of the Passeover, supposing he neither touched any clean person, nor any part of the Passeover but that he eaten, that Ordinance had been Levitically polluted only to himself) yet connivance both in the admitters and joiners contracts moral pollution, as he that suffers another to sin (where he may and aught to hinder him, or at least do his endeavour in order thereunto) is partaker of his sin, Leu. 19.17. 1 Tim. 5.22.  
His application of Mark. 7.15. and of Peter's vision to the Sacrament, is ridiculous, pag. 77. For do we hold that any either person or meat is Levitically unclean? Contra, dares he deny that any person, yea any meat may be morally unclean, namely as defiled with sin or occasions of sin, Tit. 1.15. That which enters into the mouth defiles not a man Levitically, but morally it may defile him, and that either by his intemperance or irreligious receiving of it, as eating the forbidden fruit defiled our first parents; and he who when he may hinders not these sins, is himself defiled by sinful toleration.  
We believe, as well as himself, pag. 79. That the unworthiness of another should not make the true believer separate from the Sacrament. Yet if I know another grossly ignorant or profane, and do not either endeavour to reform or discover him, his unworthy receiving shall be set upon my score alone without any prejudice to the other communicants.  
If it be a privilege of the Gospel to have free Ordinances, and to account no man unclean in the use of them, ib.  
How dares M. H. set a spiritual rail (as he calls it) about the communion Table, and thereby refine and spiritualise old superstition (to use his own terms,) by keeping from the Sacrament Children and distracted persons, who have a better right to it then many profane ones that his charity can admit, and yet in one breath accuse and condemn us for doing the like to that he allows in himself? Shall persons negatively unworthy be suspended, and persons privatively, yea positively unworthy be admitted? Let him take heed there be not something of the Pharisee and hypocrite in his own heart (to apply his own counsel to himself,) 1. In censuring his brethren, 2. In doing the same thing for which he censures them.  
Pag. 79. But are we not faulty and partake of other men's sins, if we do not our best to have the leven purged out? and therefore we may not say, Am I my brother's keeper? Look they to it.  
To this M. H. answers, 1. By way of concession, and that we must tell the Church too, supposing it is in a capacity to hear us. 2. By way of refutation in the same page: But I hope it will not follow that in the mean time we must not receive the Sacrament, etc. It is a plain fallacy (à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) to think our coming to the Sacrament with a wicked man is sin itself, or makes it the sin, or us more guilty of the sin, because we ought to have admonished them▪ and laboured their excommunication. Shall omission of one duty excuse from another? Because the leaven is not purged out, must there be no lump. This was, I may humbly say, a too overly surprise of godly M. Burroughs.  
Answ. 1. Would one think that M. H. at the same instant would be guilty of that fallacy wherewith he charges us, and with the cutpurse cry stop thief, that himself might the better escape in the crowd? Do either our principles or profession cry down the Sacrament absolutely because we are against mixed Sacraments? Or are we against all mixed Sacraments, because we are against the mixed receiving of persons visibly unworthy with persons visibly worthy? Or do we teach that its simply a sin in one visibly worthy to receive with one or divers persons visibly unworthy?  
Wherein then do we and M. H. differ?  
Answ. 1. In that he thinks its the duty of all Church-members to receive, be they in what state they will, never so ignorant, wicked and abominable, yea and that visibly too, excepting only Children, distracted and excommunicated persons. 2. In that he thinks it the Church's duty to admit all the forementioned persons, waving only the exception.  
Contra, We hold that no person really unworthy aught to receive. 2. That no person visibly unworthy aught to be admitted, where there is a juridical power in the Church to suspend them; which power is de facto in the Presbyterian Churches, but lies not in any one Minister, or in the Congregation itself, but in the Presbytery of each Congregation, and that either solitary or combined. The Eldership than sins not in admitting persons really unworthy, provided they have evidence of their visible worthiness: Particular persons sin not in communicating with persons visibly unworthy, but only in conniving at their visible unworthiness, by neglecting either to admonish and reprove you, and (if that will not do in order to their reformation) by neglecting to complain to the Eldership of them, that by the Churches dealing with them they may either be reform or suspended, and (in case that will not do, and need so require) excommunicated. Let the Reader then take notice how guilty M. H. is of his own fallacy, in making the Reader believe we are against all Sacraments, or against all mixed Sacraments, because we judge that persons really unworthy ought not in statu quo to receive, and persons visibly unworthy should not by the Church be admitted to receive.  
Secondly, Though omission of one duty do not properly excuse, yet it may make one uncapable of another, as a person impure neglecting to purify himself, was at present uncapable of the Passeover, and by proportion a person either unable or neglecting to prepare himself, is uncapable at present of the Lords Supper. As for M. Burroughs surprise about this particular, I dare not undertake either to charge or vindicate him, till M. H. produce him speaking for himself. Qui statuit aliquid parte inaudità alterà, aequum licèt statuerit, haud aequus fuerit.  
Rep. 2 Are not all ignorant and scandalous persons, swine and dogs, to be rejected and kept from the pearls and holy things of the Sacrament?  
