PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

A BOUNDARY TO THE HOLY MOUNT, OR, A BARRE againſt Free Admiſſion to the LORDS SUPPER. In Anſwer To an humble Vindication of free Admiſſion to the LORDS SUPPER. Publiſhed by Mr. Humphrey Miniſter of Froome in Somerſetshire. Which humble Vindication, though it profeſs much of piety and conſcience, yet upon due triall and examination, is found worthy of Suſpenſion, if not of a greater Cenſure.

By Roger Drake Miniſter of Peters Cheap London.

He ſet the Porters at the gates of the Houſe of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing ſhould enter in.

2 Chron. 23.19.

London, printed by A. M. for St. Bowtell, 1653.


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

〈1 page duplicate〉


IT's one of the Devil's prime Engines to pervert Divine Ordinances quite contrary to their primitive inſtitution: ſo he did in Paradiſe, ſo he did in the Jewiſh Church, and ſo he hath done a long time, and ſtill doth in the Chriſtian Church. No wonder then if he turn the choiceſt myſtery of peace into a Sacrament of war, a feaſt of love into a bone of conten­tion. This he did by diſorder in the primitive Church, 1 Cor. 11. by Tranſubſtantiation in the Apoſtacy of the Church, by Con­ſubſtantiation in the Reſtitution of the Church; and now by a ſpirit of oppoſition againſt Sacramentall triall in the Reforma­tion of the Church.

In the managing of this unhappy Contro­verſie, Mr. Humphrey hath appeared three times in the field in his threefold Edition, pleading free admiſſion to the Lords Supper for all but three ſorts, against whom himſelf is pleaſed to ſhut the Chancell door, though the worſt of thoſe three kindes is better many times then ſundry of thoſe for whom he opens the door. Should we take the boldneſs to ask him, by what authority he excludes any from the Sacrament (it being in his profeſt judge­ment a converting Ordinance) or by what rule of Scripture and charity he walks, in excluding the worſt from the means of con­verſion, who need it more then the beſt, it would puzzle him more (and that upon good ground) then that captious Quaere of the Phariſees did our Saviour, Matth. 21.23. But whether the Lords Supper be a convert­ing Ordinance or not, Mr. H. muſt needs be at a great loſs, for if it convert not, then why ſhould they receive it who are viſibly unconverted? If it do convert (as well as the Word preached) then why ſhould any at all be excluded from it?

When this Anſwer was almoſt ready for the Preſs, out comes his third Edition, ſome­what auctior, but I dare not ſay correctior. This put me upon a review, and confirmed me in my opinion, that his Doctrine of free admiſſion is but meer Church-levelling, and will in a ſhort time make this glorious Church like the field of the Sluggard, Prov. 24.30, 31. When I ſeriouſly weigh his looſe Principles held forth to the world in this Treatiſe, with his being ſo exceſſively fa­vourable to the looſer and profaner ſort, it makes both my ſelf and others apt to ſuſpect, his practiſes may poſſibly be as looſe as his principles. Looſe principles and practiſes, like Eſau and Jacob, Pharez and Zarah, taking each other by the heel, and ſtriving who ſhall come out firſt. Twins they are, and its hard to ſay which is the Elder brother.

My ſcope in this Anſwer is (if God ſhall adde his bleſſing) 1. To convince Mr. H. and others ſeduced by him, how contrary his Doctrine is to Scripture, reaſon, and his own profest principles. 2. To prevent the further ſpreading of this leaven, which will ſowre the whole lump, and make Refor­mation (ſo much longed for, hoped for, and laboured for by the godly) to be utterly de­ſperate. Withall I muſt tell him, that this fancy of his (quite contrary to the judge­ment and practice of the reformed Churches, of the Church of England even in the daies of the Prelates, to the expreſs letter of the Book of Common Prayer, to the declared judgement of the reverend Aſſembly, and to the Votes of Parliament unrepealed) hath exceedingly grieved the hearts of the godly, rejoyced and gladded the hearts of the wick­ed, and hath done more miſchief already, then ten. Mr. Humphreys are ever like to do good. The Lord give him a ſight of his errour, and grace to burn this hay and ſtub­ble, before the day of the Lord come to try it, and himſelf for it, 1 Cor. 3.13.

