A Scripture-Rale TO THE LORDS TABLE; OR, OBSERVATIONS UPON M. Humphreys his Treatise, Entitled, An Humble Vindication of Free Admission to the LORDS SUPPER.  
Tending to discover the lose and profane Principles therein suggested.  
Published for the undeceiving the weak, and removing offences occasioned by it in the Practice of Reformation.  
Being the result of the Discourses of some Preachers in the County of Gloucester near Stow on the Wold, at their weekly Meetings.  
Digested by ANTHONY PALMER Paster of the Church of Christ at Bourton on the Water.  2 Tita. 5.22, Keep thyself pure. Pro. 24.24. He that saith to the wicked, Thou art Righteous him shall the People curse. 
London, Printed by A. M. for E. Brewster and G. Sawbridge, and are to be sold at the Sign of the Bible on Ludgate-Hill, 1654.   

TO THE READER.  
Christian Reader,  
IF thou hast perused that ungodly Pamphlet of Mr Humfreys for Free Admission, and taken notice in it of that mass of perverting the Scripture by malice or ignorance, or both; of his striking hands with all the ignorant and profane enemies of Reformation in the Land; Of his much self-condemning Sophistry, tending to destroy all Church-Reformation; Of his carnal and little better than profane reasoning; Of his pretendod love to the in bewitching thy conscience into quietness in sin, that thy peaceable practices may help to hold up that soul-damning practice of mixed communion, and thou securely receive with wicked persons, till thy conscience awake, when the varnish of his Sophistry is worn off; If thou hast also observed how the devil and his Agents have dispersed this Heterodox piece like lightning, and stirred up deluded souls to hug it as Cleopatra did the Asps, or Uriah the letter for his own destruction; if thou hast also observed how many Ministers through love of ease, interest, pride, and ambition, have (O thrice horrid wickedness) been active in spreading this abomination among their friends and acquaintance, to the great scandal of their holy calling; Thou mayst think we are not sharp enough in this our answer: But we considering that we have been our seves ignorant in as plain matters as this, before God of his goodness enlightened us, and not knowing Mr H. rentations, considering lest we ourselves should be tempted, and lastly in hopes of prevailing with him to be earnest with God for blotting out his sin and his Book, that for the time to come he may do nothing against the truth, but all for the truth, and the people of God may yet rejoice in his labours, as now the ignorant, profane, formal; and superstitious do, have resolved to deal with him in a brotherly way.  
Blessed be God we can wash our hands from the guilt of any prejudice against Mr H. person, for we know him not, neither have heard of any that did; and we can with cheerfulness say, Had not the glory of God, the danger of infection by the spreading this erroneous Pamphlet, the experience of the hurt it hath already done, the clearing of the Ministers of England from being all such soul-murderers and pleaders for Baal, and lastly, had we not thought it our duty to bear witness against this abomination, verily we had said nothing, but in silence bewailed M. H. and the sad fruit of his labour against the purity of Christ's worship; What we have done we commit to the hands of the Lord, that he may glorify himself by it. And we did the rather in the strength of God adventure to oppose the cheering up the enemies of Reformation in this deplorable Apostasy, because the Lord laid it upon our hearts to tremble at that word of his Eze. 13.22. Because with lies you have made the hearts of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad, and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life, therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations, for I will deliver my people out of your hand, and ye shall know that I am the Lord; we fear the sad Judgements of God upon the spreaders of this Pamphlet, when Christ shall come to be revenged on the opposers of his Kingdom.  
We have but few days before this our Answer want to the Press, seen an Answer to this Pamphlet by Dr Drake (for which we bless God) more strict and acute than ours (intended for our people) which may haply be more satisfactory to some then ours may seem to be; lest any should say We have built upon him or borrowed from him, we can profess we have not borrowed so much as a line from him: And truly we can say with an honest heart unfeignedly, that we long to see all the Godly Ministers declare against this piece, for we find, if men of greater parts and much perspicuity labour not suddenly to dash this idol out of countenance; these convictions in such a case (where so many cry Great is Diana) will work in the profane wits of this Nation all manner of concupiscence, Rom. 7.8.  
Do not then Christian Reader, (out of a vain fear that by this Answer thou shalt be drawn into separation from the godly) be so prejudiced as to forbear to powder; neither think thou that we intent to be schismatical in not complying with Godly Ministers in a work of real Reformation, according to the Word of God. The thing herd pleaded for in the Preamble, is the necessity of Reformation, as the case stands, to begin with the minor part, voluntarily uniting together with their own Minister to submit to Discipline (the major part being desperately overwhelmed with ignorance, profaneness, and superstition, strangers to and forsakers of their Covenant with God in Baptism) by conforming with their own mouths their part of the Covenant of God, a thing as our first Reformers in the Rubric before confirmation, as also Calvin, Bucer, Dr Fulk, and others affirm to be the practice of the Primitive Church, and may be now much more needful. This is, blessed be God, in some of our Parishes fruitfully embraced.  
Reader, We wish thee in the Lord to take heed of striking hands with the Abettors of Free Admission, lest thy end be worse than thy beginning, and we commit thee to him who is able to keep his from partaking with other men's sins and plagues.  
July 15. 1653. Imprimatur, Joseph Caryl.   

The Author being absent from the Press desires the Reader to correct these Erratas for him, Viz.  
IN the Epistle Pag. 3. lin. 13. before Ministers read Godly. In the Book Pag. 1. l. 4. for import r. impart. p. 4. l. 9 for obstructions v. abstractions. p. 14. l. 22. for from r. of. p. 39 l. 14. for on r. in. p. 72. l. 1. after esteem r. others. p. 76. l. 20. for came r. come. l. 21. for least r. best. p. 81. l. 1. after expression r. unsavoury. p. 84. l. 10. for acceptance r. repentance. p. 94. for their r. your. p. 103. l. 7. for men r. me. p. 121. l. 17. for contrive r. continue. p. 156. l. 3. blot out as. p. 18. l. 13. for souled r. found. l. 26. after commit r. iniquity. p. 182. l. 13. for him r. them.   

AN ANSWER to a Book of Mr HUMPHREYS, Entitled, A free Admission to the Lords Supper.  
BEfore we yet enter upon the subject itself, give us leave, Reader, further to import unto thee, what hath given us this encouragement, and indeed laid an invincible engagement upon our spirits, as to the bearing witness against this vile piece.  
We the unworthiest of the servants of Christ, having with many others, long waited for the practice of Reformation in the Parochial Congregations of this Nation (as the fruit of the prayers, tears and blood of the Lords people.) And though there have been expedients held forth, yet finding they lay dead upon the spirits of too many, it pleased the Lord to stir us up, though the last and least of our Brethren, to inquire after him in this matter, labouring (as far as we were able) to lay aside all prejudices and prepossessions, as to the different ways were held forth by holy men in the Nation, and so to pursue in the Lord's strength what he should please to clear unto us to be his will, and to impress upon our hearts, and accordingly to practise it: Upon this we betook ourselves to public Humiliation in Fasting and Prayer in our respective places, as also to private weekly seeking the Lord together, and conference, in which duties we found the Lord greatly abasing our spirits before him, for the great neglects which had been upon u as to this duty, and we were even afraid to plead with our God, considering how greatly we had failed, and put off the work of Reformation from our spirits, and the many sore and great evils the Lord was pleased to discover upon our hearts, specially that great snare (which we desire with all humility to declare to the praise of God, and the admonition of our Brethren) in which we had been long held, viz.  
That reforming our Congregations could not be attained, but by a Law from the Supreme Magistrate, thereby exonerating ourselves of the duties the Lord required from us, and the laying the guilt at their door, which the Lord hath now showed us to be a very shift; and we consider 'tis a great mercy that we have protection from the Magistrate in the peaceable practice of our consciences.  
2. We are convineed and find that 'tis the power of the Gospel, the Spirit working by it, that is the only expedient to bring a people to a more close and holy fellowship together, by their willing and mutual subjection to the rule of the Lord Jesus over them; We take it to be derogatory from him, for a people to be forced by humane power into the full fellowship of the Church; suitable to these convincements, we endeavoured to clear unto our people, the nature of Church-fellowship, and the way of it, and the necessity of Discipline, and so to call upon them to join with us in the Lords work, that we might give up ourselves unto him, in a professed subjection to the Gospel, and to grow to a more close fellowship together, that all Ordinances might be duly administered, to the honour of Christ, and that formality and lukewarmness might be in some measure broken. Accordingly an Expedient or Profession was drawn up, wherein we acknowledging our former abominations in Worship, and professing our Repentance before the Lord for them, do solemnly enter into, and renew our Covenant with God, that he may be our God, and we his people, to own the Lord Jesus in his Offices, to submit to godly Order and Discipline, to watch over one another, to walk in mutual edification, knit together in love, and so receiving others as the Lord shall overpower their hearts, some account of themselves being given, and no just exception (in a charitable judgement) to be made against them; This being the known duty of every complete member in a particular Church, as in effect granted by both the godly parties, we conceived few or none who were for purity would stick at it, the want of which practice we take to be the main reason of such great corruptions in the mixed Congregations, which corruptions, we humbly conceive, do put us inevitably upon this practice, if Reformation be really effected; That the substance of this is practised by the Presbyterian Brethren, though differing in the expedient, is sufficiently clear by the practice of the London Presbytery, who call upon all, and receive such as freely tender themselves, and require an account of them, waiting for the coming in of the rest, which are much the greater party in most Parishes, without Excommunicating such as refuse upon what account soever, to our best information, and so the minor party do withdraw from the greater, which the corruption of the greater part (in their enmity to Reformation) doth put them and us upon, unless we will content ourselves with the setting up a mere form of Discipline, but indeed sit down again on the fame lees of formality, which the Lord hath in sore judgements so much witnessed against, and his soul abhorreth. To take the boldness of a word more, as to our godly Brethren: We humbly conceive, that if that our Principle agreed upon by the most of the different ways (viz. That every particular Congregation hath power to reform itself, and so Ministers to be helpful to each other in it) were really practised; the controversy of Appeals would quickly cease. And further (which is also on both hands granted) that an Assembly of the Officers of several Churches in the Name of Christ, is an Ordinance of Christ for the healing of differences, the contest, Whether this power shall be styled Juridical or Declarative, and whether this Assembly should actually excommunicate or declare the fact to be excommunicable, would surely cease: It is very sad that a controversy about Appeals, which happily in well-ordered Churches, may rarely be needful, should hinder us in the practice of the first Principles which all agree in for the substance of them, and should make us draw harsh consequences from one another's premises, which both disavow, and so lay stumbling blocks in the ways of the weak, and hinder the hoped success of the Gospel and Reformation in the Nation: Let us first have our Churches formed up and ordered according to Gospel-rules, the ignorant and profane withdrawn from (since 'tis clear they cannot be regularly cast out by Discipline) and then the way of those Churches holding Communion together, would naturally fall in: To this practice (by the good hand of the Lord) we have mutually given up ourselves, and engaged in the Lord to be helpful to each other, and to hold Communion together, and a day of small things is wit us, yea we have had very precious testimonies of the Lords presence with it, with some of us, for which we bless him, and our eyes are upon him to bring his own work to pass, who is able to work and none shall let it, Isa. 43.13.  
The good Lord pardon us, if we are not cleansed according to the purifying of the Sanctuary.  
We shall yet for further satisfaction, briefly give an answer to the most common objections to, and misunderstandings of our practice.  
It is enquired in what relation do we conceive ourselves to stand unto the rest, and how do we esteem of them?  
1. As to the weak (but not obstinate) that have not strength enough to come up to this practice, we conceive it the Ministers duty to labour their convincement in public and private, and the united Brethren to do their duty, by praying for them, and to labour to draw them on to them, by all good ways and means, and not to neglect them.  
2. To such as peremptorily deny to subject to Christ's Discipline, upon indeed a profane account, they do virtually excommunicate themselves (at least from that particular Church) for being called upon to walk with them in the subjection and fellowship of the Gospel, they utterly refuse so to do, but will continue in that lose estate, and though they were baptised, yet by their refusing to subject to Christ, they are as Vrsin speaks Deficientes à suo Baptismo, 
Cap. de discip & excom.  such as for the present make void the fruit of their Baptism (though if they are after called we do not assert a necessity of renewing it) and to admit such to the Lords Supper, were, as that acute Author justly saith, and is evident from the Word, to confound and make one the Church of Christ and the Kingdom of the devil, as we shall (God willing) demonstrate in this Discourse; and though they pretend to profess and know God, yet factis negant foedus Dei, they deny him and his Covenant in their works and lives, 
Tit. 1.16.  and so ought not to be admitted to the Seals of it.  
So that such persons refusing to own the Covenant of God into which they were tendered in Baptism, Jesus Christ in his Offices and Discipline, and the fellowship of that particular Church, whereof he pretends to be a Member, being called thereunto, or by their ignorance and profaneness not fit to be received; what need any formal act of Excommunication pass upon them?  
Specially first, Since there was never any such former orderly receiving them into the complete Communion of the Church upon their professed faith and obedience before the Church, nor did ever give their consents to submit to Discipline.  
Secondly, Neither is there any way how they should be rightly excommunicated, for that the major part of the Church is corrupt (which we may well suppose in most of the mixed Parothial Congregations in England) and so will not excommunicate, nor are fit to do so, nor fit to choose Officers to do it.  
Besides, as we have formerly hinted, we never heard that either the Presbyterian or Congregational Brethren do excommunicate such as submit not; and therefore we rather wonder the more why this should be kept up as a note of difference between them, when practice confutes it.  
3. It is objected, that we propose a Covenant: we answer for the satisfaction of any, that we propose the Covenant established in Christ Jesus; The professing to enter into which, we insist upon in order to a persons partaking the seal of it; and those who require profession of repentance and faith in Christ before the Presbytery do, in substance the same thing; for Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience are the graces of the Covenant.  
1. It is most evident that Faith and Repentance in Christ's and the Apostles time were expected and required to be professed from the person to be baptised.  
2. 'Tis manifest that backsliders from this profession were not to be admitted to further Communion, as Simon Magus; And that those who broke bread, Act. 2.42. continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship. It is also evident that in the purest times the Sacrament of Baptism was administered to the party entering into Covenant, Credis? Credo, Abrenuncias? Abrenuncio; Dost thou believe? I believe. Dost thou renounce? I renounce. Plainly, it will then follow, that it is the duty of those who are baptised in Infancy, after they have gladly heard and received the Word, to own, profess and enter into the Covenant of God into which they were tendered in Baptism, and to join themselves by a free expressed consent, to the Communion of the Church, that so they may continue in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, etc. This was appointed to be the practice of the Church of England, and other Reformed Churches, to require this, and so none to be esteemed in the complete Communion of the Church without it, and therefore not to be admitted to the Lords Supper, till such a covenanting, submitting and joining: We find holy Bucer much lamenting the want of this practice, in an Epistle to Calvin, utinam, sicut istud foedus , hìc aliquando redintegrassemus & sanxissemus foedus vitae aeternae, quomodo vos conati soli praestitistis; 
Calvin. epist. fol. p. 509.  Further, Martyrum Ecclesiae severa Disciplinae religione erant conjunctae etc.  
Speaking further of the Churches there, Nisi Christo Domino sunt penitus insiti, ejus quoque Disciplinam inter se restituant, de ipsis miserè metuo;— Non desunt in omnibus ordinibus, qui restitutioni solidae communionis & Disciplinae Christi adversantur. Which we english for the weakest, that they may observe the concurring judgements of holy men, as to our own practice.  
Oh that we had renewed and established the Covenant of eternal life, as we have done a civil Covenant. The Churches of the Martyrs were joined together by the severe Religion of Discipline. I miserably fear what may become of our Churches, unless they are more closely graffed into Christ, and that they restore Discipline among themselves. There are some of all orders who are against the restoring of solid fellowship and Discipline.  
Now as that which is styled a Church-Covenant, so much debated among the godly, we take it to be no more, than such a mutual agreement and joining together mentioned, that solid fellowship and Discipline may be set up, else how can there be an unity and fellow-membership in a particular Church?  
Say such even who dispute against this practice, This is employed in the very principles of Christianity; We then apprehend it is not unlawfully but indeed necessary, expressly to profess what flows from the principles of it; specially in this case, where 'tis a man's own free act that constitutes him a member of a particular Church.  
Such a Profession and express consent to walk in fellowship, and to submit to Discipline, we call for; and we believe without it it will hardly be set up, unless a catechistical answer or two of a person examined (though never so dead-hearted, and a close enemy to the power of godliness) shall be thought enough, which will be to settle again where we were, in old ignorance, lukewarmness, looseness and formality; in stead of such as fear the Lord, walking in fellowship with the Father, and one with another in the Spirit.  
Now that any that truly fear the Lord should stick at this, viz. to profess to own the Covenant of God's free grace, to give up themselves unto it, and to Jesus Christ the Mediator of it in all his Offices, to walk under his Discipline, and in fellowship with his people, we cannot but justly wonder, and why any godly men of parts should frame and raise up bugbears against it; The Lord give them to believe, yea to taste the goodness and sweetness of it, and they will be humbled before the Lord that they ever withstood it.  
4. The Novelty of this practice, and from keeping any from the Sacrament, is objected to us and others.  
We could answer at large here, That it is as old as the Gospel for believers to walk together in fellowship in the duties expressed, and for unworthy persons to be kept from holy things.  
We might moreover produce the testimony of the most eminent Divines, that have been the Lords witnesses since, as the Church of God hath been blest with, as Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, Ambrose, etc.  
The abundant testimonies of all Reformed Divines, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Hyperius, Bucer, Zanchy, etc. with the sad complaints they make in their writings of the abuse of the Lords Supper, etc.  
Saith Calvin in one of his Epistles, speaking of the profane, Sine crass â Dei injuriâ admitti nequeunt, 
Lib. Epist. pag. 438.  quàm turpis & pudenda ista profanatio Saerorum? The profane cannot be admitted without gross injury unto the Lord, How vile and shameful is the profanation of these holy things?  
Yea saith Bishop Bilson, Not only the want of the Sacraments, but the abuse of either hazards the weal of the whole Church, yea casting holy things to dogs, procures a dreadful doom, as well to consenters as presumers, it being a way to turn the house of God into a den of thiefs, if profane ones be allowed the Mysteries and Assemblies of the faithful.  
5. It is objected, It is tyrannical; We answer, we wish that people would first look to their own duty, To obey them, that have the rule over them, and to submit themselves to them, Heb. 13.17. before they so peremptorily assert, That the Minister doing his duty, in reference to the Lord, and the good of their souls, is tyrannical; What tyranny for a Minister to make an universal invitation to the people he preacheth to, to own the Lord and one another in holiness and love, and so to walk with them? This Objection proceeds from a love of liberty and elbow-room in a carnal course, etc.  
6. Separation is objected; What separation for a Minister coming to a people settled upon the lees of ignorance and profaneness, and having much abused Sacraments, to call upon all that fear the Lord, to profess Christ with their mouths, and to give up themselves to him, and so to walk in mutual love and comfort together? Separation from wickedness is not schism, but from the godly; We profess to hold Communion with Ministers and Churches where Reformation is in any measure practised.  
Lastly, A vulgar Objection that is in the mouths of most, that we take upon us in this practice to judge the hearts of most.  
We answer, though we cannot nor do we undertake directly to judge men's hearts, yet we can argue out what is in men's heart, as the Wiseman speaks, Counsel in the heart of a man is like deep water, but a man of understanding draweth it cut.  
And that first, by their words, for Christ teacheth us so to know them, Mat. 12.34. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh: And vers. 35. An evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil things, as by lying, swearing, hard speeches, bitter scoffs, and revile at such as profess godliness under the names of Pharisees and hypocrites, with such like corrupt communications, any of which in their constant practice discover the heart: How else did Simon Magus manifest himself in the gall of bitterness?  
2. By their works, Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, etc. By such fruits we shall know them.  
3. An humble Christian will be willing to have his heart tried, and to have his Minister apply rules and evidences to discover whether it be sound and right with the Lord or not?  
4. Where none of these fruits do appear, we do not pretend to make a judgement of men's hearts, so there be a willing subjection to the Lord and his ways, to walk in fellowship with him and his people.  