M. H. in his Answer questions the terms of Dogs and swine as too harsh in the general, and thinks unfitness is not a just ground of exclusion, and that men are not to be dealt withal as Dogs till juridically censure. That scandalous persons are first to be admonished duly, and then (if obstinate) excommunicated, and that not merely from the Sacrament, but from Christian communion in general: yet withal he seems doubtful about the degrees of excommunication, and leaves much to the Church's wifdom, etc. p. 8o, to 82.  
Answ. 1. Wading the harsh expressions of Dogs and Swine, though warrantable enough by Scripture; it's then enough for us that ignorant and scandalous persons are unfit for the Sacrament, and if M. H. exclude Children, amp; c. because unfit, why may not we exclude both ignorant and scandalous persons upon the same account, since the one cannot, the other will not examine themselves; or if after a sort they examine, yet cannot approve themselves, which is both the sense of the word and the end of examination; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but upon due search will find the quite contrary, both being under the power of unbelief, or wanting the worthiness of preparation, though the last may possibly have the worthiness of person.  
Secondly, Neither ignorant nor scandalous persons are juridically suspended before admonition and evidence given of their obstinacy.  
Thirdly, While he pleads for excommunication, he cannot be against suspendsion which is an inferior degree thereof.  
Fourthly, That excommunication excludes from all Ordinances, is gratis dictum as hath been before noted.  
Obj. 10 The last Objection is from those several Texts that are alleged for a separation from wicked persons, pag. 82.  
Here M. M. grants we must separate from wicked men in their sins and in regard of common familiarity: but denies that any Scripture commands are separation from them in the Sacrament, unless in case of excommunication, etc.  
Answ. 1. Suspension being a part of excommunication, in granting separation in case of excommunication, he yields the cause.  
Secondly, That Scripture which forbids us to eat with wicked persons, forbids us to receive with them, 1 Cor. 5.11. unless the Sacrament can be received without eating: nor is it enough to say that place speaks only of civil and private eating, since eating of the Sacrament is a sign of familiarity as well as eating at our own Tables; and where I can without sin avoid it, I may no more eat Sacramentally then civilly with a scandalous person. This Church Governors may prevent by discipline, and private Christians by information, by which if they cannot keep away scandalous sinners, these last may comfort themselves in that they have discharged their duty, but aught hot to run away from Christ and his Ordinance because of the presence or partaking of wicked men which they cannot hinder. His instance of conjugal society will not help him, there being an express commandment for that in Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.13, 14. not so for mixed communion at the Sacrament with persons visibly unworthy, if it lie in my power to prevent it: And though I sin not simply in receiving with them to which private Christians may sometimes be necessitated; yet I sin if I do not my endeavour to prevent their receiving who or visibly unworthy and will not be reform by admonition.  
And this may serve by way of answer to his Reply, pag. 85. whereby he amplifies the Objection: And whereas he adds, Now it is one thing to eat at home (an indifferent action) where I am left to my own arbitration; and another to eat at the Sacrament, which 1 am bound unto as a piece of God's service.  
Lanswer. 1. That as eating at the Sacrament is a duty, so natural eating is a duty, which cannot be neglected without guilt of self-murder. 2. As when I can I ought to avoid eating at my own house with a scandalous person, so when I can (without sin) I ought to avoid eating at the Sacrament with a scandalous person. 3. As I ought not to avoid eating with a scandalous person to endanger my life or health, so I ought not with the hazard of my spiritual life and health to avoid Sacramental eating with a scandalous person. 4. As when a scandalous person will obtrude himself to my table, I ought by all lawful means to exclude him, so when the same person will obtrude himself upon God's table, I ought by the use of all lawful means to keep him off, by which if I cannot prevail, I may without guilt eat with him both at my owntable and at the Lords table; and the fault shall lie upon upon him who had power to exclued him but would not.  
That an excommunicated person is to be excluded in general from all Christian communion, as M. H. would have it, pag. 85. is 1. False doctrine, 2. Bloody and cruel doctrine, there being nothing in Scripture to warrant it, and much in the rule of charity against it: grant an excommunicated person is dismembered and cast out of the Church, and that he is to be as an Heathen and a Publican, you cannot deny him the liberties of one without, or of an Heathen and a Publican; but a Publican might come to the Temple to pray, Luk. 18.10. and an Heathen might come to the Church to hear, 1 Cor. 14.24. Further, since excommunication itself is medicicinall, why should it not be backed with public and private exhortations, 1 Cor. 5.5. and 2 Cor. 2.6. and 2 Thes. 3.6, 14, 15. Can it be imagined that his banishment from, will do him more good than his presence at public Ordinances? And this is the more strong against M. M. who pag. 16. applies 2 Thes. 3.6, 14. to the case of excommunication; and if persons excommunicated must be admonished as Brethren, why should they be debarred of presence at the Word preached, one great part whereof is admonition, especially of the unruly, 1 Thes. 5.14. Acts 20.31. Col. 1.28. And certainly if admonition in general be an Ordinance, yet applicable to persons excommunicated, is it not then as clear as the Sun, that excommunication doth not bar a person from all communion or from all Ordinances? the contrary to which notwithstanding is one of M. H. his new Lights, p. 85.  