One ſcruple yet untouched, which may haply ſtumble the Reader, I muſt not paſſe. What if a perſon by the previous exhortati­on, (wherein the death of Chriſt is both audi­bly and viſibly ſet forth) be really converted, may he not then actually partake of the Ele­ments, and be admitted to receive by and with the Church? Anſw. 1. A perſon at firſt converſion ſees himſelf ſo loathſome and un­worthy, that he ſhall not need a bridle from, but rather a ſpur to the Sacrament. 2. Its not enough for a perſon to be really clean, but he muſt alſo be judicially clean before he be ad­mitted to communion, Levit. 14.1, 31. when­ever Chriſt cleanſed any, he ſtill ſent them to the Prieſt to pronounce them clean, Levit. 17.14. 3. However a man be really, the Church muſt proceed by the rule of viſibility, and cannot admit any till he be viſibly con­verted.

This is a doctrine cannot well down with ignorant and prophane perſons; it will be a stumbling blocks to the Iew, and fooliſhneſſe to the Greek; from whom I can expect no better entertainment then farre my betters have been content with before me.

I ſhall cloſe with thoſe golden though rowſing expreſſions of the Provinciall Aſ­ſembly, in that excellent Piece of theirs, The Vindication of the Presbyteriall Go­vernment, publiſhed Nov. 2. 1649. pag. 74. which book had Mr. H. ſeriouſly peruſed, it might (through Gods bleſſing) have darted ſuch a beam of Majeſty into his conſcience, as would have quenched this Ignis fatuus of his, before it had miſled ſo many into bogs and quagmires. Their words are theſe: We are not ignorant that the Presbyterian Government (eſpecially as applied in order to Sacramentall triall) hath many Adver­ſaries. The obſtinately ignorant hates it, becauſe it will not ſuffer him to go blind­fold to hell. The profane perſon hates it, be•••ſe it will not ſuffer him to eat and drink his own damnation by unworthy coming to the Sacrament. The Heretick hates it, becauſe after two or three admo­nitions it rejects him. The Jeſuite hates it, becauſe it is an invincible Bulwark to keep out Popery. The Schiſmatick hates it, becauſe the main deſign of it is to make all the Saints to be of one lip, one heart, and one way. And above all the Devil hates it, becauſe if rightly mana­ged, it will in a ſhort time blow up his kingdome. Reader, let me but crave the favour Mr. H. his Prefacer doth, that thou reade both this Anſwer and his Book with an impartiall and diſingaged judgement, peruſing both with a ſingle eye, and I am confident thou wilt neither be of Mr. H. his judgement nor practice, a ſtickler for break­ing of Bounds, or removing the Land-mark ſet firſt by God himſelf, and afterwards by the Elders of our Iſrael. I leave it to thy ſerious peruſall, and both thee and it to Gods bleſsing, and remain,

Thine in the Lord Jeſus, ROGER DRAKE.

Reader, I am deſired to give thee notice, That there is now publiſhed an Anſwer to Mr John Goodwins Book entituled Redemption Redeemed, by Mr Kendall ſometimes Fellow of Exeter Colledge: with an Atteſtation by the Vice-Chancellor and publike Profeſſors of Divinity in Oxford.


A Barre to free Admiſ­ſion to the Sacrament.

SO winning a grace is Humi­lity, that the very appea­rance of it will credit an Errour, Col. 3.18. where Truth it ſelf uſherd in by pride and paſſion, loſes much of its luſtre and acceptance. But where Humility leads the Van, and Satisfaction of tender Conſciences brings up the Rear, who al­moſt dares face ſuch an Army, or que­ſtion a Cauſe ſo maintained as heterodox and unſound? No wonder Maſter Hum­phreys Free Admiſſion findes ſo free and generall acceptance, eſpecially with per­ſons already inclinable to his opinion, when the Title page is more potent to charm, then the whole Book is to con­vince the Reader.

An humble Vindication of a free Ad­miſſion2 unto the Lords Supper. Publiſhed for the eaſe, ſupport, and ſatisfaction of tender conſciences, &c.