Thus have we taken liberty (we trust without offence to any of the Lords people) with openheartedness and plainness, to propose what we humbly conceive we have learned of the Lord, and being deeply desirous to be ashamed of our former abominations; 
Ezek. 43.10, 11.  we hope we have, or shall see the Pattern of the Lords house; so far as in abundance of mercy, he shall please to use us; which the Lord (who will build up and come into his Temple) will in his time reveal to all that love him; In the mean time the Lord give unto us and all our Brethren, whose hearts are truly after Reformation to pray more, and dispute less, and laying aside all animosities, to do the work of our blessed God committed to us peaceably, according to the light we have received in our generations.  
Now we shall deliver some brief and plain observations upon this unhappy piece of Mr Humfreys, aiming at the satisfaction of the people merely; conceiving that judicious godly Ministers are not at all startled in their principles by what he hath vented; And so we have laboured to frame such answers as are most obvious to the people, and not puzzle them.  
First, We take notice of this Parenthesis in the Title, viz. That his Treatise was published for the ease, support and satisfaction of tender consciences (otherwise remediless) in or mixed Congregations.  
Answ. 1. By ease, it is plain he means by his Sophistry to delude their understandings so far as that they may without scruple partake of the Lords Table with the ignorant and profane; This is to make the conscience quiet, and not good; as water cooling a fever for the present, but makes it return with greater violence.  
2. We are confident this hath not eased, but more grieved and perplexed, the most tender cohsciences in the Natton, as most of the godly bear witness, and hath made the hearts of the righteous sad; The burden of such mixed communicating, which hath been and is in the mixed Congregations of England, hath been and is the grief and sad complaint of the servants of God both Ministers and people, and will be proved a snare.  
3. Whereas he saith, Tender consciences are otherwise remediless in our mixed Congregations.  
1. We offer it to consideration, Whether he doth not imply that our Congregations ought not to be continued so mixed with all manner of profaneness and ignorance, as the most are? And whether he doth not propose this as satisfaction to tender consciences only in this exigency of time, when he conceiveth no other remedy is to be had for want of a Discipline established, and Eldered Congregations, as he intimates in the close, and as he alloweth of Excommunication all along his book, and so his arguments to satisfy tender consciences in such an exigency, imply, that other remedies are desirable, and to be looked after.  
2. But we conceive and know, that tender consciences are not otherwise remediless, if they do not submit to such a mixed Communion, we apprehend the remedy laid down in the Preamble to be proper and good, and what others are practised by godly men in the Nation: Surely this evil is not so remediless, if godly Ministers and people will do their duty. We desire with all submission to remark, that many do hotly dispute against Erastianism, (viz.) Of Church-power being in the Magistrate, and yet they say Discipline cannot be practised without a Law from them (though they will protect men peaceably doing their duty) which we look upon as a very snare upon the spirits of good men. Therefore (blessed be God) there are comfortable remedies, if applied, without wallowing back again into that sea of dead blood, that corrupt, carnal, dead-hearted, formal, profane, ignorant practice of worship we have been in.  
We cannot but likewise take notice of an expression in the Epistle to the Reader, as it seems penned by another, wherein he calls this practice of free-admission, precious light; We are sure it hath by the holy people of this and other Nations, been ever accounted gross darkness, born witness against by most of the Confessions and Martyrs in all ages of the Church, yea hist at as a profane principle, and hath sent many of as eminent Saints as ever this Nation was blest with, to prisons and banishments: Oh horrid! that the liberty of all ungodly persons, promiscuously to profane the holy things of God, should now be styled precious light!  
Now to take notice and examine how precious it is, yet with all due respect to the Author.  
His Text, Matth. 26.27. They all drank of it: All the twelve without exception; from whence, saith he, I gather free Admission.  
Answ. 1. But we are bold to say most inconsequently, as ever was Argument drawn by a man of parts. Just the contrary will be thus argued, There were but only twelve Apostles (though Christ had many other followers and hearers) admitted by Christ to his Supper, therefore all of all sorts were not admitted to come; this is sure more colourably argued.  
2. Because only twelve Apostles, none being under scandal or ignorance, broke bread with Christ, therefore ignorant, swearers, liars, drunkards, unclean persons, covetous, revilers and haters of godly Preachers and people, such as most Congregations, to speak out, do abound with, may now come to that holy Communion of Saints.  
3. Here is the force of his Argument, Christ took twelve with him, and all those twelve drank of the Cup, therefore all might have come that would. Twelve Aldermen are invited by a Major to a feast, and because all the twelve eat, therefore all the beggars of the Town might have come.  
If the stress of his Argument lie in Judas his partaking of it, he might have been pleased so to have urged it, and not put such a fallacy upon weak people:  
And if it do, we answer briefly here, (and more fully where he plainly urgeth it) that it was irrational Judas should have been kept off before he had committed the scandal, specially Christ acting in that as an ordinary Minister and Past our to his Church.  
In his stating the Question, he asserts, All in the visible Church are capable of all Ordinances, but Infants, distracted persons, and excommunicated persons.  
1. Let the Reader observe, that Mr Humfreys allows Excommunication: of whom? of such as are detected for scandal, or unduly admitted into the Church formerly, being grossly ignorant; How will free Admission and Excommunication stand together? If it be every man's duty to come, why should any hinder him?  
But saith he, unless excommunicated: But what if they are excommunicable? Doth not that Pastor and Church sin before the Lord if they do not excommunicate them? If the greater part be such, ought not the Pastor and such as fear God with him (due means having been used for the conviction of the ignorant, superstitious and scandalous) to withdraw from them, in the exercise of this Ordinance, if Discipline cannot otherwise be taken up, as in a corrupt majority how can it?  
Pag. 3. saith he, Though he questions the capacity of many people, because a solemn preparation is required, yet he saith, he humbly persuades himself that for the Ministers and Churches part as to offering Christ freely, there is such an universal capacity, that if any come in professing themselves ready to enter into Covenant with Christ, and serve him in this Ordinance, we may encourage him, from Rev. 22.17.  
Answ. Here is the fallacy couched that runs thorough the whole Book.  
But is not this a sad confounding of things?  
1. It is most true, that sinners are freely to be invited to Christ? But must it be presently to this Ordinance of the Supper? If they do indeed profess themselves ready to enter into Covenant with Christ, and their lives do not contradict this covenanting, the Church is to receive them, but ought not this to be an explicit profession to the Church or Officers of it? Must a profane person rushing upon the ordinance as formerly, be supposed to do so, merely because he comes? Upon this score, who ever they be, Turks, Pagans, Jews, if they hear a Sermon, and come and eat and drink at the Supper, it is to be supposed they do implicitly enter into Covenant with Christ; how absurd would this be, and makes the blood of the Covenant an unclean thing?  
But secondly, his humble persuasion is not argument enough to prove, that the Minister and Church is to be so remiss and slight in this matter, without a former profession before the Lord and the Church, of every persons willingness to covenant with Christ, and submit to Discipline, (especially in this lapsed state we now are in) and the Church in a judgement of charity satisfied in them; if he means such a precedent, explicit, open profession of every person, we agree with him; but unless his Congregation be the Phoenix of all in England, I believe he would have but a few Communicants upon such an account, as trial hath been made by many godly Ministers in this particular.  
But as we have said, if he mean his mere coming, is such a profession, we take it to be very delusory, indeed a very mocking of the Lord.  
Besides Mr Humfreys well knows how unduly all sorts have been admitted to the Communion of the Church formerly, and therefore now in times of Reformation the case is distant; how few, alas to be found that know or have been ever truly taught what it is to covenant with Christ?  
This strange latitude that this latter sense implies, is fare from the Church's strictness in the purest times, in the admitting their Catechumeni into the fellowship of the Church.  
He goes on, Pag. 4. That he believes none unless excommunicated (ipso jure, or facto) ought to be refused, etc.  
If he means by excommunicated, ipso jure, such as of right aught to be excommunicated by the Church, than the matter is ended; for it is most true, that none but such as are already excommunicated, are to be kept from the Supper, and such without question ought to be kept off, and if so, he grants what we desire.  
But let us examine his further proofs for free Admission.  
His first Scripture is from Exod. 12. There was free admission to the Passeover, therefore to the Supper.  
Answ. 1. If all came to the Passeover, then there was no Excommunication in the Jewish Church, which Scripture Erastus and his followers use to prove there was none; And by this argument he will make void Excommunication now, (which as he hath stated the matter, will not be well consistent with his free Admission.) All to come to the Lords Supper, as all did come to the Passeover, none kept back from the one, therefore none from the other.  
2. But we deny that all were admitted to the Passeover; he confesseth himself, from Numb. 9 that they were to be kept off for a month, for legal pollution (which was a type of sin) supposing that they should cleanse themselves in that month, otherwise they were longer to be kept off, as will necessarily follow, the end of their keeping off for that time, being that they should be cleansed, as Pareus, and others upon the place well observe.  
We cannot here insist to enforce the many Scriptures and Arguments which have been brought by others, to prove that the Jews were kept from the Passeover both for legal and moral uncleanness for scandalous sins, which we are confident neither he nor all the world will be able to answer: Therefore we do indeed the more wonder that he will urge this, and go about to impose it on Ministers and people, so slightly passing over what so many learned and godly men have wrote, specially the London Ministers, and Scotch Divines, and not take notice of their weighty arguments.  
But we will clear it from the Scriptures plainly. See, Reader, Numb. 15.30, 31. & Chap. 19 That there was a cutting off from the Congregation such as did aught presumptuously against the Lord, that despised the word of the Lord, that transgressed the Sabbath. So Ezra 10.8. Whosoever would not come to build the Temple within the three days, should be separated from the Congregation. And whosoever should confess Christ was to be put out of the Synagogue, John 9.22. Yea himself grants, that the Jews had their several degrees of Excommunication, p. 84. of his Book. And is not the neglect of keeping of the profane from the holy things charged upon the Priests as a great evil? Ezek. 22.26. Her Priests have violated my Law, and have profaned my holy things, they have put no difference between the holy and profane, etc. Yea further, Ezek. 44 7, 9 The uncircumcised in heart were not to enter into the Sanctuary to pollute it, that is, such as did manifestly in their lives appear to be so, though they had received outward Circumcision. And the Lord saith, vers. 13. That such of the Priests that thus transgressed the Covenant of the Lord should bear their iniquity, and they should not come near unto him to do the Office of a Priest any more. This also is typical of the spiritual Sanctuary the Church of Christ in Gospel times.  
From what hath been said, it will easily appear, without troubling the Reader with any more, that the Jews were kept off from the Passeover for presumptuous and scandalous sins; for if they were cut off from the Congregation, than they came not at the Passeover; and one end of their cutting off was, that they might not defile the Passeover, as hath been proved; Therefore, Reader, thus fare it appears Mr Humfreys hath deluded thee.  
His next Scripture is, 1 Cor. 10.7. We being many are all partakers of one bread, All at Corinth, etc.  
Answ. True, All such who joined themselves to the Church by the preaching of the Apostles did so, who came and professed subjection to the Lord Christ and his Gospel, 2 Cor. 9.13. and became a chaste Spouse unto Christ, Chap. 11.2. these did all partake it. But, Sir, were the Parochial Churches in England (though we deny them not to be Churches in a large sense) so brought in? Will you compare the obstinate ignorance of this age of people, to professing Saints at Corinth? whom Paul styleth, Called to be Saints, and sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1.2. as we shall elsewhere urge.  
Are not zealous Preachers of the Gospel, upon laying aside corrupt forms, and superstitious usages in too many places, despised and reviled by the most, as novelists and Troublers of Israel? would, do you imagine, Paul writ to such as Saints and sanctified, and style the Churches the chaste Spouses of Christ, where so much abetted profaneness and affected ignorance?  
2. Besides the Apostles drift in that place is not to prove that all did partake of the bread, but that those that did partake, were one bread together, and therefore they should fly idolatrous seasts, lest they were made one body with them, by eating with them.  
Pag. 6. But faith Mr Humfreys, Many of these Corinth's were ready to go to their Idols, and to commit Idolatry.  
Answ, It seems than they were but ready to go to their Idols, they did not actually commit Idolatry. The truth is this, some of them through weakness, did eat at their feasts, of meats sacrificed to Idols, which things the Apostle severely warns them of, lest they should be tempted back to Idolatry, by the example of the Jews, and the Lords judgements upon them; not as if these Corinth's did already commit Idolatry, but he warns them against it, and so in the close of the Chapter states the eating of those meats, in itself an indifferent action, so the snare to Idolatry be avoided, and offence to the weak brother; which Interpretation is given by all sound Interpreters we meet with.  
Now to style the Corinth's lukewarm Christians. as indifferent to Christianity or Idolatry, and so to justify the Admission of such to the Lords Supper, is more than this Scripture will allow.  
3. By this Argument also he would prove, that such as are actual Idolaters may be admitted to the Sacrament. This is free Admission to purpose.  
But 1 Cor. 11.28. seems to him to strike further, These Corinth's were mutinous and drunken at the Supper, for this they were reproved and directed to examine themselves, etc. but for their coming 'twas their duty.  
Answ. 1. These Corinth's being newly come out of Idolatry, as hath been showed, did in imitation of the idolatrous seasts keep their love feasts, Judas ver. 12. when they came to the Lords Supper. At which feast there was excess among them, not precisely at the Lord's Supper, as vers. 21. of that Chapter, where it is said, Every one took his own Supper, and so some were drunk, that is, some were excessively feasted and filled, while others, the poorer sort, wanted: This disorder the Apostle reproves, and rectifies their practice; but surely never thought any Minister of the Gospel would plead this for an allowance, that profane drunkards ought to come to the Lords Table.  
Reader observe, that by this Argument, in perverting these Scriptures, he pleads for impenitent Idolaters and drunkards to come to the Sacrament; Hath not this man a great care of the the Lords worship?  
2. It doth not appear, that this was an obstinate, constant practice of the Corinth's, but a weakness, they being newly come out of their Heathenism.  
Now saith he, For their coming nothing was said against it, that was their duty.  
Answ. Upon this distinction we presume the Author took up this judgement; we shall further speak to it, where he more at large urgeth it.  
For present, we deny there is any absolute command of coming to the Sacrament, unless so qualified, as the word of God requires; worthiness being the very formality of their coming. There's a double worthiness, Real, the sanctification of the person, without this no particular person ought to come (at least begun upon him) for he eats and drinks damnation without it; And let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, so, and not otherwise, without his examination he ought not to come; this as to his own conscience.  
Will not Mr Humfreys preach thus, Unless you examine your selves, that is, as to your repentance and faith, you ought not to come to this holy Ordinance? Or will he say thus, Though you do not, yet you ought to come, that's your duty? For, saith the Author, Nothing is or could be said against their coming: Nothing? 
* 1 Cor. 11.27, 29, 30.  Is eating and drinking judgement to themselves nothing? Be stricken with sickness, weakness, death, Is this nothing? But he will say, This was for their unworthiness; therefore they ought not to come, being under such unworthiness. If a Master enjoin his servant not to come into his presence, unless so and so habited upon pain of death; shall that person yet go, because he will say, he ought to go to his Master, 'tis his duty? So saith the Lord Christ by Paul, He that comes to me in the Ordinance of my last Supper, aught to come with such and such a worthiness, or he incurs death and judgement without his repentance: Now will that person say, or will any say to him, 'Tis your duty however to come? Nay, Is it not their duty to abstain? 'Tis his duty indeed to examine and prepare himself, and so to come, but 'tis not his duty to come, if unworthiness be upon him: 'Tis true, there is an indefinite mediate obligation of all flesh to obey God the Creator in every command of his, and 'tis their sin and condemnation in failing, but there are some duties of his worship, wherein he hath appointed that his Name shall be thus and thus sanctified by his own people, and to approach him in these without it, is a greater sin then to abstain from them, especially in this Ordinance. So much for real worthiness, etc.  
Secondly, There is visible worthiness. in reference to the Church; and this the Church is to look to, in order to the right honouring of the name of God in his worship, and its own purity. Now Paul in this Chapter doth only admonish the Corinth's, and convince them, and so seems to hope their amendment in the two last verses of the Chapter, and though he doth not give order to the Church here to excommunicate them, which 'tis not probable he should before reproof and admonition (especially being newly brought over to the faith of the Gospel, and so but tender) yet no question if they had continued in this sin, as the people in the mixed Congregations do in theirs, the Church should have had direction about it, as well as touching the incestuous person, and others in the fifth Chapter; for he will grant these to be scandalous sins in the Church, and if persisted in to merit Excommunication. That these corruptions so witnessed against by such severe reproofs and judgements from heaven should be pleaded as patterns of practice, is most absurd, especially comparing the Church of Corinth, & our Parochial Churches, and so to draw a parallel practice, styled Saints, and sanctified in Christ Jesus, the chaste Spouse of Christ, converted by the preaching of Paul, a Church stored with rare spiritual gifts, and ours for the most part trained up under a dead form of worship, and a little heartless preaching (for a great part, to speak plainly against the power of godliness, and such as do profess it) in ignorance of the way of life and righteousness by the Lord Jesus, living in known, gross, moral sins, as hath been showed, and which cannot but be evident to the Author we deal with.  
To proceed, The Achillean place is the next in the same page 7. 1 Cor. 10.4. as if it were a new Discovery, when long since urged by Erastus and his followers, the vanity of the Inference hath been over and over confuted by many godly men, which he is pleased to pass by. Now (saith he) here is a clear Scripture for free Admission; The Israelites that passed thorough the sea and wilderness were baptised under the cloud, and drank of the same spiritual rock, that is, admitted freely to both Sacraments, all scandalous ones without exception.  
Answ. 1. Sir, Why do you not speak out, but here and there mince in Excommunication? When you plead for all scandalous persons to be admitted, and by consequence received and continued in the Church: If the scope of all you assert be in want of Discipline, why do you go about to prove it an absolute duty?  
2. Consider the scope of the Chapter, which is, first, to warn the Corinth's of eating with Idolaters, as hath been opened, lest they should be tempted back, and so fall into the same condemnation of the Jews, who were baptised, drank of the same spiritual rock, eaten manna, and yet for their sins, the wrath of God came afterwards upon them: also in the 5th verse it is said, With many of those God was not well-pleased, which may be understood for their evil eating and drinking, as well as the rest of their sins, as Mr. Trap on his Notes on the place.  
Now if we should allow the parallel of these types, which Beza will not allow to Erastus, it will not in the least measure prove his design: For first, the manna and the water of the rock were their ordinary food, though they had also Evangelical significations; so that if scandalous sinners had been debarred of these, they had been debarred of their ordinary food, which makes a vast difference between their case in the wilderness, and ours at the Lord's Table.  
3. The Apostle speaks of such sins as were committed after the eating of the manna, and drinking the water of the rock, for as soon as they fell to Idolatries and whoredoms the wrath of God came upon them, Numb. 26.64, 65. therefore they did not eat of the manna, and drink of the rock after the committing these sins: Also these scandalous sinners were to be cast off by death by the Law, except such of them as did repent, and so not to be admitted: Hence we have this Argument from this place against Mr Humfreys, as given forth by learned Mr Gillespy in his Aaron's Rod, viz. If God himself did execute such Discipline upon those who were tainted with Idolatry, fornication, and other gross sins, etc. that he would not permit them to enjoy their former liberty of eating of the manna, and drinking of that rock (as typifying Christ) until they mourned, repent, confessed, and atonement was made for them; it is much less the will of God that such scandalous sinners as are impenitent, and manifestly irreconciled to God, should be admitted and received to the Lords Supper. But the former is true, Therefore the latter. If he urge here, They ought to be put back by Excommunication, why doth he so positively and peremptorily urge this Text to prove free Admission, when indeed the scope of the Apostle is to prove the contrary, and to warn them of it, lest the same judgements come upon them also?  
It is sad to bring that for an example of allowance (let him have what obstructions he please) which is left as an example of the fearful judgement of God to be trembled at in all succeeding ages by all abusers of Church-priviledges.  
His next Scripture is, The Parable in March. 22. compared with Luke 14.16, 23. that all were invited to the feast, and the servants brought in all both good and bad; whence he infers free Admission.  
1. We do not find any solid Divines understanding this feast of the Sacrament, nor is there the least colour so to do: But this Parable is to set forth,  
1. The tender of the Gospel to the Jews, who refusing it, it is sent to the Gentiles, expressed by the highways and hedges, the remote corners of the world; So that the calling of all in Luke is the call of the Gospel for all to come in and accept of the terms of it; And all that come and profess subjection to it are received by the Church, and so to partake of all the Gospel-Ordinances till by their conversations they shall discover themselves hypocrites.  
But saith he, In Matthew, The servants of the Master of the feast, brought in good and bad.  