But why should I shun an excommunicated person more in civil then in sacred society? Compare 1 Cor. 5.11. and 2 Thes. 3.13, 14.  
Answ. 1. Because in most parts of sacred society there is not that mutual familiarity which is so great a testimony of personal respect; nay persons may often meet at Ordinances, and yet not so much as know one the other. 2. There is fare more necessity of sacred then of civil society, whether in way of duty or of means. Excommunicetion excuseth not from duty, though it make a person uncapable of some privileges; nor can another's excommunication excommunicate me either from duty or privilege. God's children must present themselves before God though Satan himself come in among them, job 1.6. and 2.1.  
As for those places, jer. 15.19. and 1 Tim. 5.22. Though they reach not the case of the Sacrament immediately and in terms, yet they come home to it in a direct and natural consequence, since it concerns Ministers to separate the precious from the vile practically as well as doctrinally, in the Sacrament as well as in other Ordinances: And certainly, they who have power to excommunicate from all Ordinances (as Mr. H. teaches) have much more power to excommunicate from some: and if partial or gradual Excommunication be an offence, sure its an error on the right hand; better offend in too much lenity than severity. They who have power to deprive of all privileges, have power to deprive of some, and he that may cast a person out of the Church, may turn him out of the Chancel, as Mr. Humphrey elsewhere phrases it.  
From arguing he falls to wishing, p. 86. Let us see whether he be better skilled in in the Optative then in the Indicative Mood.  
1. His first wish is for a Government established in the Church, the nearest in Christian prudence to the Word God.  
An. Sir, Your desire is granted in some parts of the Nation; and had it not been in a great measure for the negligence of too many Ministers, and refractoriness of most people, the Government you wish for, might long ere this have been fettled all the Nation over.  
2. His second wish is, That the duty of fraternal correption, inspection, and admonition, were better known and practised amongst us.  
Answ. I can hearty say Amen to this wish also: and hope he will not be troubled that this wish is in part granted also; and in particular, that himself is in this discourse made an object of fraternal correption. He that values admonition, is in a fair way to be mended by admonition.  
3. His third wish is, That men would look more into their own consciences, and leave the judging of others spirits, hearts, and reins, alone to the judgement seat of Christ.  
Ans. An excellent wish; and had it been as well practised as wished by Mr. H. he would not have been so harsh a censurer of his brethren, as this Plea for free admission proves him.  
4. His fourth wish is, That though there may be some judging by the fruits, That wise and religious men would be more cautious of countenancing these separations in the visible Church; seeing upon the same ground that you go to gather a Church out of his mixed Congregation, another will gather a separation out of your Church, and so in infinitum, etc.  
Answ. I see a good heart is better than a wise head. Can we wish better, and dispute less, how soon should we close in a good agreement? How happy had it been for England, if godly persons had not countenanced separation? But whether Mr. H. his Doctrine or our practice have occasioned it, let the world judge. Had not sinful mixtures brought us to a Chaos, this spirit of separation had not probably been hatched in the hearts of God's Nazarites. A prudent and pious separation had prevented these foolish and sinful separation. The more Mr. H. and others turn Church-levellers, and lay all common, the more careful had we need be of our propriety and enclosures. Weeds may be tolerated in a Wilderness or Common, but are intolerable in Christ's enclosed Garden, Cant. 4.12. at least weeds in this Garden cannot expect all the privileges of good herbs. How justly may he at last be looked at as a weed by our great Husbandman, who contrary to rule and office will cherish weeds in Paradise, where he is set by God to till it, and to keep it.  
I have done with Mr. Humphrey, But must endeavour to satisfy one scruple before I shake hands with my Reader.  
Object. Do you think all are ignorant or scandalous, who refuse trial before the Eldership? If not, how can you deny them the Sacrament?  
Answ. God forbidden. Yet first, obstinate Refusers give too much occasion of suspicion in one of the former kinds.  
2. Whatever any may pretend against the Government, what is that to the giving an account of their faith or hope to any shall ask it, 1 Pet. 3.15. especially upon just grounds.  
3. Do not they suspend themselves, who will keep from the Sacrament rather than submit to a duty so easy, righteous, edifying, and honourable?  
4. Whatever may be done by way of extraordinary dispensation (where there is very good evidence of sufficient knowledge and true piety) yet such consider not what a gap they open to shake, if not break, the whole frame of Government. Who will not pretend conscience to scape trial when such ill precedents shall stand upon record for rules? And whether some few truly godly persons or the whole Church should surfer, I leave it to their judgement who understand how much the whole is to be preferred before divers parts. Let us not study to please ourselves, but seek those things which tend to peace and edifying. Yet if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God, 1 Cor. 11.16.  
Deo gloria, Ecclesiae pax & Reformatio.  
FINIS.