So gracious a Porch cannot but pro­miſe a glorious Edifice, and by bribing the affections may ſoon corrupt the judgement of a weak and unſetled Chri­ſtian. If Mr. Humphrey be the man this Title ſpeaks him, I hope he will as freely admit me to write as he will admit o­thers to receive; nor can a free debate be queſtioned, where a free admiſſion is maintained. And if I may be free, I muſt ingenuouſly profeſs, I cannot but ſtumble at the very threſhold, eſpecially when I compare it with ſome parts of the Building. In the Title I ſee a pro­feſſion of humility, in the Book I reade many expreſſions that ſavour ſtrongly of pride. Further, that a plea for free ad­miſſion ſhould eaſe and ſatisfie tender conſciences, which both hath been, and is the trouble of tender conſciences (un­leſs it be very clearly and ſtrongly made out) is to me a paradox both in reaſon and Divinity. Waving therefore the judging of perſons (for who am I that I ſhould judge my brother) I ſhall pre­ſent to the Reader ſome of M. Humphreys3 expreſſions, and let the world judge whether they ſavour more of pride or of humility.

When Chriſt offers himſelf, and grace,Pag. 11. which are the things ſignified, to poor ſin­ners, how can we have the conſcience to turn them away from the ſignes and means thereof in this Ordinance?

Anſw. To wave at preſent the weakneſs of his Argument (which hath more rheto­rick then logick) is not this a ſad aſper­ſion of unconſcionableneſs upon thoſe honourable, reverend, and pious per­ſons, who after ſo long and ſerious de­bate, have both voted and executed the Ordinance for ſuſpenſion, &c.

Is Chriſt offered as a free gift in the Word,Pag. 16. and muſt we not come without our price and money to this Ordinance? Why this is even as they conceive of Judas, who being about to ſell our Saviour, went out to make his bargain at the Supper.

What other conſtruction will theſe words bear, but that the friends of Suſ­penſion with Simon Magus think grace is vendible, and with Judas are about to make a bargain of Chriſt at the Sup­per?

Having urged the inſtance of Judas4 as a ground of free admiſſion, he con­cludes in theſe words; And what more need be urged, but that men when they are willing not to ſee, will let any hand put over their eyes be enough to blinde them? It ſeems the Patrons of Suſpenſion are wil­lingly ignorant, &c. a charge laid by the Apoſtle upon profane ſcoffers, 2 Pet. 3.3, 5. and by Mr. Humphrey upon pious Reformers.

Again, page 22. he makes the ſelecting of people to this Ordinance, a vanity, for­mality, and impoſsibility. An heavy Cen­ſure, though weakly made out, as ſhall (God willing) appear in the enſuing diſcourſe.

Severall other harſh paſſages I might inſert, but theſe fore mentioned may ſuf­fice to convince the Reader, that Maſter Humphrey in ſuffering both his tongue and pen ſo to out-laſh, ſinned himſelf very much againſt the law of charity and humility. But enough of this un­pleaſant ſubject. Let us proceed to the Diſcourſe it ſelf, and weigh his Argu­ments in the balance of the Sanctuary and of ſound reaſon.

His ſubject is free admiſſion. His ground is Matth. 26.27. compared with5 Mark 14.23. from precept and example. All the Apoſtles were bid to receive, all of them did receive, and amongſt the reſt Judas, though really and viſibly unworthy. Anſw. Ergo, Becauſe Mr. Humphrey is ſo confident upon Judas his receiving the Lords Sup­per; namely, 1. That he did receive it. 2. That his receiving is a ſolid ground for free admiſſion; I ſhall therefore firſt produce thoſe reaſons which ſeeme weighty to me, and have moved ſundry godly and learned, both ancient and mo­dern, to be of a contrary opinion; and ſecondly, Shall endeavour to make good, that ſuppoſing Judas did actually receive, it makes nothing for Mr. Humphreys free admiſſion.

And 1. That Judas received not the Lords Supper, theſe Arguments ſeem convincing.

1. Chriſt knew him to be an hypocrite, a reprobate, and a devil, and ſo utterly uncapable of any good by the Sacra­ment.

2. Chriſts blood was ſhed for the remiſ­ſion of their ſins who received the Lords Supper, compare Mat. 26.28. and Luke 22.20. It was not ſhed for the remiſſion of Judas his ſins; Ergo, Judas did not6 receive the Lords Supper.

3. Chriſt promiſed to drink wine in his Fathers Kingdome with thoſe who received the Lords Supper; He did not promiſe to drink wine with Judas in his Fathers Kingdome; Ergo, Judas did not receive the Lords Supper. See Matth. 26.29.