In answer hereunto, First, All both good and bad are invited freely by the Gospel.  
Secondly, Good and bad are gathered in, but by the bad is certainly meant close hypocrites, for when they come in, they pretend subjection to the Gospel, and so are put under Gospel-administrations: But Christ shows the danger of that hypocrisy, and that if such as come unto the feast of the Gospel in hypocrisy not having the wedding garment, the regeneration of the Spirit upon them, shall be cast into utter darkness; That this is the plain scope of the Parable, is the assent of most godly Interpreters.  
Now that hypocrites shall be in the Church till the later day, who questions? But that when their hypocrisy is visible, they shall be cast out of the Church, and so not admitted to the Communion of the Church in the Supper, is clear from the Discipline Christ hath elsewhere instituted in Matth. 18. and by Mr Humfreys own concession in allowing the Ordinance of Excommunication; and though the person without the wedding garment (representing all the close hypocrites) was first admitted by the servants, yet he was not admitted as not having a wedding garment, but supposed in a judgement of charity to have it, because he professeth to put on Christ in subjecting to him, but that he is therefore to be continued and admitted to all Ordinances upon his scandal appearing, as we have said, cannot in the least measure be gathered from this Parable: But we need say no more, but that Mr Humfreys hath perniciously perverted the scope of the Parable, Jews and Gentiles must be called to faith in Christ by the Ministry, Therefore ignorant and profane must be admitted to the Lords Supper; it followeth not.  
But, saith he, This person was compelled to come in (still understanding it of the Sacrament, which is we conceive confuted) which, saith he, was his duty, and he had no mind to come in, if he could have helped it.  
An. If he would not have come in if he could have helped it, & so was compelled, what is this but a forcible compelling of men to the Sacrament? Sure here's liberty and free Admission destroyed again, but by a worse principle, viz. that people may be compelled to the Sacrament, though they have no mind to come; for what else can be gathered from that expression? If he then do so understand it of a forcible compelling to the Sacrament against men's wills, we refer him for an answer to all solid Protestant Divines against the Papists, urging this Scripture for forcible compelling to subject to the Church, and so to make Churches by the sword; And likewise to what hath been answered to the practice of the Prelates in punishing persons if they came not once a year to the Sacrament, which is now hist at by all the godly in the Nation, as a practice most abominable.  
But, saith he, to come was not his sin (still unduly meaning the Sacrament) but without his wedding garment.  
It hath been answered, that to come is not his duty unless he hath his wedding garment; 'tis his greater sin to come so, then to refrain, because 'tis an abominable mocking of the Lord, who hath laid upon men no absolute command to come, but a conditional, therefore not to come according to the conditional command is the sin.  
By this compelling therefore is meant the free invitations and compellations of the Gospel (Evangelii inculcatione & hortationum instantiâ, as Bucer on Mat. 22.) upon which the Gentiles shall come into it, and not of compelling men against their wills to the Sacrament, a practice the soul of the Lord abhors.  
His fourth Observation, Pag. 10. That our Saviour explains his own Parable, Many are called, few are chosen; That is, saith he, the work of the Ministry, we are freely to offer Christ in his Ordinances; but few are chosen, that is the work of God, etc.  
Answ. Very true, many are outwardly called by the Gospel, but few chosen, 'tis only known to the Lord who are his chosen ones, and therefore the Church looks to outward profession and calling, but if any deny their call, by contrary walking to it, nothing is here gathered to the contrary, but the Church must cast them out; Secret election belongs to God, but the electing of sitly qualified persons to the Lords Supper, belongs to the Church; It is the work of the Ministers to offer Christ freely in the Ordinances, but in Christ's own way and method, to offer him first in the preaching Ordinance, and if any soul profess to embrace him before the Lord and the Church, then to have the seal of his love in the Supper, which things indeed he doth confound and mix all the way, and which being discovered the snare is broken.  
Secondly, That few are chosen, that is the work of God, yea that the servant brought in the man, it was the Lord only took upon him to judge and cast him out.  
Answ. Who doubts this, but it is the Lords work to choose? The Church meddles not with men's election, but their calling and profession; it is his work to cast out, his work alone to discover close hypocrites at the last day; But, Sir, we beseech you, Is this exclusive of all other casting out by the Church, why then do you speak of Excommunication? Your indeed continued contradiction: Is not the Church to cast out open scandalous persons, or to withdraw from such as scorn at Discipline, or have been unduly admitted as complete members into the Church, being grossly ignorant? surely you will grant both.  
He concludes this Argument as with a victory from Luke 12.42. Who is that faithful steward that gives the household their portion in due season?  
Answ. We answer (and may we do it with grief of heart) not such as give their Master's bread to dogs, his enemies in their wicked lives; or such as refuse to profess submission and subjection to him, being called thereunto; He is a faithful steward who casts out his masters traitorous enemies, who dishonour his family, and gives his bread, the seal of his love, to his household only; A stronger Argument needed not be brought against him.  
The Lord forbidden the godly Ministers of this Nation should now, after all their crying for Reformation be found such Stewards as free Admission would have them.  
What he urgeth from Act. 20.28. is as impertinent, where Paul chargeth the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, to take heed, and to feed the Church of God, etc. 
Ephes. 2.22. & 4.16.  That Church which is described to be built up as an habitation of God thorough the Spirit, fitly framed and compacted together, as brought into the order of the Gospel, by the holy and powerful preaching of it by the Apostles.  
Now, 1. What's this to ignorant, corrupt, carnal, formal, profane, superstitious and malicious Congregations, that they must still be fed with this Ordinance, to the flattering of them in a miserable sinful state, and send them with a cruel pity to hell with them?  
2. Such are not fit to be fed with Sacraments, which have not feeding souls for it.  
His next place is, Mark 1.5. & Mat. 3. where he saith, John baptizeth all that come unto him for Baptism, though he calls them vipers, etc.  
This he calls a strong place; But, Reader, see the weakness of it for his purpose.  
Answ. 1. It is questioned by many learned men, Whether these Pharisees were baptised by John; but if we grant they were, we answer,  
2. The Pharisees came to John's Baptism, John seeing them, deals roundly with them, and calls them a generation of vipers, and pleads with them, Who had warned them to fly from the wrath to come? seeing they were self-righteous persons, and need no repentance in their own conceits; His Baptism was the Baptism of repentance, and sinners, lost sinners, who saw their need of repentance came to it; What made they in the number of them? Thus John labours to convince them; now such of them as were wrought upon, and came to him, casting off their own former self-conceitedness, and confessing their sins, and so submitting to the Baptism of repentance and remission of sins, were baptised of him, as 'tis clear Mark 1.5. They were baptised of him, confessing their sins; so that 'tis not to be understood that John looked upon those as continuing in their Pharisaism, and so a generation of vipers, when he baptizeth them; but as repenting sinners, and so presseth them to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance; Now who denieth such persons so confessing their sins generally before the Preachers and Church, and so desiring to be received into the fellowship of the Church, and the privilege of all Ordinances, but that they ought to be received? What is this to such who either were never called upon so to profess repentance and faith, or being so called upon, do yet scornfully refuse to do it? as it is too evident where ever Reformation hath been set on foot in this Nation.  
He makes such another instance in that of Acts 2.41. Where (saith he) they immediately communicate with them, distributing freely, not only the Word, but Sacrament.  
But what were these? Such as at the Apostles preaching were pricked at the heart, crying out in deep conviction of conscience, Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved? and professing openly their repentance.  
What is this again, to such whose hearts rise up against the Gospel-Ministry, who cry up a Service-book above Gospel-preaching, full of obstinate ignorance? The Author knows he need not go fare to find such; which are those godly men stick at as to Admission to the Lords Supper, and not poor, convinced, repenting souls, who profess it before the Lord and his people.  
His next Scripture is Acts 10.28. which he calls a peculiar place; Peter, saith he, Was very scrupulous of admitting Christian Communion With any but the Jews, it being held pollution under the Law to partieipate in any thing with the Gentiles, but after the vision God instructed him to call no man unclean. Reader, observe this,  
Because Peter had a vision that the Gospel was to come to the Gentiles, and therefore he might have conversed with them, therefore every Gentile, every lewd, ignorant, profane person, is to be accounted so elean, as to be admitted to the Lords Supper: For this is the whole force of the Argument: Every man knows that by that vision nothing else is meant but the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles; sure considerate unprejudiced persons will not be heightened against Reformation by such kind of reasoning, when the nakedness of it is discovered.  
Now, saith he further, I have learned to count no man unclean unless excommunicated.  
No? What if half or more of a Congregation be actually unclean persons, living in known sins, and the Minister and the rest do not excommunicate or withdraw from them, Doth not sin lie upon them for the neglect of their duty? And are not such persons to be accounted as unclean by them? Many do find a shift for conscience this way; It had indeed more colour, if the people had professed a willing subjection to Discipline before, and Excommunication had been ever duly administered in the Parochial Churches of England, but it will not be à salvo in the corruptions they now lie under.  
To these he adds the texts which set forth free grace, and so pleads; When the Gospel freely offers Christ, when Christ offers himself and grace, which are the things signified, How can any have the conscience to turn them away from the signs?  
This is a very confounding of things, and indeed a mere fallacy.  
Answ. 1. Doth not Christ freely offer himself to Jews, Turks and Pagans, therefore have you so easy a conscience as to give them the Seals before they profess to receive the grace offered unto them?  
2. It is true, when Christ offers himself and grace, and so souls receive him, and profess to do so, when they have (in the charitable judgement of the Church) the substance, none ought to deny them the Signs; but when they refuse to declare or profess this, and have all their days abused this Ordinance through gross ignorance and profaneness, who can have so pitiless a conscience as to suffer them to continue to do so, when they do not their duty to prevent it? The Lord lay it not to the charge of any, etc.  
Now we come to his Reasons: His first and chiefest, upon which he conceives himself to stand upon a Rock, but Reader, observe how sandy it will appear, we dare be bold to affirm, that his whole building will fall, if this be the only Rock and support of it.  
The Sacraments (saith he) are verbum visibile, a visible Gospel; The Sacraments set forth Christ to the eye, as the Gospel doth to the ear, therefore the same latitude in the Administration of both. This is the substance of the Argument.  
Answ. If there be the same latitude of administering the Gospel and the Sacraments, then to whomsoever the Gospel is preached, the Sacraments are also to be administered. The Gospel is preached to all the world, therefore all the world to take the Sacrament. Sir, you know well enough that the Apostles preached the Gospel to whole Cities, yea Nations, but administered the Sacraments only to such as came and professed repentance and subjection to the Lord Jesus. Upon this score, as many as hear the Gospel preached, professing to be converted or not converted, may come and eat bread and wine with the Church at pleasure. A monstrous profaneness.  
But his reason is, Because this Sacrament shows forth the death of Christ, and this is, saith he, Paul's judgement of Christ's Institution.  
But, Sir, To whom did it show forth the Lords death, and who were to use it for that end? Were they not the professing Saints of Corinth, such that had given up themselves to the Lord by the will of God.  
Briefly, let it be showed, that Jesus Christ did institute Sacraments for any other then professing believers, or make any promise to them for conversion, or whether they were ever administered unto any but such as owned and submitted to the Church: But he will not sure say, the Gospel is to be preached to no other, therefore there is not the same latitude in the administration of both.  
But he further urgeth, Gal. 3.2. for this, O ye Galathians, before whom Christ hath been set out, as crucified among you. This expression, saith he, may well be applied to the Sacraments.  
True, it may be, but it is clear it was not the Apostles meaning there, but the doctrine of Christ crucified, from the power of which they were revolting.  
But grant it were, What doth he gain by it? It only will prove, that the Galatians (as a Church) received the Lord's Supper, and that Christ was set out to the eye of a believer; What's this to prove the same latitude of preaching the Gospel and administering Sacraments?  
He is willing to prove it further by a Metaphor; A man covenants with a Landlord about a purchase, the price being paid, the bargain established, he comes and requires his Seal for confirmation; So Jesus Christ makes a purchase for us, gives us the writing and seal in the Gospel and Sacrament. This is the substance.  
Very true, but must not the party for whom this purchase is made come first and accept of the bargain upon its own terms, and so have it sealed to his use? so must not every soul first profess to accept Jesus Christ on his own terms, and so the Church in the name of Christ to give him the seal, the Sacrament?  
So, saith he, a Prince proclaims a pardon upon condition of laying down their arms, and so gives forth a pardon and seal, etc. So Jesus Christ, etc.  
Answ. But must not then the rebel first lay down his arms, and profess subjection etc. so must not every soul profess laying down their sins, and to subject to Christ?  
Now, saith he, will it not be plain, as We offer the conditions to any, so may we the seal, etc.  
1. True, we offer pardon of sin, the condition, as he calls it, but we are not to apply the seal, unless there be a professed acceptance of it.  
2. If a soul do first accept of the conditions, or do not break them by continuing in sin, than he is to have the seal: But what doth all this make for his purpose? If he intent by this that all that submit to the Gospel-terms and conditions, which are repentance, faith and obedience, that they ought to have the Gospel-seal, the Sacrament, who will contend with him? This doth not sure prove the same latitude in preaching the Gospel and administering Sacraments. The Gospel may be preached to thousands who may not accept of the conditions of it.  
We will here urge the Argument of that learned Divine Parcus on Vrsin, 
Catech. de dis.  against this judgement; saith he, The signs are to be administered to none but to whom the promise belongs, but this belongs not to wicked impenitent persons; Therefore; His reason he gives, is that which speaks just contrary to Mr Humfreys assertion; If the Church should administer the signs of grace to such, Verbo visibili absolveret, quos verbo audibili damnaret. The Church would absolve in the visible Word, the Sacrament, whom He doth condemn in the audible Word, the Gospel, which declares no unbeliever, or wicked person, as such, to have inheritance in the kingdom of God; If no inheritance, than not the seals of that inheritance: But we have stood too long upon this, which we the rather do to undeceive the weak.  
But yet, there is so much stress laid upon this his Argument, that it is backed with four considerations.  
His first, The Gospel is to be preached to every creature, and a baptising them, therefore this Sacrament also, etc.  
What is this but a repeating the same thing? But was every soul baptised that had the Gospel preached to it? Doth it not run, Mar. 16.15. He that believeth and is baptised, &c,  
Why will men offer to stagger weak souls with such inconsequent reasoning?  
2. His second consideration, That the Gospel offers Christ freely to all, etc. without qualifications (so there be a present giving up himself sincerely to him) And yet none but such as shall be qualified after their minds must come to the Sacrament.  
Answ. But would he have no qualifications upon a soul that comes to the Sacrament, no repentance, no faith? etc.  
Doth not his sincere giving up himself unto the Lord as his Lord and Saviour imply these? But what if this soul should before the Minister and Church before he comes to this Ordinance profess, that in sincerity (so fare as he knows his own heart) he doth give up himself to the Lord and his people? Would this take off from the free tender of Christ?  
Further, saith he, Is Christ offered as a free gift in the Word, and must we not come Without our price and money to this Ordinance? etc.  
Answ. The Author's ingenuity were desirable here; Do the Preachers when they call for Repentance and faith in such as come to this Ordinance, and suitable conversation, do they make this buying of Christ? Besides, The Word is to begin and work faith; this Ordinance supposeth faith; for it is supposed the bargain's made before the conveyance is sealed; that a soul receives Christ, before Christ seals his love to him.  
His third consideration, That the Gospel way is the best way to bring souls to Christ; Let, saith he, a man's heart be fully convinced of the free grace of God in Christ, his heart can stand it no longer out against his conversion.  
Answ. This is true, but what to purpose in his Argument? Is every man's heart so convinced that hears the Gospel? He must first profess to have his heart convinced of the free grace of Christ, before he can rationally desire the seal, or it can rationally be given unto him.  
Ay but, saith he, when the Word is preached, Covenant opened, Seal applied, the Message of reconciliation comes in its full virtue to convince, etc.  
But, Sir, keep to your rule, the Gospel way is the best way, etc. Was this ever the Gospel way, or is it any where prescribed in it? Was not conviction always professed before either Sacrament was administered? We are well assured he cannot show any precept or example to the contrary in the Gospel. Therefore this huddling of things will not pass.  
4. His fourth consideration, sure a hasty one, is this, The Gospel is a peaceable Gospel, an embassy of peace, now how shall this peace be kept if we go to make separation at this Ordinance?  
Answ. The truth is, a sufficiently worldly and carnal Argument; but, Reader observe, may not the same reason be urged against the preaching of the Gospel too? Doth not this breed disturbance? etc.  
Yea, is not this reasoning directly against what Christ himself delivers shall be the effect of the preaching of the Gospel, Matth. 10.33, 34. I came not to send peace but a sword; I am come to set a man at variance against his father, etc. And a man's foes shall be those of his own house, etc. And elsewhere, I will gather you one of a family, and two of a City, etc. Jer. 3.14.  
Now is not the Gospel a Gospel of peace (that is, to the soul which receives it, in which sense it is an embassy of peace) because it will make such work in the world, by the opposition of men against it? May it not as well be said, O the Gospel will make disturbance? How shall the peace be kept? Whereas it is on purpose to separate the kingdom of Christ from the world? The truth is, this argument is of so little weight, that therefore such a separation as keeps off ignorant and profane persons from the Supper, aught to be, because it will disturb the consciences of such, and may (by grace) awaken them to a consideration of their own condition, and not longer be flattered in the customary carnal way they have been lulled asleep in: He next states the case of a poor wounded sinner, as if it were meant any such should be kept off by godly men who plead for the purity of this Ordinance; We plead against such as are whole in their own opinions, ignorant, profane, revilers, and not wounded sinners, if they declare themselves poor sinners and wounded, no doubt but they will be received.  
We shall not add any thing to the other part of this consideration, it being but a repeating of what is before urged.  
His second Reason is drawn from the nature of a visible Church, which (saith he) is a number of such as make profession of Jesus Christ, and so are Saints by calling, whatsoever they are in truth, the essential marks whereof (whereby it subsists as visible) is the preaching the Word, and administering Sacraments.  
Answ. Not to dispute this, How far the preaching of the Word and administration of Sacraments are essential marks: The Word may be preached to those that are no Church, and the Sacraments administered to a false Church; Ordinances are rather food and maintenance of the Church, than the marks of it.  
There may be Churches in a large sense, that may have no right Gospel-constitution, and yet have these Ordinances, as begun merely by the command of the Magistrate to subject to such forms he prescribes, and not by the preaching of the Gospel, and a voluntary submission of a people to it; and such are not properly Saints by calling: It is possible there may be such Congregations in England, etc.  
Will you style affected-ignorant persons, scoffers at instruction and the power of godliness, obstinate heretics, Saints by calling, though they make profession of Jesus Christ? Surely this destroys their profession.  
Therefore it may be added that a Church is coetus fidelium, a society of believers that profess Christ and his Gospel, and practise answerably, and are answerably united by mutual agreement, who submit freely to Christ's Discipline.  
But he goeth on, Now unless men will be so bold, as to divest our mixed Congregations of the name of the visible Church, they cannot take away one essential note, in the free use of this Ordinance.  
Answ. But, Sir, there is much difference between the reforming of a Church, that there may be a due and justifiable use of this Ordinance, and a taking of it away, which we know none but fanatic persons who deny the use of this Ordinance to do.  
But he will prove, That our mixed Congregations ought to have the use of this Ordinance, both from Christ's doctrine and example.  
His Doctrine, In the Parables of the little and great fishes in one net, good and bad called to one feast, the chaff and wheat in one barn, tares and wheat in one field, Mat. 13. which must grow together till the day of Judgement, and so no separation.  
Answ. Briefly, Those tares we understand, with most reformed Expositors, to be close hypocrites, and nor of open profane persons and revilers of the Gospel-Ministry, and of the power of godliness, else to what purpose doth he elsewhere speak of Excommunication, which is to cast such as pretend to be Christ's friends, but walk as his enemies, out of the Church? And if under pretence of this, all ungodly blasphemous wretches, gross ignorants, must be admitted: What difference between the Church and the Kingdom of the devil?  
We allow there is no separation from close hypocrites, De occultis non judicat Ecclesia. But as to open, discovered, scandalous persons, the Church is to cast them out; or if they are the greater part, to withdraw from them, as hath been showed.  
If it be replied, That the servants knew them to be tares, therefore not close hypocrites: We answer, That godly Ministers may discern hypocrites with a knowledge of probability, and so these servants might discover the tares; specially if by Zizania these tares are meant burnt ears of corn, as Mr Leigh, M, Trap and Weems, etc.  