4. Judas went out immediately after the Sop, John 13.30. This Sop was given him before the Sacrament; Ergo, he was not at the Sacrament. Yea, from John 13.1. ſome are of the minde, that Judas did not partake ſo much as of the Paſſeover, but onely of the common Supper which immediately forewent the Paſſeover. See Aarons Rod bloſſoming. lib. 3. cap. 9.

5. All Chriſts gracious and comfor­table expreſſions to his Apoſtles, were allayed with exceptions while Judas was preſent, not ſo at and after the Lords Supper; Ergo, Iudas was not then pre­ſent. Compare Iohn 6.70. & 13. ver. 10.18.21. with Matth. 26.29. Luke 22. ver. 28, 29, 30. He that excepted Iudas in the former expreſſions, would much more have excepted him in the latter, had he then been preſent. Theſe and the like7 grounds, have moved ſundry both an­cient and modern Writers to beleeve that Iudas did not receive the Lords Supper; namely, Clemens, Dionyſius Areopagita, Hilarius, Maximus, Pachymeres, Ammo­nius Alexandrinus, Tatianus, Innocen­tius 3. Theophylactus, Rupertus Tuitien­ſis, & Victor Antiochenus, Among the Schoolmen, Salmeron, Turrianus, Du­randus, Barradius, And of Proteſtants, Daneus, Kleinwitzius, Piſcator, Beza, Toſſanus, Muſculus, Zanchius, Gomarus, Diodati, Grotius, &c. See Aarons Rod bloſſoming, l. 3. c. 8.

Mr. H. his foundation from Mark 14.23. (which as his Text is the ground, though miſ-interpreted and miſ-applyed, of that his unhappy Diſcourſe) will ſtand him in little ſtead. The Text ſaies, They all drank of it. Thence Mr. Hum­phrey concludes, ergo, Iudas received the Sacrament.

Anſw. 1. Underſtand it of all that were pre­ſent, but its eaſier ſaid then proved, that Indus was preſent at the Lords Supper.

2. All, in Scripture, is ſometimes put for the moſt part, eſpecially in order to the number of the Apoſtles, 1 Cor. 15.7. yea ver. 5. of the ſame Chapter, twelve8 is put for eleven by roundneſs of num­ber. Its then a meer non ſequitur to ar­gue from all the Apoſtles drinking to Iu­das his drinking, or from the Twelves drinking to Iudas his drinking, ſince 1. All may very well be underſtood of all preſent. 2. Becauſe all in Scripture-phraſe is put to ſignifie the moſt part, and twelve in Scripture-expreſſion is put for eleven.

Object. But doth not our bleſſed Saviour im­mediately after the delivery of the Bread and Wine ſay, But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table, Luke 22. ver. 21. and if ſo, was not Indas then preſent at the Lords Supper; and if all preſent received, muſt not Iudas needs receive alſo?

Anſw. 1. I might ſay, the conſequence is weak, to argue from preſence to recei­ving. But that I ſhall not urge now, be­cauſe of my former conceſſion.

2. Its evident, that Luke writes per〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not ſo much obſerving the order of time, as the ſubſtance of the matter; which as its frequent in Scripture, ſo particularly the Harmony of the Evan­geliſts evinceth it in this ſubject; we ha­ving two Evangeliſts for one, to prove that thoſe words (Behold, the hand of him9 that betrayeth me, &c.) were ſpoken be­fore, not after the Inſtitution of the Lords Supper, and one of theſe Evange­liſts was preſent and received the Lords Supper, ſo was not Luke, who ſtood not ſo much upon the order, as upon the truth of the Narrative in this buſineſs of the Supper. See Matth. 26. ver. 21, 24, 26. Mark 14. ver. 18, 21, 22. It follows not then, that becauſe Judas was at the Ta­ble, ſhared in the common Supper, yea haply in the Paſſover, that therefore he received the Lords Supper, or was pre­ſent at it.

But ſuppoſe he was preſent & received.

1. The Apoſtles ſcarce ſuſpected him, though diſcovered, John 13.28, 29.

2. Judas had not yet actually betrayed Chriſt, his treaſon as well as Peters de­niall was yet future; and its abſurd to puniſh any for a future ſin.