2. It is also said, Matth. 13.25. While men slept the enemy sowed tares; Where Christ imputes it to the remissness and sleepiness of the servants, the Ministers, that tares came into and were suffered in the Church.  
3. By those tares, Christ doth understand, such who are not openly and notoriously scandalous, but such tares who are much like the wheat (as Hierom saith those kind of tares were) else he would contradict himself, in commanding scandalous persons to be cast out of the Church, Matth. 18.17. and yet here to command them to let them alone.  
To conclude his Argument he breaks out in Rhetoric, Who Lord dare anticipate thy throne to separate? etc.  
None, we hope, viz. to undertake to separate all close hypocrites out of the Church, as hath been said; but there are some who may and aught to be so bold (whereof we believe Mr Humfreys, and his Church to be a part) to exercise that power Christ hath left them to preserve their Churches from ruin and pollution; else all Christ's threaten to the Churches of Asia for continuing profaneness, blasphemy, lukewarmness among them, commending them that could not bear the evil had been vain; What else indeed is the Church of Christ, but such a separation of believers from the pollution and wickedness of the world?  
Next he would prove it from Christ's example, Who conversed with Publicans and sinners.  
Answ. This will serve, as it hath ever done, the turns of the profane people to urge against the strict and reserved carriage of the godly, in not frequently mixing in their companies, as they abuse this Scripture; but it is sad to have it urged by a Minister.  
2. Because Christ conversed with Publicans and sinners to convert them, therefore did he admit them, as such, into his Family, and give them the seals of his love, which must be the import of the Argument, if it pretend to prove any thing; If you had Infidels dwelling near you, because you did sometime converse with them, Would it be a good Argument for any to urge against you, that you therefore gave them the Sacrament? Were Publicans and sinners admitted for his Disciples, or to his Supper, till called and became followers of Christ?  
But now comes in the invincible Argument, viz. That Christ eaten the Passeover and his own Supper With Judas.  
Answ. We shall for brevity's sake avoid this contest, Whether Christ did give the Supper to Judas. The Author passeth by the many pressing Arguments that are given to the contrary by many learned men, specially Mr Gillespy, etc.  
Only this, It is not likely that the Lord Jesus should say to one who was about to betray him, Take, eat my body, which was given for thee? for if Judas received it, Christ spoke to him with the rest.  
2. If it be replied, That Christ dealt as an ordinary Minister in this administration, than it will help to fortify the answer we chief stick to (supposing we grant him that Judas did receive, etc.) which is, That Christ dealt as an ordinary Minister, and so Judas was admitted as a close hypocrite. Besides, Judas had not committed the fin, as yet, and ordinary Ministers do not use to keep any from the Sacrament for sins they fear they may hereafter commit, but have not yet committed them.  
Now all that will not admit of his aery free Admission, are wilfully blind, as he concludes, censoriously enough, against the judgement of most famous holy Divines, both ancient, reform and modern, as ever the world was blest with since the Apostles times. This may gain opinion with his Parishioners, but not with the godly wise.  
His third reason is, From the nature of Christian Communion and Church-fellowship, which ought, saith he, to be in charity and humility, without judging, etc. to judge others better than themselves, specially in the Minister, from 2 Tim. 2.24, 25.  
Answ. 1. As to Church-fellowship, The fellowship of Saints with the Father, and with Jesus Christ, and one with another, by mutual union and free agreement in the Lord. There's sure but little footsteps of it in the most parochial frames.  
How were they united into such a holy fellowship? Is a coming together of grossly ignorant, swearers, profaners of the Sabbath, abetting and pleading for all ungodliness, haters of such as are godly, like a fellowship of Saints, as the Primitive Churches were? We may boldly return this Argument upon Mr Humfreys.  
Church-fellowship, is a holy fellowship of Saints walking in the light, 1 Joh. 1.3, 7. 1 John 3.6. Ephes. 5.8, 9, 10, 11. 'Tis not a fellowship of Saints and devils (appearing even to be so) of light and darkness; therefore all manner of wretched persons, wallowing in all filthiness and profaneness; ought not to be received into it.  
But saith he, It ought to be in humility and charity, yea men professing Saintship ought so to walk together, and all for bearance as to one another's infirmities to be used. But what kind of charity is this to admit ungodly persons, as the members of Jesus Christ, walking indeed as the members of Satan: So the truth is, profane people cry out, Oh you-must have charity! The reforming Ministers have no charity, and the like; when too many have equivalently renounced every part and article of their Covenant made to God in baptism, not minding to renew it; yet they blame us as uncharitable, because we will not flatter them in their abominations with the precious seal of Christ's love, when they walk as his enemies, and have their mouths open against all goodness; That this is the temper of most, witness the preaching of all godly Ministers.  
Now what a kind of charity were this? Oh, merciless flattering pity!  
Again, we beseech you to remember, that Church-fellowship must be as well in holiness as in charity, here is no pleading for purity, but all for peace and charity.  
But saith he, We ought to judge others better than ourselves; but Sir, this sure was ever pressed upon such as professed Saintship in the Churches of Christ, not of such, who though they will be good Christians in their own and others esteem, do yet hate the name of Saint, and revile it; such an humble Christian is not in the greatest humility, to esteem better than himself, as the grace of Christ hath distinguished him.  
But he puts an especially to the Minister for this excellent humility and charity, he is to be patiented, etc. from 2 Tim. 2.  
Did ever any man understand that Scripture of administering Sacraments, but himself?  
Besides, though this is to be a Minister's carriage, yet one duty doth not clash with another, he ought to do his duty also, to keep Christ's Ordinances pure, and to try the people he is sent to,  
Oh, but saith he, If we must go censuring one another's worthiness, 'tis the ready way to heart-burnings, etc.  
We have before answered, that we take leave to call this but a very carnal Argument, Christ came not to give such a kind of peace between Saints and the wicked.  
Besides, this strikes at all Discipline, which must not hence be exercised for fear of heart-burnings. It may indeed make the Ministers many enemies; The Lord grant this be not too great a snare upon many; free Admission makes much for the ease, peace and interest of a Minister in the world: but it maketh him an unfaithful steward of the mysteries of God.  
Now, to crown all, he is pleased to add, That it is but a rigid Pharisaism to deny free Communion.  
Sir, You have abundantly gratified profane people (into whose hand your Book comes) and helps on the old accusation of godly Ministers and people, viz. That all this strictness they pretend to, is but Pharisaism and hypocrisy; your sin and doom is 2 Chron. 19.2.  
We do not plead for rigidness truly so called; Godly Ministers invite the weakest to profess repentance, and faith, etc. and so to be received into Communion: but for the withholding of the holy things of Christ from stubborn persons who scorn such profession, is no more than Christ commanded Mr Humfreys and us to practise.  
The comparison of the Pharisee and Publican is the old charge of the lukewarm carnal party against Professors of godliness: Oh, say they, these will be holy, they are so strict, just like the Pharisees; Why? because they will not partake with them in the unfruitful works of darkness, and now would not be guilty of their Sacrament-sins, which they are, if they do not their duty to keep them off.  
Next, he breaks out with a pathetical expostulation and prayer, Rebuke the humour of these times, Oh my Saviour! etc.  
Reformation is but a humour, and superstition with Mr Humfreys; Lord Jesus rebuke the profaneness of these times, and let not thy holy things be thus prostituted! Rebuke them that call evil good, and good evil.  
Another he follows with, That since Christ offered himself to sinners, and never cast out any that came, Shall any take stomach he is offered in the Sacrament?  
Answ. This is the former confounding of things that ought to be distinguished; If a soul profess to come to Christ, that is, to subject to him, and walk with his people, who will deny him the Seal? Doth it therefore follow that the Lords Supper is to be given to those who do not come to him, and being called upon will not profess to do so?  
But let us inquire, Doth the Author of free Admission conceive, that Jesus Christ would have admitted Publicans and sinners to his Supper without any more ado? Were they not first to be received as Disciples? Here's his Argument, Christ sometimes conversed with Publicans and sinners, therefore all may come to the Sacrament.  
His next Scripture is John 8. about the adultress woman, saith Christ, He that is without sin, cast a stone at her.  
This was to check the proud Pharisaism of others, who scorned her out of vainglory, when they themselves were guilty of as great sins; Must therefore adulteresses without professed humiliation to the Church be received to the Lords Supper? Though a believer finds the same corruption in himself, and is abased in it, yet he sees himself distinguished through grace from an unhumbled adultress, from such that live in open scandalous sins, which he pleads for to come to this holy Ordinance.  
His fourth reason speaks high words, Which doth arise from the vanity, formality, impossibility of selecting people to this Ordinance.  
To prove either of these distinctly, nothing is offered, only something in the general; 1. Look but to the heart of these separations, and they come to nothing. This is as slightly as uncharitably spoken.  
Answ. If he means by separations, the uniting of such as profess repentance and faith before the Lord and his people into a closer fellowship, that all Ordinances may be rightly administered: We answer, These separations, blessed be the name of the Lord, came to something, and the good hand of the Lord is with them, and hath gloriously appeared for them. But to speak plainly, we wonder what the mixed Parochial Congregations for the most part came to, if we look into the least of them, where no Church-Reformation is practised, even the very lest of them is carnal, formal, dead-hearted worship, no fellowship together, nor mutual edification, but settled upon the dead lees of formality, and flattered to their own destruction in such a condition by a continued enjoyment of all Ordinances, without any discovery (but by mere coming to the Ordinances) that they so much as pretend to Jesus Christ.  
2. Besides, godly men do not select, but invite all upon profession of owning the Lords Covenant, Repentance, etc.  
He puts the case, You will have a gathered company, Whom would you admit, if not all that make profession, as we do mixedly, than those only who have an interest in Christ and true believers?  
Answ. We know not well what he means by making profession as they do; What profession he means; If he understands it of all people in the Nation making profession, such as it is, an implicit profession, because they come to the Ordinances; we do not account this a sufficient profession (and so the Brethren of both ways call for explicit profession, and a conversation not denying that profession) for Atheists and all profane persons come to Church, as he styleth it, who revile the preaching of the Gospel, if it be powerful, searching, and wallow in all manner of wickedness, making no more of the name of God and Lord in their mouths, then of the name of a beast, as is the most common practice of much the greater part; and if they be called upon to profess Christ, repentance, faith, before the Minister or others, they hate and scorn it.  
Now if he means by such a bare external profession, without any regard to knowledge or conversation, we deny it to be enough, if this be all they mixedly do.  
But, saith he, if in gathering a Church, you receive not all that make profession mixedly, as they do (that is, as we conceive such as we have described) then only such as are true believers.  
Answ. Here lies a fallacy; Such as would gather companies, as he calls it, or unite people into a closer communion, that the Churches may be purer, have a middle way between his mixed profession and true believing, that is, an explicit profession of repentance and faith, and confessing of Christ, and not denying this in the tenor of their conversations: And of these indeed we do not pretend to be able to know them who are true believers, and who are not. What Reverend Mr Baxter saith in this case, is most true, in his learned Treatise of Baptism; The judgement may be false, but the rule of judging infallible, which is by explicit profession and conversation.  
In that Pag. 23. he seems to impose upon godly Ministers, as if they went about to have Churches without hypocrites. No, sure they would have outward visible purity, as much as may be, they would have their Churches like the Communion of Saints, and not a den of thiefs. They know that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, 1 Cor. 5. how much more danger of the Lords displeasure, when even the whole lump is near leavened with ignorance, profaneness, enmity to Godliness; They would not keep up such frames of Churches, viz. lukewarm formality, which the Lord professeth to abhor, and spew out of his mouth from being Churches, Rev. 3.16.  
He there further speaks of a formal purity. We contend, as much as may be for a real purity, and power of godliness; but such as live in open and known profaneness have not so much as a formal purity.  
And as for separation upon separation, as in the peeling of his Onion, which may cause men to weep. We would not meddle with his jests in holy things; But we hope and pray that the Lord will give Mr Humfreys a heart to weep in private, and that bitterly for the grieving most of the godly of the Nation, and laying a stumbling block in the ways of the Lords people, and making the hearts of the wicked to rejoice; as we are sure this piece of his hath abundantly done.  
His fourth reason, Is gathered from, the uniformity of the service of God; That all other worship lies in common, than it is an entrenchment upon the common liberty, to put an enclosure upon the Sacrament.  
Answ. That uniformity of God's worship in this matter, cost the holy Preachers of this Nation dear under the Bishops. Oh! that it should be again pleaded for!  
But, saith he, all worship ought to lie in common.  
Yet Christ calls his Church, Cant. 4.12. A garden enclosed; And a vineyard of red wine, Isa. 27.2. and many the like expressions (to say no more) as any fell from his pen; The Discipline of the Church hath been usually styled the hedge and fence of the Church, to preserve it from ruin and pollution, and now must all be in common?  
'Tis an entrenchment (saith he) upon the Common Liberty; 'Tis indeed a restraining of a cursed liberty, that ever we believe was pleaded for by a man pretending to fear the Lord; All in common to Atheists, Drunkards, Swearers, Revilers, ignorant persons, now, all in common, and yet he would make us believe he is a friend to Discipline: But now we have a fetch, Are not saith he all the Commandments of God universal, why not Do this also?  
Answ. Sir, We beseech you to whom was Do this, in the administration of the Supper spoken to? Was it to all that ever heard Christ preach, or only to his 12 Apostles?  
Further, He urgeth, If an unregenerate man can do nothing but sin in all worship, why must he be kept from this more than other, why a more fear of his sin here? This the substance.  
Answ. Because the other Ordinances of the Word and prayer are for his conversion, this supposeth men converted in a judgement of charity, and so rightly received and continued in the Church according to Christ's order. A wicked man is absolutely forbidden to receive the Lords Supper, and none commanded to come but he who hath proved himself fit by examination, but there lieth an absolute command upon all men to hear and pray; As to his Grammar Allegory to the Independents of Heteroclites and Syntaxis; That they allow a Syntaxis in the whole worship of God, but make Hetoroclites at the Sacrament,  
'Tis likely it is because they would keep a true Syntaxis and godly order in their Churches, and not admit of Heteroclite, viz. profane wretches and despisers of holiness into it; what is Discipline but to keep off such Heteroclites from the fellowship of the Church, and specially in this Ordinance? As to the practice of such Presbyterians as baptise the Children of all, but not admitting all to the Supper, we shall not say much of it: Learned men conceive from 1 Cor. 12.23. We are all baptised into one Body whether Jews or Gentiles, that Baptism is into the universal Church; It doth not therefore follow that such a one hath privilege in a particular Church of all Ordinances, unless his profession made in baptism be personally received, and so he join himself to a particular Church; but have the people of England in Parish Churches ever done so? specially such as are obstinately ignorant and profane: But for such persons who cannot be judged either of these, as to the baptising of their Infants, we leave godly men to their own practice, as they shall see it most conducing to real Reformation.  
His sixth Reason is drawn [from his own innocency in thus doing, in admitting all to the Supper.]  
Ans. We believe it will not be found his innocency (without deep repentance) in the day of the Lord.  
Saith he [I do but my duty] That's but the Question begged; We deny it to be so upon the terms he goeth.  
2. He hath no power to turn away any; We will not dispute this with him, because if he had power, by his own principles he ought not so to do, for he argues all are to come, good and bad; Or if he would exercise Discipline 'tis his own fault, he draws not on those who will submit to it with him, and so practise it.  
3. He saith, He hopes the best of all, But Sir, Is the mere coming of a person ground enough for hope without any discovery or trial of him? and when he lives in known sins and never professeth acceptance to the Church! How can he call this ground enough for his hope? He will sure preach the contrary to his people, that 'tis not ground enough to themselves, and why should they then be flattered in such a hope by the Sacrament? which is indeed the great mischief we apprehend comes by free admission; Oh that there were ground enough of present hope upon the body of the people of this Nation? If Mr Humphreys Congregation be not peerless, sure he may question his ground of hope upon too many, etc.  
He saith, God can turn the most at his Ordinances.  
Ans. But show us where he hath promised he will, or any example of it; 'tis not good arguing from God's omnipotency to his ordinary way of dealing; if a wicked man were in God's way to conversion at the Lords Supper he might expect a blessing, but he is out of God's way, and therefore he hath no ground to expect conversion, or we to suppose it.  
5. I endeavour (saith he) my utmost that all come prepared.  
Ans. For a Minister to do his utmost in this case, yea, what de jure of right he ought to do is a great matter: we know not the Authors particular practice, but we conceive if he doth no more than what we can gather, he is far from doing his utmost duty, unless he reprove, examine, exhort, even one by one, we mean all that are admitted, as Paul did the Thessalonians, 2 Thes. 2.11. we believe he is bound in this Corruption of times to call upon all to come and own the Covenant of the Lord their God, and subjection to Christ, and to give up themselves to the Lord in a fellowship together, or else we humbly conceive he doth not the utmost of his duty.  
6. He confesseth the sins of the Congregation.  
Ans. But ought not every sinner upon a due receiving into the fellowship of the Church to confess himself a sinner, and his lost condition in himself before the Lord, and his people in some good measure? Mar. 1.5.  
Lastly, He adds, He might further prove from the command and good of coming, and from the evil of omitting it, the Sacrament is a means and a pledge, a means to receive grace, and a pledge to assure. etc.  
Ans. 'Tis a means of receiving more grace, but not the first grace; But (saith he) Suppose a poor Soul wants grace, whither shall he come but to the means of receiving it? If he be a poor Soul in his own sight and apprehension, and so comes thirsting after grace, it supposeth grace begun. Blessed are they that thirst, etc. and so that proves nothing for his purpose.  
The Ordinances (saith he further) are the baths, there are many come to the Bath that are never the better for it, and yet they are means of health, and open toal, etc.  
Ans. But Sir, Where do you find this Allegory in the Scriptures, That all men may freely come to the Sacrament as to the Baths?  
2. Such as come to the Bath come as sick and weak, and pained, and such coming to Christ in his Ordinances shall find healing; what's this to the whole who need not the Physician, as impenitent sinners and gross ignorant persons are?  
But the Baths are open and free to all: That is the abuse of them, they are meant only for the sick and pained, and so 'tis of Christ's healing Ordinance of the Supper, 'tis the abuse and that a great one, if any but such as profess to desire healing of Christ be admitted to them.  
That 'tis a means of conveying grace, he saith there is no great difficulty.  
Ans. If he means the first grace, 'tis such a difficulty as he hath not unfolden in this Treatise; and to seek for the first grace from the use of the Supper is not of Gods ordaining, and is indeed a piece of will-worship; Faith cometh ordinarily only by the Word preached.  
For the evil of omission, p. 26. he saith, Those that neglected the Passeover were out off, etc.  
Ans. He may also remember that such as had moral uncleanness upon them were not to come, and if they did they were to be cut off from the Lords People.  
He adds, In the Gospel those that came not to the Feast, Mat. 22. were destroyed.  
Ans. It hath been answered, that 'tis to be understood of the general Call of the Gospel, and not of the Lords Supper, specially of the Jews, who were destroyed for not receiving the Lord Jesus.  
But (saith he) we are not to neglect a certain duty for fear of accidental scandal.  
Ans. We deny it to be a certain duty to every soul but only to the really fit, as to themselves, and visibly fit as to the Church, to receive them. No absolute command, no absolute duty.  
His Admonition as to Presumption in coming, the Lord also set home upon his own heart as to his presumption in admitting.  
Now we come to his second Sermon, where he undertakes very cursorily to answer many Objections that Learned and Godly men have made against his judgement.  

Answer to the Second Sermon.  
FIrst, As to his Preface, he saith, He is forced to serve in more words then enough.  
We believe it true, for it were better we dare say he had said nothing; And for his Prayer, That if his Book grieve any of the Lords little Ones (as we believe it doth thousands) that the Lord would blot out his Sermon and his sin.  
Ans. Amen.  
The first Objection he undertakes to answer, is, This doctrine will take the use of the keys and leave us no discipline.  
To this he answers, 1. By way of concession, He grants a Discipline, and that the want of it is to be bewailed, and yet hath a salvo a new one indeed, for this by answering that the Objection goes upon false surmises about excommunication.  
It surmiseth (saith he) Church-discipline to lie in a suspension from the Sacrament, etc.  
For if that be the end of it, what is this but to gratify a profane person in keeping him from the Sacrament, who never intended or never cared to come thither? To this purpose he speaks.  
Ans. No, Will not profane Persons come? This is a large extension of charity; there are we fear hundreds of Congregations, may we not say thousands? which cohsist of little else, and yet through custom, if they have not the Communion once a year, and so go to play in their best  afterwards, they will think themselves greatly wronged.  
Briefly, That this is one end of Church-Discipline, to preserve the honour of Christ and purity of his Ordinances, we do with all godly Writers upon this Subject, assent, and not only in reference to reforming the offender, as p. 32. he himself implieth; It excludeth them from the fellowship of the Saints, whose fellowship is chief in this Ordinance, and therefore called the Communion, that so the fellowship of Saints may not be like the fellowship of the children of the devil.  
This insinuates also No profaning of this Ordinance more than the other, But Sir, was not there more care taken to prevent the profaning the Passeover under the Law, than the other ordinary worship, the hearing of the Law expounded, etc.  
Were not the Corinthians in a special manner punished for the profaning of the Lords Supper; saith Pareus on 1 Cor. 11.20. on these words, This is not to eat the Lords Supper: Adeò tenera res est, Sacramentum; Non levitèr adulterant, sed destruwt, &c, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not to eat the Lords Supper; 'Tis to destroy and make void the very nature of the Ordinance, when so polluted by a profane regardless mixture.  
Pag. 33. Saith he [It supposeth a near essential relation between this Excommunication and communion;] And so goeth on to refel it, which we need not repeat.  
Ans. There is no such thing supposed in the Objection, Excommunication hath a relation of subserviency to the communion, though not essential, but to the well-being of it, that holy things be not prostituted nor given forth to such as Christ never intended them, viz. his profane enemies, or such who refuse his yoke, being called upon to profess subjection to it.  
But he brings in one objecting: Is it not a heavy case that we have no discipline? True, saith he, yea, 'tis true, that when Jesus Christ hath given power to his Churches to reform and exercise discipline, they cast the want of it upon the Magistrate, and do nothing towards it.  
But what then, saith he, Shall we have no worship?  
Ans. No pure worship in this Ordinance, but such as God and his holy people abhor.  
The second Objection he undertakes to answer is, viz. That the most of men are wholly unfit, and not capable of this Ordinance, and not able to prepare and examine themselves, therefore no free Admission. There is (saith he) a manifest weakness in this arguing from men's disability to their duty: He conceits as to the Church's part, who can but look to an outward capacity, and instanceth in Judas, etc.  
Ans. But Sir, as easily as you hush up this Argument, 'Tis more to be considered and laid to heart, how unfit the most people are, having never had the preaching of the Gospel with them in its power, in many places, nor were ever rightly ordered and constituted into a Gospel-Church-state, by a professed subjection to the Gospel, and giving up themselves to the Lord, and so joining together to walk in the fellowship of the Gospel, as we have showed, which however men may skin over, we verily believe the Lord will in his time manifest to be a holy truth.  
Now as to his answer, That 'tis a manifest weakness to argue from men's unability to their duty.  
This hath been answered and cleared; 'Tis not every man's duty to come to the Sacrament, as we have distinguished, unless so and so prepared and qualified; Unability to prepare themselves is a sufficient reason to themselves to refrain, and to the Church to keep them off: And whereas he saith, The Church is only to look to an outward capacity; Very true, if an outward capacity be rightly defined: But gross ignorance and living in open known sins, and reviling of godliness, is not an outward capacity; Which all along his Book upon his grounds, the mere name of a Christian, though never so vile, is his outward capacity.  
Next as to the People's part he answers 3. things.  
1. There's no duty a natural man can do rightly, nor hear, nor pray, therefore let him do nothing, let him have a Writ of ease for all, etc. This is his first in substance.  
Repl. First, Than it seems a natural man so understood to be by himself and the Church, may come to the Lords Supper; Whereas Mr Humphreys well knows none but professing Saints in a judgement of charity were ever admitted; if they be rightfully within the pale of the Church, they ought to be so esteemed, nothing to the contrary appearing; but to make the same latitude of Prayer and the Word, with the Lords Supper, (the former for converting this of the Sacrament only to such as are supposed to be converted in the Judgement of the Church) is a monstrous Solcecisme, Mere Heathens are allowed and invited to come to the one, never to the other; Now he is pleased to call this kind of arguing against his judgement in this thing, Beating the air with a Feather.  
Sir, Those pillars of truth, that holy men have erected by the good hand of God against their lose airy tenet will stand, and be glorious in the eyes of the Lord and his people, when yours shall be for a hissing unto both. Is the Ordinance of Parliament enumerating abundance of scandalous. crimes with advice had with the Assembly of Divines to debar persons from the Lords Supper, nothing but beating the air with a feather?  
2. His second Answer, He would have every man do what he can, etc.  
Answ. Right, If a poor soul tender up himself to the Lord and his people, and complain of his weakness, and profess to do what by grace he is able, Who doubts of such a man's fitness?  
His third Answer is, Stating of a poor humbled sinner heavy laden with sin, laying hold of the promise, etc. As if any body scrupled such a one, but inviteth them with all tenderness; what's this to a stubborn, ignorant, impenitent sinner, that comes customarily, and returns to his sin; and will not come near his Minister to be instructed in private, but revileth him, if holy, as the most do?  
The third Objection, But is not the Ordinance taken in vain against the third Commandment?  
To this he Answers, He grants, on the Receivers part, but not on the Admitters, he is to do his duty, and leave the success to God.  
Answ. This is the Question begged, we deny it the Admitters duty, if the persons are scandalous, they are to keep the Sanctuary of the Lord from defiling; which duty being a minor Excommunication, is supposed in the greater Excommunication put into the hands of Church-Officers, being one of the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven committed unto them.  
2. This duty is supposed, in keeping ourselves pure from the blood of all men.  
3. In our duty of fidelity to the mysteries of God.  
4. In duty of fidelity to the people's souls. His instances in Christ's preaching of the Gospel, inviting all, hath been answered; He never invited all to the Lords Supper, nor did the Apostles till in Church-fellowship; if he account all the people of England fit in the condition they are, to be continued in the Fellowship of the Church, and no need of Reformation and drawing in such that will come under Discipline to a closer union and order in the Gospel; then he not only pleads for this Free-Admission, but strikes indeed at the very root of all Reformation, which the truth is, this licentious principle sufficiently doth.  
The third Objection he would Answer is, Holy things to holy men.  
Now the Answer he here gives discovers the mind of the Author more than any:  
He distinguisheth of holiness, Outward, Inward: He saith, Outward holiness consists in bare profession, and name of Christians, and so are Saints by calling: That of inward holiness we need not mention.  
Repl. We reply to him, That bare profession and name of Christian is not enough to denominate Saints by Calling; even a whole Nation of people may take up the Name of Christian, and profession, from the Magistrates severe Law: As all the people of England did in the several former changes, and were commanded to hear the Service-Book, and to Receive once a year; these are not like Saints by calling; which is, when upon the preaching of the Gospel to them, and the Call of it, they willingly profess to answer the Call of the Gospel, and to give obedience to it.  
2. Such as are styled, 1 Cor. 1.2. Called to be Saints, or Saints by calling, are also said to be sanctified in Christ Jesus. Paul in a judgement of charity, esteemed the Church of Corinth to be such; for he writes to the Church of God at Corinth. Now will Mr Humfreys dare in his most extensive charity to call such who have taken up the Name of Christian, and profession upon a slender account, the Lord knoweth, such as are men affectedly ignorant, common swearers, unclean, revilers, prophaners of the Sabbath, to be sanctified in Christ Jesus? Besides, Sir, Is not knowledge and conversation required to make up visible Saints, as well as bare profession, and the Name of Christian? 
2 Tim. 2.19.  Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity. 
Rom. 1.18  Is not this to hold the truth in unrighteousness? 
Tit. 1.16.  To profess to know God, but in works deny him? Oh how doth this kind of arguing nuzzle poor creatures in their woeful condition, and heighten the wicked in their wickedness? say they, they are Saints by calling, they make profession, and have the Name of Christians, and in hell they curse Ministers eternally for thus deluding them: Nay do not the most of people hate, yea many profess to hate the very name of Profession, and the very name of Saints, and most will say They are not to be Saints on earth, but in heaven; Is this sufficient outward holiness?  
But saith he, A visible Ordinance to a visible Church.  
That's true, If this visible Church be rightly constituted and ordered; but if it be miserably corrupted, and abound with all iniquity, as the most do; If the Lords servants shall labour to keep up such corruptions, as this opinion doth, we may tremble whether the Lord will not even root out this visible Church and profession; as he threatens us often severely in his Word.  
He further brings in an objection, viz. Do we not hereby make ourselves one with the wicked with whom we join; and can we have communion with Christ and Belial?  
He answereth by way of concession, We do and must be one with all that join in the same profession, as members of the same visible Church, we are not one with them in their evil courses, we disclaim them wholly in the impiety of their conversations, etc.  
Answ. What kind of joining together in profession our Parochial Churches have had, we will not now further debate: All come to Church, and, as he saith, we may go to Church with all (wherein he bathe gratified the ignorant with a corrupt notion) and few have any further notion of a Church, than the place they went in, nor what duties are required of Church-members one to another, and the Lord knoweth, and 'tis too apparent, there is no practice of them.  
2. But Sir, for the sanctified ones of Christ Jesus to join as one body in Church-fellowship with haters of godliness, the power of it, Is it not to make themselves one body with the wicked and unclean? 1 Cor. 10.17, 18. though they make profession, yet being wicked, Is not this to join as one body with the wicked? Bare profession doth not take away their wickedness; now is not this a great abomination to make up such a body to Jesus Christ? Lord, these members are good enough for thee, though corrupt and abominable: Besides, are not such members to be cut off, even chief for this reason, that Christ's body should not appear with the members of Satan?  
3. Is not there a duty in Matth. 18. charged upon every Church-member to reprove his brother, so upon all the Churches by Paul, and is not every Church-member guilty of his brother's sin, who doth not his duty in this thing? 
1 Thes. 5.14, etc. 2 Thes. 3.15.  specially when they are to come together in this great Ordinance? But that indeed he pleads for, is for every one to look to himself (though a hint to the contrary in the close) as he speaks before; for regard to other he much sleights it; no matter for Christ's honour in his worship or thy Brother's soul, every body save one if he can: A true note of formality.  
4. But, Sir, farther, are we not partakers of the impieties of the wicked in this thing, in communicating with them? Is it not an impiety for men in ungodliness to communicate? If then we communicate with them, we communicate in their impieties, specially since a command of Christ lieth upon every Communicant to labour the preventing his impiety, which doing not, they come to the Ordinance with sin upon their souls.  
But, saith he, I will go with the wickedest man alive to Church, but not to the Alehouse.  
Answ. His going to Church we have spoken to: But, Sir, if you allow the wickededst man alive to be in your Church truly so called, whereof you are a Pastor, and join with him, and give him this Ordinance without particular admonition of him, not joining with the better to keep him off; we tremble to conceive that the Lords hand will be upon you, and such that make so slight of it.  
As to what he urgeth out of Austin, his remissness (though otherwise a precious witness of the Lord) in point of Church-Censures, is not approved by the Godly Learned; we will therefore take notice of his Scriptures.  
The first Scripture is Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit; he should add what follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he takes it away. Grant it be meant of Christ's power at the last day, yet when such a branch shall bring forth cursed fruit, or appear to bring forth no good fruit at all, and so appear not to be of Christ's planting, he is to be cut off by the Church, as he allows by his Excommunication; or else what will he make of that Ordinance?  
2. Mr goodwin's Interpretation of this Scripture, in his Treatise of Growth, will salve it, if there were any difficulty in it, who reads it thus. Every branch that brings forth not fruit in men; and this, saith he, the Syriack Translation makes for also; though they do some good, yet it is not fruit, because not in Jesus Christ; which may well allude to such Professors who bring some kind of fruit in profession and moral conversation, but yet have no root in Christ; and for such the Church proceeds not against, if they are duly taken into the Church, till their unsoundness appears by outward practice; and though Christ doth not expressly give forth command to the Church, to cut off visibly unsound branches here, 'tis enough he doth in other places.  
His second Scripture is 2 Pet. 2.1. There are some that deny the Lord that bought them.  
Answ. Yea such in the words immediately going before as bring in damnable heresies: Now though such did thus apostatise, that were received into the Church, as bought by Christ (which is meant by their denying the Lord that bought them) must they be continued and admitted to the Lords Supper? then this is the argument, Such as bring in damnable heresies, and deny Christ, may and aught to be admitted to the Lords Supper: It seems Turcism and Christianity may well enough mix with Mr Humfreys his good leave: We had thought at least Heretics were to be rejected by 1 Titus 3.10.  
His next Scripture is Heb. 10.29. compared with 2.9. & 2 Cor. 5.14. There are some that are sanctified with the blood they trample upon, etc.  
Answ. From hence he would argue, Tramplers on the blood of Christ may come; How tender is Mr H. of his Saviour's blood?  
But, saith he, they are said to be sanctified, though tramplers.  
Answ. That is, they were externally sanctified or set apart in Baptism, but now by their Apostasy and falling off from Christianity, they did slight and scorn the blood of Christ, as a common thing, not worthy to be owned; Now what's this to his purpose? 'Tis said, they had forsaken the Assemblies of the Church, v. 25. therefore they did not come to the Lords Supper; but were, indeed, such as had sinned against the holy Ghost.  
But yet tender Mr Humphrey is pleased to style these branches of Christ, though ungodly Professors: It seems with him, ungodly Professors, renouncers of the faith, tramplers upon the blood of Christ, Apostates, damnable Heretics, must be in a visible esteem, branches of Christ, and so admitted to all Church-Priviledges, even the choicest, the Seal of Christ's Supper; for Mr H. puts up an absolute plea for them: What can a man more strongly plead for the kingdom of the devil then this? We believe his profane party will be here ashamed of him. Yet the confidence of the man is such, that he cries Victory to himself and followers, upon this most absurd and abominable arguing, and abusing the holy Word of God: Observe Reader, he puts the stress of his cause mainly upon it: If thou art so blind, senseless, and mad to believe him, he tells thee the matter is ended on his side.  
And further, That an outward historical faith gives an outward Church right to the elements.  
Answ. We deny it, if it appear to be but an historical faith, by an ungodly life.  
The fourth Objection he undertakes to answer is, The Seal is set to a blank, if all be admitted.  
He Answers first by opening how the Sacramentis a Seal, Not of our faith, but of the Covenant on God's part. Now, saith he, the Covenant and Seal remain firm, and all the unbelief in the world, cannot make it of no effect.  
Answ. 1. The Scripture saith, that Circumcision to Abraham was the Seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11.  
2. If it be the Seal of the Covenant on God's part, as of one party being agreed, yet if a soul do not accept of, and agree to the terms of it, it is but as a blank to him, there being not a mutual astipulation and agreement on both parts, and so such a soul hath no good by it: If by this he would encourage a poor trembling soul, who doubts of his faith, he may make use of it, 'tis not of such we here dispute of.  
But he puts the Objection forward, viz. Were it not absurd for a man to set his Seal, where there hath been no agreement and transactions before? so do unregenerate men, who come to the Sacrament without that solemn giving up the soul to God, as he aught who enters into Covenant with him.  
To this he Answers, That there are too many come absurdly and wickedly, etc. Now, saith he, Though the receiver fail on his part in his solemn mutual engagement (whereof he is to repent) yet as for the Minister and Church there is a true seal to a true Copy, etc.  
Answ. Now we reply to him, There is a true Seal to a true Copy, but not to be delivered to rebels, unless they come professing humbly to accept the terms of it: Here is the thing we stick at, we require, and so we verily believe doth the Lord, that the Receiver ought solemnly to profess and give up himself to God, and enter into Covenant with him before he be admitted by them to the Seal of it, if the person do not this in sincerity, let him look to that; but that he do it is the Church's part to require of him, without which we believe he cannot fully acquit the Church as he undertake to do, p. 47. And without this, instead of (nothing) being out of order (as he speaks) there is hardly any thing in order: Now if the receiver do this, the Minister and Church receive him in the judgement of Love, as a regenerate person; and so they do not sin in offering the Sacrament as a Seal on God's part.  
But, saith he, The Sacrament seals generally the truth of the Covenant freely to all, engaging them unto it, and the interest and benefits of it to every single person upon the terms, conditions, tenor of the Gospel.  
Answ. With this notion, which he saith hath lain as an Embryon a long time, he professeth himself and another piercing Godly man to be converted with it: We shall not judge them in this their conversion, but take boldness from the deceit we have learned in our own hearts, That 'tis no hard matter to get distinctions to pacify the conscience in a troublesome work, as the practice of Reformation is: We answer, the blood of Christ seals the Covenant of God, but when 'tis offered in the sign of it, the Sacrament, it is to such persons, who accept of the Covenant upon the terms and conditions of it (as himself speaks) and of the blood of Christ thereby signified, and it seals to none but to them who have communion with the blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 10.16. therefore it doth not generally seal to all. The Sacrament is not said to seal the Covenant to all; 'tis the Seal of the Covenant, but it seals it to none but to the Believer, who is to engage unto it, first, Sincerely, as to his own interest in it. Secondly, Professedly and explicitly, as to the Church's satisfaction: To seal any thing to a person, implies a reciprocal agreement. We humbly take leave to say, that as he professeth his greatest satisfaction in this argument, his greatest mistake lies in it, in confounding of things that ought to be distinguished.  
We say, the tender of the Covenant is first in the preaching of the Gospel, upon which believers profess to own and accept of, and enter into it, (not by a mere tacit coming) which having done before the Lord and the Church, then, as the Sacrament shall be administered, the Seal is annexed to it, and a believer receives the blood of Christ Jesus as a Seal of God's promises in the remission of his sins, and so to every covenanting person (professing to do so) the Covenant is offered and sealed to him, and to none other.  
Now in stead of this, we conceive through the whole Treatise Mr H. would have a Sacrament, which (being the Seal of the Covenant) is to be tendered to all, be they what they will, without any previous act of the Receivers, either confession, profession or covenanting with or before the Church, which was never the way of the Gospel in admission of Church-members, and so it holds the same in the use of the Supper, when though baptised they have never given any account of themselves, or are profane in their lives.  
Further, he urgeth his subtle Syllogism to analyse the whole argument,  
The Covenant, saith he, means thus, He that believeth shall be saved: add, I believe, ergo I shall be saved. Now, saith he, the Sacrament seals to the major, not to the minor, to Gods own Word, not to ours.  
Answ. First, The major or first proposition is rather a conditional promise of the Covenant, than the Covenant itself; and so the Sacrament seals conditionally. But without these quirks, If the Sacrament seal to every Believer, then if I add, But I am a Believer, than it seals to me: and though the Scripture do not speak of any particular man, who is a Believer, yet in such a Syllogism it it speaks as fully, and even as satisfyingly to a poor soul as if it did: Sir, the Sacrament seals the truth of mercy and grace and life to poor souls that come rightly to it, and not to abstracted propositions and notions, with which you puzzle weak people.  
Again, stick to the proposition as really applied, the Sacrament seals to this, He that believeth shall be saved, and the Sacrament confirms it to him, then let none but such as shall be charitably judged Believers professing faith and obedience be admitted to it.  
Obj. 5. The fifth Objection he undertakes to Answer, 
Pag. 49.  viz. The Covenant belongs not to all, therefore the seals neither.  
To this he Answers, by distinguishing of the Covenant, sometimes taken for the absolute promises, etc. sometimes for the tenor of the Gospel in Gods revealed will, and so it runs on these terms, Whosoever believes shall be saved, and whether this belongs to all, 'tis no question.  
Answ. 'tis true, salvation belongs to all in the tender of it, as himself saith in the next page; The conditional Covenant is tendered in the word, and sealed to in the Sacrament: Now as the Covenant is tendered in the Word, if souls profess to accept of the tender of it, and to Covenant with him, then 'tis sealed in the Sacrament. The Sacrament is a Seal between God and the Believer, and supposeth believing, intended to Seal mercy to professing covenanting Believers, and upon that score the Church doth administer it, receiving them as such.  
Next, he declareth his own practice, That he shows his hearers the conditions of the Covenant, such that accept of them, there the Seal of God is ready, let them put to their hands and seals, etc. This the import.  