3. Chriſt acting here as a Miniſter, it was not fit he ſhould be both Judge and Witneſs, and it might have been an ill preſident for Miniſters to take upon them by their own power to deny the Sacrament judicially to whom they pleaſe. Its farre otherwiſe with us, ſee­ing none are ſuſpended, but 1. Such as10 ſuſpend themſelves by ſlighting or refu­ſing due triall. 2. Such as upon triall are found unworthy through ignorance or ſcandall, and that onely till they gain better information, or give the Church juſt ſatisfaction. By all which it appears how weak Mr. Humphreys firſt foundati­on is, and that therefore the ſuperſtru­cture cannot be ſtrong. Contrà from his own proof we argue againſt him thus: None of the Apoſtles were either igno­rant or ſcandalous, no not Judas himſelf, ergo, his or their receiving is no warrant for any ignorant or ſcandalous perſon to receive. The main queſtion is about Ju­das, and not as to ignorance, but ſcan­dall. And ſcandall cannot ariſe, but 1. From a ſin committed by a profeſſor. 2. Known and divulged. But Iudas had not yet betrayed Chriſt, no more then Peter had denied him; ergo, he was not yet convicted of a ſcandalous ſin. You will ſay Iudas had already done it in pur­poſe and compact. Anſw. True, yet Chriſt charges him not with that, but onely foretels his actuall treachery, which being not yet perpetrated, was no viſible bar to his preſent receiving, but a ſad effect of his unworthy receiving11 (ſuppoſing he did receive) the devil en­tring into him as well after the Sacra­ment as after the Sop, Iohn 13.27. Let all ignorant and ſcandalous perſons take heed of Iudas his ſin (unworthy recei­ving) leſt the fate of Iudas betide them; namely, 1. Spirituall poſſeſſion by Sa­tan. 2. Chriſt-murther. 3. Self-mur­der.

State the caſe aright, and a mean ca­pacity may eaſily apprehend how wide and wilde Mr. Humphrey his concluſion is, Iudas a great profeſſor, and an emi­nent and extraordinary Miniſter, plots and purpoſes a great ſin; that he ſhall commit this ſin, is foretold by a ſpirit of revelation, as alſo was Peters deniall and perjury. The queſtion is, Whether ei­ther or both of them ſhall be ſuſpended the Sacrament. For my part, I think nei­ther: 1. Becauſe thoſe ſins were not yet committed, and ſo not ſcandalous. 2. Be­cauſe Chriſt acting as a Miniſter could not be both witneſs, judge, and executioner. If you ſay he acted as God or as Media­tor. Anſw. Its very dangerous to make Chriſts Divine or Mediatory acts a preſi­dent for imitation. Who will ſay, the Magiſtrate ſhould not condemn the12 adultreſs, becauſe Chriſt did not con­demn her? Iohn 8.10, 11. Chriſt admini­ſtred the Sacrament onely to men, onely to Miniſters, after ſupper, in ah upper room, muſt we therefore do no other­wiſe? Whenever Mr. Humphrey preaches again upon this ſubject, let me intreat him to take a more pertinent Text, if at leaſt he can finde it; otherwiſe I muſt tell him, he will ſcarce prove himſelf (what he is ſtiled) a Maſter of Arts.

But to paſs on. For the better mana­ging of his cauſe, pag. 3. Mr. Humphrey premiſeth, That in the Church God hath ſet up his Ordinances of the Word and Sacrament. Of theſe Ordinances ſome are capable, and ſome uncapable. Thoſe that are uncapable, are either ſo by nature, as infants and diſtracted perſons, or by the Churches. Cenſure of Excommunication, and none others.

Before we proceed, lets ſee what water ſome of theſe dictates will hold. And 1. How can he prove that Infants and diſtracted perſons are uncapable of the Sacrament by nature, eſpecially upon his own principles: for now I ſhall diſ­pute partly ad hominem and partly ad­rem, and I doubt not but the judicious13 Reader will eaſily reach me in both. I ſhall 1. inſtance in the word. Why are Infants and (pari ratione) diſtracted perſons uncapable of the Word? or where hath God ſaid they ſhould be kept from it, unleſs by their crying or unſeem­ly geſtures they prove troubleſome to the Congregation? I can ſhew him the contrary, where God would have them preſent at the Word and Ordinances. Let him conſult Deut. 29.11, 12. & 31.12. Ioſh. 8.35. Ioel 2.16. & 2 Chron. 20.13. and that to enter into Covenant, &c. as is evident in ſome of the places quoted, eſpecially the two firſt. If God bids them come, why ſhould Maſter Humphrey ſay they are uncapable? 2. Suppoſe them uncapable, yet who knows how God may work at the Word, though not by the Word? May not that Word be an occaſion of converſion to Infants, which is an inſtrument of converſion to elder perſons?