But Sir, Is it not more proper, orderly, and satisfying, that such persons upon the tender of the Covenant, should declare and profess to own and enter into the Covenant of God? Must all be done in a huddle the same hour, and the people be as mutes in this great concernment? Would it not be for the honour of Jesus Christ, that people with their own mouths confess him, according to the measure God hath given them, more for the satisfaction of the Minister and Church, yea, and for the comfort of the Professor, than thus hand over head to deal in this weighty matter? Specially since this was never had from the people of England, as we have before opened, who are so settled in a corrupt, formal, customary way in the use of this Ordinance, for the most part, That talk you of Covenant and Seal, and what you will, They must have the Communion, though to the great prejudice of their souls; And 'tis from these sad corruptions, by the iniquity of former and present times; As the London Ministers declare in their Plea for Church-Government; That such a Profession and trial is first to be had of every person; seeing the abuse of this Ordinance was formerly and horribly profane.  
In the close (saith he) This Sacrament doth more properly belong to him who is not yet in Covenant with God, supposing now he resolves to enter into Covenant with him.  
This is a strange doctrine, and we verily believe never started before, Here is still the same confusion; But Sir, In this Ordinance doth not the Church (for here we deal with it upon this account, which is the Churches and Ministers duty in this Ordinance) suppose every receiver in Covenant before, first as tendered into it in Baptism, and secondly, as requiring a personal owning and professing of the Covenant and the conditions of it (which was ever the practice of the Primitive Churches, as hath been urged) and so administer the Lords Supper to them?  
2. How doth he here confound the order and even make void the care of the Church in this matter.  
Concerning the tender and offer of it, we have already spoken; We assert there aught to be a previous profession of acceptation of the tender and offer by every soul, before the seal is administered to him, or else all order and purity will be destroyed.  
And therefore we conclude this, that the Covenant belongs not to all, so as to have it sealed unto them, unless they first visibly profess to own it and accept of it before the Church; The former neglect of which causeth now a requiring of it of every person, or else godly men see not how Reformation will be attained to.  
But he produceth a Reply to his former answer; viz. What right doth this give him to the Covenant?  
He answers with the main scope of every Argument he produceth; As the Sacrament is a showing forth of Christ with a tender of the Covenant in his blood, there is an open, free, general right to it for all that will come into Christ.  
We answer, The Sacrament is a showing forth of Christ with a tender, etc. But to whom? To professing believers that have been orderly received into the Church upon the Gospel preached to them? And for such as profess before to come into Christ and subject to discipline, and whose conversations do not deny it, at least professing serious repentance for the sins they have lived in; which he grants to be the duty of every receiver, as to his own conscience, in his former answer, p. 50. But this we assert to be needful to be professed as to the satisfaction of the Church; Due respect and tenderness being had to the modesty of any and to particulars.  
But he further distinguisheth of a right of coming, There's a right of obligation and a right of privilege; for the right of obligation in the Ministers offer of Christ freely, and the People's receiving him on his own terms, I do avouch an universal right.  
Ans, This is true in a sense, so order be observed; If indeed a people receive Christ on his own terms (as he speaks) and profess to do so, than an obligation in the Minister to give the Sacrament; And the people being in their own consciences, in some good measure satisfied, they came sincerely before the Lord, having examined their own hearts, there's a right of obligation upon them also to come.  
But if he mean an absolute obligation of all to come, we deny it, unless he is ahle to examine himielf, and doth so; and professeth to the Church to take Christ on his own terms, and his conversation doth not deny it.  
Next he brings in an humble soul afraid of his own unworthiness, yet comes resolving to give up himself to the Lord, etc.  
We say, An humble soul will come to his or her Minister, and profess to do so; And we wonder he should put the case of humbled souls who are to be invited and encouraged; We here dispute against him concerning the obstinately ignorant, superstitious Formalists, and the profane, who for the most part scorn at Reformation and Discipline; Of such we say they have no right to come till humbled, and profess to be so, nor is't the Minister's duty, but sin to receive them, specially seeing he may prevent it if he will do his duty.  
The Text he useth further to prove an universal right to every Ordinance, is Isa. 66.23. viz. And it shall come to pass that from one new Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before the Lord.  
Ans. Sure this is little for his purpose; We could answer, That many eminent Divines do understand this New Heavens and Earth in this Chapter of the New Jerusalem in Heaven: But we insist not upon it: Grant it be meant of worship in the Church-Militant; What can be gathered from it but that All Flesh, that is, some of all Nations shall subject to Gospel-worship, (for we presume he doth not understand it of every individual soul:) But sure it shall be in Christ's order, specially in the later times, when Christ shall come as a Refiner of of his worship and people, yea, of the sons of Levi in a special manner, that they shall offer up pleasant offerings to the Lord, Mal. 3. That all sorts of profane persons, no evidence of a change, shall come into the Lord's Temple, and profane the holy things of Christ, is not in the least measure there meant, but the contrary; first orderly received into the fellowship of the Church, and then, if not scandalous, the sealing Ordinance of the Supper.  
The sixth Objection he would refel is, viz. The Sacrament is not a converting Ordinance; we preach to all to convert them, but we may administer only to the regenerate to confirm them;  
To this he answers, That he acknowledgeth Divines have usually so stated it; Baptism for Initiation, the Supper for Confirmation, attributing our new birth to the former, etc. Now (saith he) I take a grant of the one to be a sufficient medium to prove the other.  
Ans. But Sir, you well know, that the Baptised in the Gospel declared visible conversion before they were baptised; He that believes (that is of grown years) shall be baptised; and the same reason of this Ordinance also in this respect. How he takes the concession of one to be a grant of the other, we know not.  
Pag. 55. Ay but (saith he) 'tis true of the same persons, but as for others not yet converted, and humbly coming hither for conversion, there's no Scripture nor reason to the contrary, but he may be converted by it.  
We answer, To come humbly for conversion to this Ordinance, supposeth conversion begun, and so that soul comes for further conversion, which is one right use of this Ordinance; And whereas he saith, there's no Scripture nor reason to the contrary; We say there's both; 'Tis enough the Lord hath made no promise to it for conversion.  
And that it was always used by such who were supposed to be converted; The fellowship of the Saints; as we will presently show; and so ought it now only to be used.  
He repeats his former argument, that the Sacrament is a visible word holding forth Christ and the Covenant to the sight, therefore converting, as the Gospel doing the same to the hearing.  
Ans. Which thing is only asserted, but not proved, but by improper allusins.  
The Centurions believing by seeing Christ only on the Cross.  
We answer, This was miraculous and extraordinary, not in the way of an Ordinance, which is the thing in question; With this Argument the Papists plead for Crucifixes.  
2. Contemplation of the Creature-Sacrifices.  
Ans. That rests to be proved; Besides, we deny not but any may be present to see the celebration of the Supper, if that may do them good.  
3. Sight of Miracles, etc.  
Ans. These were ordained by Christ to work faith, He hath not proved the Sacrament is so: Ordinarily Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10.14. and not by seeing; 'Tis not good arguing what Christ is able to do, to what he hath made no promise to do. And to prostitute this holy Ordinance upon this account, and so to go out of Christ's way and method (in reference to what he is able or may do) is not warrautable.  
This Argument was devised to cheer up such souls who are a little affected at the Lords Supper, who know little what conversion means; By this Argument known opposers of Truth and Purity ought to be invited to come for their conversion.  
Besides, Mr Humphreys nor any other, we humbly conceive, aught to admit or contrive any in the fellowship of his Church, but whom in a judgement of charity he supposeth converted, or hath no reason to conclude the contrary.  
But let us examine his Argument, which he calls all the world to answer, viz. To show forth the death of Christ is the means of conversion, but the Sacrament is a showing forth the death of Christ, 1 Cor. 11.26.  
Ans. 'Tis true in the preaching of the Gospel, the showing forth of Christ's death is a means of conversion, but not in the Lord's Supper, where 'tis only held forth, and shown forth to supposed Believers; If it be converting in this Ordinance, the Apostles than did not use all the means of grace for conversion, They should have celebrated the Supper at every Sermon, and have bid the people, Come and eat, for here also the death of Christ is showed forth to convert you, which he will never find practised; If he say, The first Churches did every Lord's day celebrate the Supper; That was among such as were esteemed Saints, already converted (as all within the Church are supposed in a charitable judgement) and in Christ's order; Away with these Fallacies.  
But this he would prove further from the words of Justitution, Take and eat, [Take for such as have not Christ, and eat for such as have already received him.  
Ans. A benè compositis ad malè divisa; We take this very unsuitable to the parts of the Author; We presume a distinction never heard of before; As it hath no appearance of ground, so we believe it not considerable with the weakest.  
If this had been the sense, why had not Christ and the Apostles said to Unbelievers Take, and to Believers Eat: This taking, is the putting forth and exercising faiuh before wrought; which we still say this Ordinance supposeth, till he shall prove the contrary.  
He puts two or three cases, A moral man coming and doing his best to prepare himself, and so comes, Do we think to such a man this Ordinance is fruitless? Then God help us.  
But that is not enough to prove it is not, Yea (saith he) shall not his examination, Prayers, Confession, Meditation, be conducing?  
Briefly, These are not like the acts of a moral man, Examination of Repentance and Faith, supposeth a beginning of both; And when Ministers call upon moral men to examine themselves in point of Repentance, the Spirit works by it if that soul really do it; yet we say, that if all these be but the acts of a moral man, there's no promise for his receiving good by this Ordinance; This is a good Argument to keep his rich Neighbours in peace: Hab. 1.15, 16. shows it an old trade.  
2. He puts the case of a poor humble Believer, that comes hither to meet with Christ.  
Ans. We wonder at this case, the Question being not about such, being out of question by all, but such aught and are invited to come, to receive strength and comfort by this Ordinance: so the two Disciples of Emmaus, which he instanceth in, they were professing Disciples, and no question, converted before, though but weak.  
He brings in a reply of such as oppose him in this; Although a man may be converted at, it is not by the Sacrament, it is occasionally, but not intentionally a converting Ordinance.  
To this he Answers, This being undeniably granted of our opposites, the matter is upon the point yielded, All It may be's, all occasions must be taken for our salvation.  
Answ. When godly men say a man may be converted at the Lords Supper, but not by it, etc. We conceive they mean specially by the Sermon or exhortation before it, where all may be present; And if he be then converted, it will be meet for him to stay till another opportunity, that he may have a more spiritual discerning of that Ordinance: Mr Humfreys knows conversion usually gins with conviction of sin, and though the seed of faith may be then sown, yet it acts little at first; Christ not usually giving a view of himself in a promise at the first conviction; In such a straight a poor trembling soul will scarce venture to come.  
But granting him as much as he would have, his It may be, the point is not therefore yielded as he would persuade his Reader and himself: The question is not, as hath been alleged, What God can do, or what may be, but of the revealed will of God, and the ordinary way of his dispensation of grace, which must be our rule to walk by.  
He would further back this argument with three considerations, wholly, as his confidence leads him, To root out this subtlety, which the spirit of error hath insinuated.  
Answ. This spirit of error as he vainly boasteth, will appear a spirit of truth and holiness in the Lords servants, when his delusions and profane assertions will stink in the nostrils of the Saints, as it already, blessed be God, doth; The clouds of holy Witnesses we might allege against him, might cause him to blush at such an arrogant passage.  
But, 
Pag. 59  saith he, The Sacraments and all Ordinances are primarily means of grace, it is but in a remote sense they are means of conversion or confirmation.  
Ans. Now what a rooting out of this subtlety is here? Upon what Scripture doth he bottom his vain distinction? We say, All Ordinances are means of grace, but according to Christ's order and institution, The Word for converting grace, The Word and Sacrament also for confirming; and so they were ordained and ever used by Christ and the Apostles.  
Next, he distinguisheth of conversion, 1. Outward, from heathenism to the profession of Christ, we do not stand to say the Sacrament is such a converting Ordinance. 2. True inward conversion wrought by the Word, not from any active power it hath in itself, but per modum objecti, etc. as an instrument used by the Spirit, so the Sacrament, etc.  
This is the substance of the second.  
Ans. He intends by this to prove that if it may occasionally, though not intentionally convert, than all may come to it.  
1. To his distinction of conversion we Answer, That all that are converted by the Word, and so received into the Church, are supposed to be truly converted, and so have this Ordinance administered to them; and therefore this destroys all he hath said in this particular: If it may be instrumental to inward effectual conversion, why may not his It may be, reach as well to Pagans, as those Hypocrites in the Church? And to this he adds, We do not stand to say it ought, and let it be imagined, etc. As if he had a mind to it; for indeed it will as naturally follow, if he answer, No, it ought not, because Sacraments are only for such as are within the Church; then sure he more fastens what he pretends in this reason to root out, for none are to be received or continued in the Church, but such as are visible Saints, supposed to be converted; as himself hath granted; and so by consequence 'tis not intended a converting Ordinance, but for the Communion of Saints.  
And whereas he saith, The Spirit works by the Sacrament, as by the Word, by way of an instrument: and so if the Sacrament do occasionally convert, 'tis enough; It hath been answered, that this conversion at the Sacrament, which some godly men assert, is meant, not precisely of the Sacrament, but of Prayer, Preaching, Exhortation, etc. Besidcs the word is intentionally, by the revealed will of God, an instrument of conversion, and so an Institution of Christ, but this of the Sacrament is not yet, nor we verily believe ever will, be proved to be so.  
3. He follows this, as if he had gained much by this concession of Occasionally converting, wherein we fear he wilfully mistakes godly men; who ever mean it only of the concomitant duties at it, etc. And so he frames to himself a distinction of principal and subordinate intention of conversion; The Sacrament hath a subordinate intention, etc.  
But, Sir, who grants you this distinction that are contrary to your judgement, That the Sacrament hath a subordinate intention of conversion, etc. We know of none such who speak of it, as occasionally converting do not imply it, occasionally and intentionally are not subordinate but distinct; besides, Godly men, as hath been showed, do not speak of the Sacrament precisely, when they so speak; yet how the man pleaseth himself with his own creature and fancy, and laughs upon it exceedingly! p. 61, 62.  
He further urgeth, Prayer is not so primarily converting, therefore by this rule prayer may also be exeluded.  
Ans. We need answer no further to this, he frames a shadow and fights against it; He takes that granted to him, which no judicious Divine we know allows him: We say Prayer is subordinatly converting, but we deny and leave him to prove, ad graecas Calendas, that the Sacrament is. We might here reinforce Mr Gilespyes twenty Arguments to prove the Sacrament not converting, which he will answer at the same time; but we intent briefness.  
The next he Answers to is, But unregenerate men are dead in sin, shall we give bread to the dead? men must be first born, living, before they can feed.  
To this he Answers, If we could conceive any such bread as would fetch life in a dead man, we would give it him; Now, says Christ, Joh. 6.33. I am the bread of life, etc.  
Ans. This is to beg the question, That the Sacrameut is ordained to fetch life in a dead man; yea, saith he, Christ is the Bread of Life, Here he gratifies the Papists (as well as the poor, ignorant, and profane people of the Nation) who understand that Bread in Joh. 6. to be of Sacramental bread, which sound Divines still oppose; Christ as offered in the Sacrament is not Bread to beget life, his bare assertion doth not prove it; His parallel between Aqua vitae and Calix vitae, is not worth notice; Or if it were, we believe M. Humphreys doth not know of any Aqua vitae that will beget life in a dead man, though it may revive where life is remaining. The same we say of the Cup as an ordained means where Christ is offered.  
As to the matter of Judas which he again replies to, we have spoken already; And we should be too tedious to urge all, What godly men have said for Judas not receiving the Sacrament.  
1. How unlikely it is that the Lord should say to Judas (whom he calls the Son of Perdition, and a devil) This is my body which was broken for thee, and this is my blood which was shed for the remission of thy sins, and Thou shalt drink with me in my Father's Kingdom; All which he spoke to Judas as to the rest, if he were one.  
2. But should we grant he eaten, sure Mr Humphreys gains little to his cause; Judas was not yet convinced before the Church of the fact, having not yet committed it; If he should have been kept off upon the fear that he might commit it, Peter might have been as well kept off as he, for he in Christ's knowledge was to commit a scandalous offence also.  
3. Neither will it in the least measure warrant the admitting of all sorts now; Judas was a person that preached and professed Christ, and for a time forsook the world to follow him, was no scoffer or reviler at the power of godliness, and had given no open scandal to his Brethren; We wish it could be said so of all such as cry for Free Admission upon this ground.  
The eighth Objection he would answer to, is, Unworthy Receivers are guilty of Christ's blood, and eat their damnation, therefore we must not allow a Free Admission.  
To this he answers, 1. As to the Church's part. 2. As to the Receivers, etc.  
For the Church's part, this cannot any way concern them. There is a general Command, Do this, Every man is to examine himself, and he receives damnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to himself, they receive not ours.  
Answ. 1. His verily believe doth not prove it doth not concern the Church; The Church is concerned to keep herself from pollution and ruin, both which are brought upon it by this vile practice; If the Church, both Officers and Members, do not their utmost to prevent a manifestly impenitent sinner from coming to this Ordinance, they are guilty of his sin, as hath been proved; We are (saith Zanchy) violaters of charity and guilty of iniquity, 
Lib. 1. Ep. p. 26.  to suffer men to damn themselves with the Sacrament, which we might suspend from them.  
2. Such a levity is the way to bring upon Ministers the punishment of Eli, the sin being much like it.  
3. Is it nothing to a Minister to see a people he is sent to save, in God's hand, eating and drinking damnation to themselves? chrysostom protested, he had rather give his body to a Murderer, than the Sacrament to a scandalous person; And Calvin, that he would rather put his hand into the fire, etc.  
But to his reason, saith he, There is a general command, Do this.  
Ans. We wonder he will so inconsiderately call it a general command, when he knows 'twas spoken only to the 12. that eaten with him.  
Oh but saith he, Let him examine himself, and he damns himself, not another.  
Ans. It doth not follow, that because every person coming is bound to examine himself, therefore no body else is, Though he receives damnation to himself, yet it doth not thence follow, that others have not a hand in forwarding his damnation, if they do not their duty to prevent it; Though a man murdering himself is chief guilty of the fact, yet it follows not but those are in a measure guilty who prevent him not when 'tis in their power; Every man shall give an account of himself to God, yet their blood will I require at thy hands, saith the Lord.  
Why should God say, Be ready to give an account of the hope that is in thee, if no body have power to require it of him?  
We verlly believe Mr Humfreys himself doth not conceive those words of self-examining spoken exclusively; who doubts (unless such as are profane scorners) but that a Minister is to take all occasions to examine the people he is sent to, for their further edification, specially when they have been lulled in ignorance before? 'Tis indeed a lose and profane assertion, That poor ignorant creatures and profane wretches must come in a customary way to the dishonour of Christ, to their own damnation, without repentance; And yet the admitters no way, no, not any way, as he maintaineth, concerned in it.  
'Tis the note of a godly mind to urge Scripture to such ends for which God ordained them, as this, to press self-examination, not as to make void all private reproof, admonition, and discipline, contrary to other Scriptures; Woe to the Land if all were of this lose judgement; Let all people damn themselves at pleasure by Sacraments, it concerns no body, neither Ministers nor people.  
What godly man doth not see but this shift is put into the head of carnal persons by the devil and his factors; to keep them in security, they never intending to examine themselves, nor are indeed able, and so will not suffer any man else to do it; It concerns none but himself, saith Mr Humfreys.  
2. This self-examination may have reference to others judgement of them, viz. That though the Elders of Corinth did unduly admit them, they were not to rest on their judgement of them, but to examine themselves; which only can prevent that judgement of God spoken of 1 Corinth. 11.31. And the judging of themselvoes there may also refer to the Churches judging, as good Authors conceive.  
3. If Persons have been duly received and confirmed into the Church, then 'tis supposed they give sufficient satisfaction in point of knowledge, and so that part of examination by the Eldership or Church, which is now called for in our times, as to knowledge, would cease; But it is the ignorance of people is now most complained of, and so examination in this respect more required, because there hath been sufficient means of knowledge but in few places.  
But Mr Humfreys would prevent what we have answered by forestalling the Objection, If another should be taking a Cup of poison, shall not we be partakers of his blood if we do not hinder or forbidden him, etc.  
Ans. But alas how poorly he wipes it of? What a rattle hath he got to still conscience?  
Saith he, We have no quùm possit, that is, no power to hinder, etc.  
Ans. What if he had?  
1. Doth he not absolutely plead that all are to come, and it concerns no body, no way, to keep them off?  
2. But suppose he would, this will not serve the turn; To whom are the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven left, to keep off, and cast out primarily, but to a particular Church? If your people will not submit to discipline, to Christ's yoke, they are not fit for Sacraments; In a word, That Gospel which declares their receiving to be a damnable sin, and enjoins all ministerial care to prevent sin, and save men's souls, doth eo ipso, command you to put them back, and to put your Church into Christ's order that you may do it; No Gospel-practise puts a necessity upon any man to sin.  
Next, He wonders Any religious man should call the Sacrament a cup of poison seeing it is a cup of blessing: If it prove death to any, 'tis sin takes an occasion, etc.  
Ans. Sir, What religious man doth call it a Cup of poison, in any other sense than you yourself do, that is, as sin taking occasion makes it so? Why will you gratify men of corrupt minds with such forgeries, to make them hate their Ministers more?  
He re-enforceth his constant Argument, God is able to make it a cup of blessing, etc.  
Ans. That's not the Query what God is able to do (as hath been answered) but what God hath ordained for such and such an end, and what he hath promised to do; And so he hath not ordained nor promised this Sacrament to be a Cup of blessing to an unbeliever, or the worst, as he styles it.  
Let us act (saith he) with charïtable thoughts, and leave the success to God.  
Ans. But Sir, you must have ground and rule for your charity; That profane ignorant persons are Christ's Disciples, is a groundless charity; Besides, what do you talk of charity in your apprehensions of all that come, seeing you assert all are to come whether converted or not converted, and the Minister nor Church is not to consider of it?  
His comparison between Preaching the Word and administering the Sacrament, hath been refelled; 'Tis true Paul preached in every place, though the Word was a savour of death to some; but Sir, he did not administer the Supper in every place, but only to professing Saints joined together in the fellowship of the Gospel; And to administer it to others is not to make this Ordinance a sweet savour, but a loathing to the zealous and holy God.  
2. He comes to the Receivers part, lessening the unworthy Receivers sin, when 'twere his duty to be aggravating and bewailing it: he saith,  
There is a double duty, A Principal, Do this; An Accessary, Examine; If he fails in examining himself, and is not prepared, he is to come, etc.  
Ans. 1. He well enough knows, but that he would blind poor souls, That Do this was spoken to Disciples of Christ's Family, not to all; that as oft as they do it, they do it in remembrance of Christ's death, Doth it follow therefore that every one is to do it? A Master of a Feast bids all at his Table eat, all that are present, doth he therefore bid all the Town eat?  
2. That which he calls an accessary duty, let a man Examine, is the ground of his coming, A limitation of the duty, without which none ought to come; but he urgeth further,  
Those dreadful expressions of being guilty of Christ's blood, and eating damnation, are not to affright any from coming, etc. No? Not any man? What not an Idolater? an incestuous person, a hater of the godly with whom he pretends to communicate as one body? Not one that keeps a Brothell-house, nor a witch, nor a reviler, etc. Sir, In this your profane Proselytes are ashamed of you; They will tell you this is larger than 'twas in their old free profane days; Then the Minister was used to pronounce by way of threatening, If any of you he a Blasphemer of God, a hinderer or slanderer of his Word, an Adulterer, or be in malice or envy, or in any other grievous crime, bewail your sin, and come not to this holy Table; Mark it Reader, Bewail it, and Come not: but saith the Patron of thy sin Mr H. However come.  
But Sir, In earnest, Do you conceive those dreadful judgements threatened are not to affright profane persons? When a profane person hears grievous judgements threatened to such a practice, ought not that person to refrain it? No, he saith, he ought to prepare himself; That's true, but the Question is, If he find himself not prepared, yet hearing such judgements threatened, Whether he ought to come, Mr H. saith, He dare not say he ought not.  
What's this but to encourage poor creatures to rush boldly upon sin and judgement, which the body of the people of this Nation have long done in a most abominable manner?  
And yet now they must be clapped on the back for it, and they are taught by Mr H. they ought to come however, and 'tis the Minister's duty to receive them; How little hath he considered how the people of this Nation are hardened by custom to come profanely? And let Ministers pronounce a thousand judgements to unworthy coming, yet it hath been their custom to come, to have a communion and new clothes, and be merry at Easter, Therefore have it they will, or the Minister shall rue it if it be in their power; specially since 'tis duty to come though drunk in that moment; as Free Admission alloweth.  
His assertion is backed with three Queries etc.  
1. He distinguisheth between the Act of receiving and the unworthiness of it, the Act is good, though the manner be evil, etc.  
Ans. So may the Act of murder be said to be good, as 'tis an action, or any other vile action, because it hath being, and so good in a Metaphyficall sense, which we will not puzzle our Reader with, speaking chief to the deceived people; Know Reader, the Scripture calls it damnable sin, to come unworthily, and be not flattered into sin, by such unsound niceties; There's no moral good in the coming, God hates thee in thy coming, thou bring'st greater sin upon thy soul if thou comest unworthily. Ah how are poor ignorant souls strengthened by this reason? they believe there's some good, and they do some good in coming, and this makes amends for much profaneness.  
He may indeed say as much for the foulest sin in the world, T he act is good, as it hath being, but the sin is in the manner; Eating and drinking simply considered at the Sacrament is not sin, but ignorance and unworthiness makes it so.  
But, saith he, There's unworthiness upon a Person if he do not come, p. 71.  
Answ. But not so great; To be unworthy and come in that unworthiness to a holy action (which the Word styles damnable) is an aggravation of it, and a greater sin, and an abominable mocking of God and defiling his Ordinances.  
His second Query is, Whether receiving the Sacrament be otherwise damnable then hearing and praying, which he concludes is not, etc.  
Ans. Though to pray and hear in a carnal manner be great sins, yet unworthiness of Receiving is greater; which those dreadful Expressions in 1 Cor. 11. do witness; beside there lie absolute commands upon every one to hear and pray, Rev. 13.9. If any man have an ear to hear let him hear, Jer. 10.25. The action of receiving is of a more tender and holy nature, and the sin of profaning it greater: So that if a profane person refrains to come, he sins less; though this doth not at all excuse his continuing in profaneness.  
But he helps himself with a distinction, whereby he pretends to salve all: There's a presumptuous profane way of coming to an Ordinance, or a Christian coming in conformity to God, etc.  
Ans. Here's a skinning soul-flattering plaster for the Enemies of Reformation; It's a sweet bit for the devil to keep up rotten formality: Sir, Doth not he come in a profane presumptuous way, who comes but in an outward Conformity? Doth not the most profane wretch do so? and thinks he doth enough, and covers many sins by it, he will tell you he comes in a conformity to God's worship; How many Scriptures might we give him, and we presume not unknown to him, where the Lord expresseth his abhorrency of such worship; See Isa. 1.11. & 66.5. Jer. 6.7. Chapt. etc. The people there came before God as his people, in such ways of worship as he appointed; But they came but in an outward conformity, therefore (saith the Lord) 'tis an abomination to me, an iniquity, my soul hateth it, etc.  
Therefore this is a distinction abhorred of the Lord; whoever comes in a mere outward conformity, comes in a presumptuous profane way.  
His third Query, Whether an unregenerate man conceiving himself not worthy, must never come to the Sacrament, etc.  
He answers, Herein my thoughts are apt to run comparatively on the word.  
Ans. An unregenerate person finding himself such, is not, as such, to come, 'twas not ordained for his good; Not to sow the first seed of his new birth, but to strengthen it; 2. We deny to be the same reason of coming to the Word and Sacrament, for though he hath been and is an unworthy hearer, yet he is to go, because the Word preached is ordained for conversion, but not the Sacrament, which is for the Communion of Saints; whereas he saith, 'tis a means of grace, 'tis a fallacy, 'tis not a means of the first grace.  
He speaks in the close of a soul laying to heart the horror of his sin in being guilty of Christ's Blood, and so to come.  
This is true, and granted, If he doth lay it to heart, and profess to do so, than the Church doth encourage him to come.  
But we say, This horror of his sin is wrought by the preaching of the Word, not by the Act of receiving; And we believe a soul made sensible of this dreadful guilt in his frequent former come, will tremble to come at that instant, though he is afterwards upon the profession of his sin to be encouraged; 'twill not hurt him to lie under these humblings; yea, if a poor creature shall doubt of his regeneration, and so open his condition to the Minister or the godly people, he is to be encouraged if any appearance of regeneration in a charitable judgement be upon him.  
But saith he: If coming unworthily makes a man guilty of Christ's blood, how much more shall open refusing it, that tramples upon it in this Ordinance?  
Ans. Briefly, By continuing in sin and coming to this Ordinance, there's a more abominable trampling under foot the blood of Christ, because they make it an unclean thing, Heb. 10.29. by continuing in their uncleanness, and so trampling upon and despising the ends of Christ's blood, purity and holiness; It matters not which is precisely the greater sin, 'tis enough to make a profane wretch to tremble, that in coming unworthily he becomes guilty of the Lords blood, etc. So to make him refrain.  
The ninth Objection against his judgement, which he brings on to answer, is, The Ordinance is polluted if all be admitted.  
He grants it; To the unworthy Receivers, to whom all things are unclean, but not to the Admitters unless the unworthy are convicted.  
Ans. But Sir, What if the Minister and the rest of the Admitters do not their duty to convict an ignorant or a profane person, but suffer him to come; When they have power and command from Christ, as they are a Church, to do so, is it not then both Ministers and People's sin? We dare aver, the Lord will require it of them without their Repentance, or else Mat. 18. stands for a blank, and Christ will never take an account of it.  
But though this duty be not performed by them, yet they may come fearlessly, as Mr Humfreys conceives, No more scruple, saith he, then if the cloth be not clean enough on the table.  
Ans. Satis profanè, an expression unworthy a Christian (that we may not flatter him) and an abhorring to the Lords people: That a godly soul seeing a company of profane wretches, enemies to godliness (as what Congregation abounds not with such?) come to this holy mystery, and though he doth not his duty by private admonition and labouring their conviction, yet he is no more to be troubled to see the blood of his Saviour made an unclean thing, then for an unclean cloth.  
Now Reader, thou seest this Author in his own shape: His profane Proselytes sure will say he hath stretched conscience a little too much for them here.  
But he will venture to prove it: In the Law, saith he, there was a distinction of the clean and unclean, which otherwise would defile their Saorifices, and the Temple; But no such thing now in the Gospel, etc.  
Answ. This is the substance of his answer; We Reply; It hath been already proved by us, that the Jews were kept off from the Sacrifices and Passeover, as well for Moral uncleanness, as Ceremonial, 
Joh. 9.22. & 12.42. Ezra 10.11.  and that the Ceremonial uncleanness was a type of the uncleanness of sin under the Gospel.  
Besides, Was God so zealous of his worship, and the profaning of it then, that unclean persons were to be cut off, and is there no profaning the holy mysteries of the Lord Jesus now? Nor no care to be taken that unclean persons be not suffered to defile them? What a cursed prostitution of the holy things of God is this? But, saith he, There is nothing unclean to us now.  
Answ. Ay but there are things that are too holy for the unclean now, as this holy mystery is.  
But to prove there is nothing unclean now, he urgeth Ro. 14.14. I know I am persuaded there is nothing unclean of itself.  
Ans. Sir, you know well enough that Paul speaks there of meats, to the satisfaction of the weak Jews, who took some meats still to be accounted unclean under the Gospel; But now he convinceth them there's nothing, no meat to be accounted unclean.  
What's this to his purpose to prove there is no polluting the holy Ordinance of the Lords Supper? unless he will make no difference between common meat, and the Lords Supper; which the truth is, his Free Admission doth not; This is his argument:  
No meat is now unclean, legal uncleanness being taken off, therefore all may come to the Lords Supper; no polluting of it, or at it.  
That of Peter's vision is like it; Jews and Gentiles are to have the Gospel preached, therefore no man is defiled by communicating with a wicked person, though he take no care for the prevention of him.  
He goes on and urgeth, Now in the Gospel All's free, we are to have free Ordinances.  
Ans. But, Sir, In Christ's way, The Gospel preached freely to all, but the seals of it to professing Saints.  
He breaks off with a sharp exhortation to the godly Ministers and people, thus; My Brethren, there are some touches of the Law and superstition on you, you know what a sacred thing was made of the Communion Table when the rail was about it; Now I pray think how you refine and spiritualise your old superstition, by putting a spiritual rail about the Sacrament, when you debar poor sinners for coming hither: Let us take heed, there will be something of the Pharisee in these spiritual proud hearts of men.  
Ans. The Lord rebuke him for this censorious sarcasm; We look upon this discovery as the just hand of God upon him.  
'tis the language of the formal, lukewarm, profane Ministers and people against the godly party; Oh, say they, this is their spiritual pride and Pharisaisme: This passage is nuts for them.  
2. 'Tis very base (to say no more) for a Minister to cast such dirt upon the fair unblemished memories of selfdenying Saints, who are now fallen asleep in the Lord; who suffered deprivations, banishments, imprisonments, upon this very score chief, that they would not administer Sacraments to all: And now, saith this Pamphleter, as their persecutors did, 'Twas their spiritual pride; As they damned the power of Religion to be such, and as the Lukewarm, Anti-reforming party do: Yea doth he not cast this upon the Wisdom of Parliament, the Reverend Assembly of Divines, yea all the most Learned and Godly Reformers both Ancient and Modern, as ever the Church of Christ hath been blest with: This censorious man hath written upon them all, Pharisaism, and spiritual Pride; because every man's conscience is not so easy, large, and wide as his own, about the sanctifying the Lords Name in this Ordinance.  
Oh but saith he, 'Tis superstition too, as bad as the rail about the Communion Table.  
Ans. The truth is, he is fit to be admonished, to go weep and howl in private all his days, for this and other (such) cursed assertions, then to have an answer given to them; were not thousands of souls even like to perish and be hardened in sin by them? Sir, Doth that Idolatrous practice of erecting Altars, and railing them about as holy, run parallel with the practice of a conscientious Minister, who trembleth that poor souls should eat damnation, and he not labour to prevent it? And as to your rail, The Discipline of Christ's Churches was wont to be styled the rail or fence of them, to preserve this holy Ordinance from pollution: If you get not such a rail Christ may root out you and your Church (such as it is) ere you are ware.  
Sir, Instead of this Caveat to the godly Ministers who plead for and practice Reformation in the use of this Ordinance; May you tremble at a spirit of Apostasy from it, which gins sadly to steal upon too too many who have formerly with great zeal contended for it, and that you nor they be not given up of God to greater delusions and abominations than these.  
A little to salve the business, he brings in the reply of the godly to his former argument, But are we not faulty and partake of other men's sins if we do not our best to have the leaven purged out, etc.  
He Answers, 
Pag. 79.  There are several duties of a Christian, To pray, receive, to admonish his, to rebuke the faulty, to tell the Church, if it be in a capacity: if we neglect we are guilty, and defiled; What then? we must labour after a Church-Establishment, etc.  
Ans. Is not this to grant in effect what we contend for, That 'tis every Communicants sin if he do not admonish a person coming profanely to this Ordinance, and he becomes guilty if he neglect it? If rebuking the faulty as to all sin, be a duty, then 'tis so in this particular; for he that hinders not another from sin according to his duty and power, is guilty of that sin, and the duty Mr Humfreys hath confessed, yea all commanders, commenders, consentors, connivers, councillors, concealers, excusers of other men's sins, are guilty of them, of which Mr Humfreys is one, and all that plead for Free Admission.  
He limits the duty of telling the Church, saith he, If the Church be in a capacity to hear.  
Then 'tis granted the Church ought to be in a capacity to hear: If he means by this capacity, A Church enjoying all Officers, whose fault is it that you have them not? Who is to choose them but your Church? If they be not fit to choose they are not fit for Sacraments, as hath been showed, we mean as to a good part of them; but we conceive the Church itself, as distinguished from its Officers, is in a capacity to hear, and aught to be told by a conscientious member, or else he will not quit the guilt mentioned, say Mr Humfreys what he will.  
3. He grants we should labour after a Church-establishment: This we trust will justify our practice, in doing our duties in it (by Mr Humfreys own principles) and so will stop the mouths of those of his mind against our practice, which, with ourselves, we cannot see, after much seeking the Lord for direction, how it can be attained to, but by calling upon such as will submit to the Discipline of Mat. 18. with us, and so being joined together, and choosing Officers, there ariseth a Church-establishment by the power of the Gospel: We wish Mr Humfreys had spent his time and paper he bestowed in maintaining promiscuous Free Admission, in stirring up Ministers to press on to such a Church-establishment, and not in hardening people in sin and ignorance.  
But he further urgeth, Must we in the mean while have no Sacrament?  
Ans. Better sure, after a patiented waiting upon souls for embracing the Gospel, to begin with Church-establishment, and then to administer the Supper, without so much dishonour to Jesus Christ, and endangering of souls, in promiscuous admission.  
2. Further, Mr Humfreys by his mean while, implies that in an exigency there ought to be Free Admission, rather than no Sacraments: Though we conceive that doth not absolutely take away the guilt, yet we could wish that he had so stated the question, and not to press his Free Admission absolutely upon Ministers and people, and that 'tis their sin not to allow it.  
But, saith he, The neglect of this duty of admonition, is the sin by itself, the coming is our duty.  
Ans. Here is a fine nicety to skin over a sin: Sir, If a Godly man do not admonish a wicked man coming, that so he may profess his repentance to the Church, or be kept off, such a one comes to the Sacrament with guilt upon him, for he hath not performed a concomitant duty in coming; and so his want of admonition is a sin in reference to his coming.  
Ay but saith he, Because the leaven is not purged out, must there be no lump?  
Yea, but such a lump as is totally leavened and defiled for want of this duty, and therefore aught to become a new lump, 1 Cor. 5.7.  
The next reply brought against his argument is, Are not all ignorant and scandalous persons swine and dogs, to be rejected, and so kept off from pearls, etc.  
1. He answers, I dare not say, though I see what interest lies at stake, which may soon fancy a Christian conveniency into a divine necessity.  
Answ. What though you dare not say so? 'tis enough that Jesus Christ himself saith so, Mat. 7.6. he calls them dogs, and commands that holy things be not given them, and this of the Lords Supper is to be esteemed the holiest. What Interest he means we do not rightly know; but we well know Free Admission stands well with the interest of carnal ease, friendship of ungodly men, and profit; but keeping off doth not.  
And Sir, 'tis not only Christian conveniency to keep off such, but a positive command of Christ in that Scripture. To his five reasons,  
1. We deny your proofs to assure the contrary, 'tis gratis dictum, as we hope is cleared.  
2. He placeth a great distance between unfitness to come unto the Sacrament, and being excluded.  
Answ. If a person be not fit to come, and his unfitness visible, he ought to be excluded, and so kept from sin: Though you put a great distance between them, they ought to go together.  
3. He urgeth, The keeping off any cannot be pretended to in our un- Eldered Congregations.  
Answ. This we believe gave the occasion to this Discourse; and upon this score, we fear many go on to sin against light: But doth not this imply that if Congregations were Elderd then there ought to be keeping off, and so Free Admission vanisheth, and not to be peremptorily pressed?  
2. But, Sir, still whose fault is it that these are not Elderd Congregations? sure the Ministers and Churches own, as hath been alleged: Who are to choose the Elders? certainly the Church; or let it be proved the contrary; But the major part, you will say, is corrupt and not fit to choose? Then sure not fit to be admitted to sealing Ordinances, as hath been hinted. People that fear the Lord can discern of such persons who are most godly, grave, and wise, and so fitted for Church-Officers.  
This is a most generally received truth, That every particular Congregation hath power in itself to reform itself according to what shall be practicable by them.  
There is nothing alleged against this but the expectation of a Civil sanction; what weight or authority will that add to Christ's Ordinance? which obligeth the conscience without humane authority; such a sanction or humane law may make men hypocritically submit, but will not add to real Reformation. Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord by the Prophet, Zach. 9.6. We have spoke to this in the Preface: We will take leave to allege what Dr Jewel in his Epistle concerning the Council of Trent, annexed in the close of that History; which is applicable to the present case: Ministers alleging there can be no Church-Reformation, without a Civil sanction and Law from Authority, though they protect godly men in their duty.  