Infants indeed may be uncapable in an active, but not in a paſſive ſenſe; as to apprehenſion and underſtanding, not as to Divine Impreſſions. God can work upon perſons at or by his Ordinances, occaſionally or inſtrumentally, when he14 is honoured by their active or paſſive preſentation before him, which may be the caſe of blinde and deaf perſons, as well as of Infants and innocents, and upon which account (as well as out of a deſire to honour God) ſome pious per­ſons have thought it their duty to attend upon the publick Miniſtry, though they were deaf. Why ſhould not I believe that Chriſt is willing to ſpeak immedi­ately to him that loves to be where Chriſt ſpeaks mediately? If men can ſpeak by ſignes as well as words, ſure Chriſt can much more ſpeak by his Spirit to ſuch deaf perſons. If ſome in hearing do not hear, Iſa. 6.9, 10. why may not others hear in not hearing? An hearing heart is better then an hearing ear. More might be added, but I muſt contract.

Next, for the Lords Supper. Suppoſing that Mr. Humphrey is for Paedobaptiſme. I ask him in the next place, Why are Infants capable of Baptiſme, and not of the Lords Supper? If he ſay, Becauſe they cannot examine themſelves, nor diſcern the Lords Body, &c. Then I anſwer, No more can groſly ignorant perſons; who therefore (pari ratione) upon Mr. Humphrey his principles, and15 according to truth, muſt be kept away: but that they cannot be unleſs diſcerned, nor can they be diſcerned unleſs tried; and who have more authority to try them, then ſuch as are over them in the Lord, and delegated for that purpoſe both by God and man?

Further, that perſons excommunica­ted are uncapable of the Word preached. How proves he that? Upon this account I dare challenge him and all the world for one proof of Scripture, either direct or by conſequence. An excommunicate perſon is but as an heathen, Matth. 18.17. and heathens might be admitted to hear, why then not excommunicated perſons, they needing that effectuall means of converſion as much or more then Hea­thens.

Laſtly, Whereas in the cloſe he adds, That none others are uncapable; and ſo by conſequence none others ought to be kept away, What thinks he 1. of perſons infected with the plague, &c. 2. What thinks he of perſons ſtark ſtaring drunk, or that with Zimry and Coſby ſhall commit actuall uncleanneſs in the face of the Congregation, and the like? will Mr. Humphrey proſtitute the Sacrament16 to the luſts of ſuch bruits and ſwine? For ſhame then let him not plead that all muſt be admitted but infants, mad men, and excommunicated perſons.

In the ſame page, I wonder Mr. H. is ſo diffident where he may be confident. His words are theſe, I dare not yet poſi­tively ſay, for the peoples part, that all are ſo capable that they may come as they liſt. For my own part, I aſſent to it as an un­doubted truth, that none are ſo capable that they may come as they liſt. How doth this man ſtrain at a gnat, and ſwal­low a Camel; ſtumble at a ſtraw, and leap over a block? doubts an evident truth, and pleads ſtrongly for a looſe and undoubted errour, that all may be admitted pell mell. How juſt is it with God, that he who is confident where he ſhould be diffident, ſhould alſo be diffident where he ought to be confident?

He aſſerts,Page 4. Such an univerſall capacity for all men indefinitely, that if any come in as profeſſing themſelves ready to enter into covenant with Chriſt, deſiring to ſerve him in the worſhip of this Ordinance (the former onely excepted) the Miniſter and Church ought to admit him, &c.

From this Conceſſion ler me be bold17 to ask Mr. Humphrey before whom ſhall they make this profeſſion? If before the Miniſter and the Church (as he ſeems to hint) then may not the Miniſter before the Church deſire ſome evidence of the ſincerity of this their profeſſion? If not, then let Mr. H. ſhew where he is forbid to make this ſcrutiny. If he may, then undoubtedly he may try that profeſſor as to his knowledge and grace; and do we deſire any more? nay not ſo much. Let Mr. H. perſwade the people but to make this profeſſion before the Elder­ſhip (we deſire not to put their modeſty to it before the Congregation) and we ſhall either admit them at preſent, or undertake to fit them (by Gods grace) for the Sacrament, before we have done with them, if at leaſt they will but ſub­mit to be ruled by us.