The Council of Trent alleged, There was no Reformation to be attempted in England without a General Council; To which the Doctor replies, pag. 858. Is it not lawful for any of us to believe in Christ, to profess the Gospel, to serve God aright, to fly superstition and Idolatry, except they will be pleased to give us leave? etc. In the following page, Must we therefore sit idle, expecting how these Fathers will handle the matter? Must we hold our hands together and do nothing? Further, I will require, saith the Lord, their blood at thy hands: If any shall put his hand to the plough and look back, and be solicitous what others think, and expect the authority of a General Council, and hid the Lords treasure, in the mean while he shall hear this, Oh evil and faithless servant, take him away and cast him into utter darkness. Suffer, saith Christ, the dead to bury the dead, but follow thou me. In humane Counsels it is the part of a wise man to expect the judgement and consent of men, but in matters divine, God's Word is all in all, the which so soon as a godly man hath received, he presently yieldeth and submitteth himself, he is not wavering nor expecting others: He understandeth that he is not bound to give ear to the Pope or Council, but to the will of God, whose voice is to be obeyed though all men say nay. The Prophet Elias presently obeyed God's voice, though he thought he was alone. Abraham being warned of God went out of Chaldea. Lot went out of Sodom, etc. Go, saith the Angel, out of the midst of her, and partake not of her sins, lest you taste of her plagues: He saith not, Expect a Synod of Bishops. If at the first Christ and his Apostles had stayed for a Council, when had their sound gone up unto all Lands? etc.  
Pag. 860. For we know that the Spirit of God is tied neither to places nor to numbers of men. Tell it to the Church, saith Christ, 
☞  not to the whole Church spread over the whole world, but to a particular, which may easily meet in one place: Wheresoever, saith he, two or three shall be gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them: When Paul would reform the Churches of the Corinthians and of the Galatians, he did not command them to expect a General Council, but only wrote unto them, that what error soever or vice was among them, themselves should presently cut it off.  
Now we humbly conceive what this Reverend Author saith of a General Council, is in this case applicable to Magistrates; As the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were not to stay for a Council, as to the Reforming their Churches, so neither for an Edict from the Magistrate; The Lord will require the blood of such as perish for want of Reformation, at our hands. In matters divine, saith he, God's Word must be obeyed, though All men say nay.  
Now say some, If the Magistrate would give us authority, we would set about this practice; Sure this will not serve the turn before the bar of the Lord, however it may quiet conscience for a time. We verily believe, did we look more to Christ, and less to men, the Gospel would have its course more freely.  
But to return to Mr Humfreys, saith he, Men may be Dogs and Swine either in the course of their life, or in the public esteem of the Church, we look to them as they are in the Church's esteem.  
Ans. Briefly, This is but a rotten salve; As if 'twere to be satisfaction enough to a godly Minister, what a company of ignorant and carnal people shall think one of another; say they, We were all used to come at Easter, why be we not all fit now?  
2, If by the Church he mean the Officers, it doth not come to his case; But were it so, that a known scandalous person should be otherwise esteemed by them, yet the Minister having used all other ways of remedy, be is not to sin from other men's judgements.  
5. Saith he, To speak particularly concerning the ignorant, I dare not judge so rigorously; the 5. of Heb. 2. comes near my heart, etc.  
Answ. We wish other Scriptures did also, that concern his duty in this case: 'Tis true, Jesus Christ can have compassion on the ignorant, and such as are out of the way, as that Heb. 5. speaketh; But than he teacheth them, giveth his Spirit to them, and brings them into the way, as Prov. 1.22, 23. We allow his distinction of ignorance, and that to the weakly ignorant instruction is to be given; but how much affected obstinate ignorance is to be found with such as rush upon Sacraments? And to admit such was fare from Christ's mind in that Scripture, being to encourage poor ignorant souls to come to be taught by him, and after to tender themselves to Sacraments, and to be encouraged to do so.  
Further he saith, For the scandalous we know there must be admonition first twice or thrice, Mat. 18.15, 16. and then if they continue obstinate, to be excommunicated, etc.  
Answ. Why is not this course taken? If it ought to be, why is not the best expedient used for such an order? And if this aught to be, how will Free Admission of all without exception (seeing this Ordinance, as he saith, is converting) stand with his Excommunication? Should any be kept from converting Ordinances?  
But, saith he, I cannot find that this Excommunication is in reference merely to this Sacrament.  
Answ. Granted; There are other ends, but your merely implies this is one, viz. to keep scandalous persons from the Sacrament; If from Christian communion in general, as you speak, then from the choicest part of it, which consists in the Communion of Saints in this Ordinance.  
The last Objection he undertakes to answer, is raised from the Texts that are alleged for a separation from wicked persons, etc.  
To these he answers, first in the general, That there ought to be a separation from the sins and evil courses of wicked men, and from their common familiarity, but not from the Sacrament, unless in case of Excommunication, etc.  
Ans. To this we Answer,  
1. As to a particular person, suppose I am of such a Congregation (and that too only by habitation, never by any express joining in such a communion) where such corruptions do abound, that it is even impossible for men to admonish all, or if I tell it to the Minister or Church, I shall be reproached for it, (as we need not travel fare to find such cases) and I have with great patience waited for Reformation and a Church-Establishment according to God, what obligation is upon me from God or man, but that I may separate from the Congregation, for the ease and comfort of my own Conscience?  
2. What if a Congregation be so leavened with customary ignorance and profaneness, and scoffing at holiness (as 'tis too too easy to find such, nay where may one find better in the state they are now in) and a godly Preacher comes to this people, and a few godly own him; Must this Preacher and few godly be enforced to communicate with such (after due means used for the instruction of the rest) or may they not withdraw from the rest who are scoffers at godliness? sure we believe God and Angels, and Saints will justify such a separation in this Ordinance, and to draw into a closer communion to practise discipline among themselves; specially when such a Congregation was never orderly united and jointed together by a free submission to the Gospel; having in most places never enjoyed it in the power of it, which consideration, indeed, wipes off many objections.  
Now to his Scriptures, he first saith that Ephes. 5.11. 1 Cor. 10.20, 21. are meant only of separation from sinful courses and common familiarity.  
Answ. To that of the Ephesians, Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.  
Now therefore if we must not be partakers with wicked men in a wicked action, as v. 7. and must have no fellowship with them, than not Church-fellowship, if I can help it; specially in this Ordinance of the Supper, in which a wicked man is conversant, as to himself, in an unfruitful work; and if I by my partaking with him encourage him (as I do) I have fellowship with a wicked man in an unfruitful work of his, specially if I do not reprove him. Can Mr Humfreys conceive, that Paul forbidding any fellowship with wicked men, gave them an allowance to let them profane the Sacrament with them? It found'st harsh and incongruous.  
To that of the 1 Corinth. 10.21, 22. I would not ye should have fellowship with devils, ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils.  
Ans. Grant it, Paul reproves their eating at Idol feasts, as hath been showed, yet if wicked men come to the Lords Supper in a profane manner, demonstrating themselves to be but of Satan's kingdom, and presently after receiving, they return to Satan's worship in sports and plays, and abetted profanness, sure it is justifiable for such as fear God to separate from them, specially when they long resist and scoff at the power of the word; and if the godly continue to communicate with such, 'tis little better than fellowship with devils, etc. The same may be said of 2 Cor. 7. Though the wife is to abide with her husband, it doth not follow but that she may separate from him as to Church-Communion.  
He conceives three more Scriptures may, haply, as he speaks, he understood only of separating from men's evil courses; he saith but haply, first as to Jer. 15.19. If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me; and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee, etc.  
We assert this is meant of Church-Reformation, and not only of separating from sinful courses in their lives. Jeremiah was sent to convince, preach down, and reform public abuses in God's worship; The wicked scorned and persecuted him, therefore Jeremiah (as every zealous Preacher ought) was commanded to be as God's mouth unto them, and those he did convert he was to separate them as the precious from the vile; which very fully points at and warrants such a separation we plead for: For any to say, that the precious is meant of words or things, and not of persons, is very weak; for the Lord saith, Let them return, which must be meant of persons.  
The next of 2 Thes. 3.6. Withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, etc. is also meant of withdrawing as to Church-Communion, as is clear by the following words: At v. 12. Paul commands and exhorts the disorderly: At the 14th, he exhorteth the Church, that if such disorderly persons will not obey, than the Church is to have no company with them, that they may be ashamed; which Learned men generally understand as to Church-society: Excommunicating or withdrawing being both for that end, as one, that the disorderly person may be ashamed and humbled, etc.  
So of Rev. 2.6. The hating of the deeds of the Nicolaitans, no question implies, separation from them in Communion: Sure Mr Humfreys will not allow Christianity and their heresies to consist.  
There are other Scriptures which he saith do only respect common familiarity, and not a separation as to Church-Communion.  
The first is, 1 Cor. 5.9. Have no company with fornicators, etc. which Mr Humfreys will have to be only of common familiarity, not as to Church-Communion.  
No? Must not known fornicatours (for of such it must be meant) be cast out of the Church, if they continue obstinate? Who then must be cast out? The same rule he gives of Covetous, Idolaters, Railers, Drunkards, Extortioners; where the force of the argument, as Learned Mr Dickson on the place well observes, is this; Paul, saith he, had wrote to them before, not to keep company, nor to eat with such (which strongly implies their non-communion) therefore much more ought they to cast out from among themselves that incestuous person, which is the case he argues: Now how many covetous, drunkards, revilers and extortioners are to be found in most Congregations, open revilers of the Preacher, if godly and zealous, and of the godly; to which may be added many other sins of as high a nature: Now suppose the greater party shall be such (as it may easily be supposed in most Congregations) who shall Excommunicate them? being several hundreds in some places? 'Twere a vain thing to undertake it; therefore the lesser party must withdraw, and labour to draw others after them, or else the Apostles command must utterly be waved.  
That of 2 Thess. 3.14. hath been opened: As to Rom. 16.17. of avoiding such as make divisions: 'Tis clear, as most Interpreters, for exercising Discipline on them; To avoid a man, is to look upon him as cast out.  
The same may be said, as Mr Cotton strongly argues from that Scripture, 2 Tim. 3.5. From such turn away, which no question points at non-communion, for Mr Humfreys himself will sure allow, that the sins enumerated in the former verses, deserve it.  
So of John 2.10, 11. Sure he will not have such as deny the doctrine of Christ to be continued in the Church, and come to Sacraments, for of such John there speaks.  
As for Prov. 22.24, 25. viz. Make no friendship with an angry man, etc. We find not usually pressed in this case; and yet a furious man (as the wise man there calls him) is not fit to be accounted in Christ's family; if it appear reigningly upon him, and cause him to break out into other sins, as usually it doth.  
His last is Titus 3.10. Reject an heretic.  
Ans. Is this only of common familiarity too? Then heretics must also it seems be continued.  
Now he concludes, All these Scriptures forbidden us wicked familiarity in their sins, not a bare accompanying in God's Ordinances.  
Ans. We acknowledge it in the converting Ordinances of prayer and preaching, but not in Sacraments, and in full Church-Communion; The truth is, 'tis a ridiculous thing to conceive that the Apostle should command not to keep company with, to avoid, to turn away from, to reject such as are rightfully (as Mr Humfrays would prove) continued in the fellowship of the Church; for indeed the Apostle would fully contradict himself in other Scriptures, if he should, where he bids all the members have the same care one of another, 1. Cor. 12.25. To love as Brethren, To be as one brotherhood, 1 Pet. 2.17. To exhort; To comfort one another, which implies all sweet and open familiarity together; Now how can this be if they must reject, turn from, keep no company one with another?  
Next he anticipates the usual answer to his Argument, viz. If I must decline a wicked man, so as not to eat with them (which I interpret by our ordinary conversation) how much more must I decline him at this Sacrament?  
He answers, 'Tis a fallacy, and is sorry to see many gravelled at it; I must not be such a man's common companion, therefore I must not go to Church with him.  
Ans. This serves but to gratify the ignorance and superstition of too many, who think it enough if they come to Church; We must all, say they, go to Church, and have the Communion at Easter, He's worse than a Jew that will not; And too many know little further what true Church-Communion is.  
But saith he, Arguments from the less to the greater must be in things of the same kind and nature; which these are not.  
Ans. Sir, Common familiarity is enjoined to Church-members, as hath been showed, and forbidden to others; upon weighty Grounds; for how can there be mutual edification without familiar coming together, which though the means may be sometime in eating and drinking together, yet the people of the Lord do, or should do all to the praise of God and their mutual comfort in him whenever they meet; and so 'tis a degree of Church-communion.  
Yea (saith he) Eating with another is in my own arbitration; I must not choose evil, but I am bound to go to the service of God.  
Ans. True, In God's way, but not to partake of other men's sins, which I do, if I do not my duty to prevent them; which as the case stands in the most Congregations is hard to do, as hath been showed.  
He saith, He understands Mat. 18.17. in the third sense, which is, That there ought to be no separation from any in any of God's Ordinances, unless in case of Excommunication, and so 1 Cor. 5.1.  
Ans. 1. Yea Sir, It may reach to persons excommunicable, when the Officers shall neglect their duty. We require any Scripture to show an obligation upon a Church-member to abide in such a Church-communion where no hope of redress of such abuses, it may be the whole leavened.  
2. If Excommunication ought to be, why do not godly men when they have power from God and man put it in practice? If the Parochial frames as mixed, be too corrupt to take it up of themselves, by reason of an averseness to any such Reformation; it will surely justify the godly and willing people in non-communion in the Sacrament.  
3. Though in Mat. 18. & 1 Cor. 5. There be no mention of the Sacrament, yet that one end of Church-censures is to keep the visibly-unworthy from it, is confessed by himself in p. 84. as hath been observed: He further urgeth several Scriptures which prove non-communion with the wicked, which he saith are to be understood only in case of Excommunication, and are many leagues off from the business of the Sacrament.  
Ans. Let it be granted, that these Scriptures are to be understood in case of Excommunication; But those Scriptures do suppose it to be exercised in all Churches, as in the Primitive Churches it was; We still say to you and others, that the case is far different, where people have for the most part owned the profession of Christianity from the Magistrates Laws, and not from the Gospel powerfully preached, and do still abide in bitter enmity to the power of holiness, and too many as great revilers of it, as Papists or flat Atheists; And had never discipline exercised, nor did ever subject to it, and being now called upon to do it, do hate and scorn it, and such who are willing to do it; as Mr Firmin well observes in his serious Question, p. 30.  
Now he concludes with 4. wishes.  
That we had a Government established in the Church, the nearest in Christian prudence that may be to the Word of God.  
Ans, Yea, let him say, That which the Word of God holds forth; Jesus Christ did not so little consider of the rule and order of his Churches, as to leave it wholly to Christian Prudence, which is the very inlet of all tyranny that hath been exercised over the Churches of God: yet we allow Christian prudence, if clearly according to general rules of the Word of God.  
But he would have it established: By whom? We presume he means the Magistrate; What, cannot the Gospel do it? Sure Jesus Christ would rule by the rod of his mouth, Isa. 11.4. the rod of his strength, Psal. 110.2, 3. And not by Magistrates compelling Edicts: Though in bringing all to converting Ordinances, we humbly conceive their power is to be put forth, and in restraining blasphemies, but not to the whole order of Church-communion; let the Gospel be left to its proper work; If men speak of countenancing by their power; what would we have more than protection in our duties, which blessed be God, we enjoy; The Lord free the Spirits of godly men who plead for purity and discipline, from this snare; for we dare aver it to be a great one.  
2. He wisheth, That the duty of fraternal correption, a watching over, and admonishing one another in love, were better known and practised.  
Ans. Let him wish and pray for it more; But this may be pressed by a Minister till his heart ache, considering the customary formality the most are held under, and stand for nothing, and will not reach any real Reformation, till they shall be called upon, to come and profess their willingness to submit to such discipline actively and passively: An then Mr Humphreys and others will discern the temper of this generation as they yet remain; That they will neither enter in themselves, nor suffer others to do so:  
3. He wisheth, That men would look more into their own consciences, and leave the judging of others spirits, hearts, and reins alone, etc.  
Ans. Who he means in this admonition we know not; we know not of any who undertake this kind of judging, but judge by profession and conversation; We mean godly Ministers, who call upon their people to submit to discipline, and joint communion; We wish Mr Humphreys seriously to consider whether he need not take this back again to his own spirit; For his bringing the practice of Reformation under the doom of Pride and Pharisaism; as hath been observed: And as he calls for so universal a charity, we wish he extend it not beyond what his own conscience may one day fly in in his face for; for countenancing ignorant and profane souls in their ways, as his piece serves for nothing else: Oh say they, let us go on, for all what our Minister saith, Mr Humphreys in his Book saith, they ought to judge charitably of me, though we refuse to profess Repentance and Faith, and to come under discipline, and checks these new troublesome Ministers for it; And we all ought to receive the Lords Supper.  
Sir, We are bold to mind you again that you have deeply wounded the spirits of many of your brethren, and the Lords people in the Nation, and made the wicked bold in their wickedness, and have much hardened them against their Ministers, See Eze. 13.22, 23.  
Lastly, He wisheth, That though there may be some judging by the fruits, yet hat wise religious men would be more cautious of countenancing these Separations in the visible Church, because upon this score he saith there may be Separation upon Separation in the same Church, etc.  
If he mean by Separations and gathering of Churches, the practice which we have in this Treatise laboured to vindicate, viz. That when a faithful Preacher of the Gospel is sent to an ignorant, superstitious, profane people, (the most part by far such:) And if it please the Lord to work upon a part of this people, as to draw them out to own the Gospel from him, and to conform to it, and so that Preacher draweth the willing people upon their profession, into a more close union and fellowship together, waiting and labouring to bring on the rest to them; If we say he mean by this, the separation he would caution against, we hope and pray that wise and religious men will not be deterred from it by any thing Mr Humphreys hath produced against it, but will in the strength of the Lord set about it against all oppositions, All considerations of ease or interest being thrown off: By which means, 1. They will be found faithful Stewards to their Master. 2. They will keep themselves pure, 1 Tim. 5.22. 3. They will sanctify the Name of Christ aright in this Ordinance of the Supper. 4. They will be free from the sin of flattering souls to hell by it. 5. They shall discern how the Lord owneth and blesseth their Ministry. 6. They shall have sweet communion with Saints. 7. They will by this provoke and awake all to examine their condition. 8. They will act suitably to those rich and glorious promises of the building of the Lords Temple in the latter days of the Gospel, Zech. 6.12, 13. and many others.  
For Separations in the visible Church which he suggests dangerous, We answer, That if as much and great profaneness and abominations shall be fouled with the visible Church (as is too apparent) as even among such know not God, Then Separations as to the holy things of God, where holy men have only right, is justifiable in the eyes of God, Saints and Angels.  
For his suggested danger of separation upon separation; 1. We answer, That how is there properly a Separation, when there hath been no true uniting, nor hath one person considered himself to have any more relation to another, then as one of their Parish, but hear one another lie, swear, and commit together, and rather encourage then reprove one another for it; Separation is properly in and from a true Church-fellowship, and not from ungodliness and profaneness in a Scripture sense.  
Besides, what if there may be unstable souls separate from such a joint-communion (as 'tis like there may in the purest constitutions) shall there, for that reason, be no Church-communion nor endeavour after it?  
What if Excommunication be set up by a Law from men in every Parish, (which we believe to be impossible to any purpose, as the case stands with most Ministers and People who are bitterly against it) and there should 50 liars, swearers, etc. be cast out, would not there lie the same Objection against this practice also? And yet the Author makes us believe he would have Excommunication set up.  
Now when Mr Humfreys hath done all, let us see how far we can gather from his own expressions an implied allowance of our own practice, though his Book in the main fights against it.  
1. He calls for Church establishment, and for Discipline, for watching over one another, for mutual Reproof and Admonition, and confesseth there comes guilt and defilement upon a soul if it be neglected.  
Now we crave of our Brethren of the Ministry, and the people we preach to, and others, to consider, that these are the duties we call upon for to be practised, and that people that fear the Lord might submit conscionably to the practice of them; We crave of Mr Humfreys his more candid and honest interpretation of other his Brethren acting conscientiously in the Lords work, according to the light imparted to him, labouring to extricate the people by the good hand of God with them, out of ignorance, sin, and dead-hearted formality, by a real practice and not pretended only of Reformation; And that the Lord may humble him for his great evil in this little but mischievous piece, so miserably serving the turns of the enemies of goodness; and that he will speedily call it in, or we shall pray that the Lord will stir up others to do it for him.  
FINIS.    

Postscript.  
Reader,  
BE pleased to take notice, that this Treatise hath been above this half Year fitted for the Press, but by reason of the death of a friend to whom it was committed to be printed, it hath been retarded.  
Be pleased also to take notice that Mr Anthony Palmer hath in the Press several Sermons on Matt. 8.23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Entitled, The Tempestuous Soul Calmed by Jesus Christ.