If he mean, that the Miniſter muſt reſt in that verball profeſſion, without any further ſcrutiny, then why may not a childe of three yeers old, or a mad man be admitted, ſince they may eaſily be taught the words of that profeſſion? Further, doth Mr. Humphrey admit none but ſuch as make this profeſſion? Here I appeal to his own conscience, and to his Congregation.

18If yet he fly from a verball to a virtuall profeſſion, and think their very coming or ſending their names to their Miniſter over night, &c. be ſufficient, eſpecially if betake this courſe with ſtrangers alſo, then how doth he know whether they be Chriſtians or heathen, ſober or diſtra­cted, children or elder perſons, excom­municated or members of the Church. So that turn which way he pleaſe, he will finde himſelf in a nooſe of his own making.

Lets now proceed to his proof from analogy of the Paſſover,Page 4. & 5. to which he ſaies there was a free admiſſion.

Anſw. 1. Its well he corrects himſelf from Numb. 9. whereby it appears there was not a free admiſſion to the Paſſeover, and then where is his argument? If he plead, that onely legall uncleanneſs excluded them, I ask him why? He will anſwer, becauſe it defiled the Congregation, or the Ordinances and holy things, or both. Content. But what if it be proved that not onely Leviticall, but alſo morall uncleanneſs defiled the holy things, and that therefore ſuch perſons alſo were to be kept away. For proof hereof, com­pare Levit. 18.24, 25. Morall pollutions19 defiled firſt the perſon, and then the Land, Levit. 16.16. They defiled the Sanctuary, Ezek. 23. verſe 37, 39. Adulterers and Murderers, and Idolaters, coming reak­ing out of their ſins into Gods Houſe, defiled the Sanctuary thereby, Hag. 2.14. For neglecting to build Gods Temple; themſelves, their actions and their Sa­crifices were unclean; and though the Temple were typicall and ceremoniall, yet their neglecting to build it at Gods command, was a direct breach of the ſecond Commandment, and therefore a ſin, or morall pollution. And that all unclean perſons were to be ſuſpended, is evident by 2 Chron. 23.19. Where Iehoja­dah is commended for ſetting porters at the gates of the Houſe of the Lord, that none which were unclean in any thing ſhould enter in. The Lord ſend us many ſuch Ichojada's. Where then were Mr. H. his eyes, who aſſerts ſo confidently page 5. But as for any ſpirituall pollution whatſo­ever, we reade of none that might debar them from that Ordinance. Did he not reade, or did he not minde, or did he not underſtand, or did he not remember any of the forementioned places? for I will not be ſo uncharitable as to conclude he20 never read over the old Teſtament, or that againſt his conſcience he delivered the forementioned words, or that he quibbled and equivocated upon the pre­ſent Tenſe for the preter Tenſe.

Beſides, the inſtance of Hezekiahs Paſſover, ſhews that morall uncleanneſs made them more unworthy of the Paſſo­ver then Leviticall uncleanneſs; the Lord then accepting the upright heart, though not cleanſed according to the purification of the Sanctuary, 2 Ch. 30.18, 19, 20.

2. If Mr. Humphrey ground upon this inſtance of the Paſſover, then not onely elder perſons, but alſo Infants muſt par­take of the Lords Supper, for Infants were admitted to the Paſſover, ſince all circumciſed perſons were to eat thereof; and if ſo, then where is his firſt diſtin­ction that makes Infants uncapable.

3. Wherea pag. 5. he makes the ſeclu­ding of unclean perſons a type of our excommunication. He muſt excuſe me if I believe not his bare dilates without proof. I thought legall types had reſpe­cted Evangelicall graces, or ſpirituall uncleanneſſes, but not Evangelicall Or­dinances, unleſs Chriſt, the onely great and effectuall Ordinance. Further, had21 they not the Ordinance of Excommuni­cation amongſt them as well as we, and why ſhould that be typified which was viſibly preſent? And here by the way let me ask Maſter Humphrey, whether amongſt the Jews an excommunicated perſon might have been admitted to the Paſſover? That they had Excommuni­cation is evident John 9.22, 34 & 12.42. & Matth. 18.17. and that by the rules of the Jews ſuch were neither to be eat nor drunk with. Further, that Excommu­nication was not for Leviticall pollutions, but ſcandalous ſins; and in particular, that not onely Leviticall pollutions, but alſo ſcandalous ſins were a barre to the receiving of the Paſſeover. Contrary to Mr. H. his Aſſertion above mentioned.

For clearing whereof conſider, that there were 3 degrees of Excommunicati­on amongſt the Jews: A perſon excom­municated in the firſt degree, was called Niddui, ſeparated or caſt out of the Sy­nagogue, Ioh. 9.22. The ſecond, Cherem, or delivered up to Satan, 1 Corinth. 5.5. 1 Tim. 1.20. The third, Schammatha, or Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16.22.

In the Greek Church there were four degrees of Excommunication. 1. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,22 ſuch were onely barred the Lords Table. 2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſuch might hear onely be­hinde the Pulpit, and muſt depart with the Catechumeni, &c. 3. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſuch might come no further then the Church porch, and might not joyn in Prayer, &c. 4. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſuch ſtood quite without the Church, requeſting others with tears to pray for them, and thence they were called plorantes.

By all which it appears, 1. That Suſ­penſion is no new invention, but if juri­dically iſſued forth, was a degree of ex­communication; which being in Mr. H. his judgement a barre to the Lords Sup­per, he muſt needs grant Suſpenſion to be a barre to receiving, unleſs he will contradict both the truth and himſelf. 2. Its evident, that Excommunication is not a barre to preſence at all Ordinan­ces, ſince all the four degrees of excom­municated perſons amongſt the Greeks might partake of ſome Ordinances, at leaſt without the Church. And Niddui amongſt the Jews might be preſent at Di­vine Service, to teach others, and learn of others, though he might not come neer any the distance of four cubits, &c. 3. Its evident, that Excommunication was not23 for Leviticall but morall pollutions (at leaſt in the apprehenſion of thoſe who excommunicated) 1. By Scripture, Mat. 18.15, 17. where obſtinacy in ſin is made a juſt ground of excommunication, If thy brother treſpaſs againſt thee, &c. Iohn 9, ver. 22, 34. & 12.42. they looked at the confeſſion of Jeſus as Chriſt, as a ſin that deſerved excommunication; which though a groſs and dangerous miſtake, yet evinceth that morall pollution was with them the ground of excommuni­cation. 2. Excommunication being a Church-cenſure, had onely ſin for its object; nor did a leprous man more deſerve excommunication with them, then a plaguy man doth with us. Ex­communication is the key of Diſcipline, to ſhut out of heaven, Matth. 16.19. a bond to retain ſin; compare Matth. 18.18. with Iohn 20.23. a thunderclap, not againſt naturall infirmities, but ſinfull enormities. Indeed perſons Levitically polluted, might for preſent be materially excommunicated, as being ſeparated or ſhut without the Camp for fear of con­tagion, and ſo are plaguy perſons with us; but this is as far from formall Ex­communication, as a dead body is from24 a living man. 3. Its evident by the practice of the Jews, amongſt whom the firſt degree of Excommunication, called Niddui, laſted for thirty daies, unleſs it were ſhortened by repentance; but onely ſin is the object of repentance, and not a bloudy iſſue, or other Leviti­call pollutions. See Buxtorf, Budaeus, Godwin, &c.

4. Its evident that this firſt degree of Excommunication,See Aarous Rod bloſ­ſoming, l. 1. c. 9. & 10. & 12. called Niddui, was a barre in particular to the Paſſeover (which anſwers our Lords Supper) ſince it ſignified a ſeparation from all commerce with any man or woman for the diſtance of four cubits, and particularly from eating or drinking with any. And hence probably flowed that expreſſion of the Apoſtle, I Cor. 5.11. With ſuch a one no not to eat. Which is as extendable with us to our Sacramentall eating, as it was with the Jews. I might bring as a proof of Ex­communication Gen. 17.14. which is a cutting off from the Church of God, and that not for Leviticall pollutions, but for wilfull omiſſions or commiſſions. See Mercer upon the place.

His Argument then from the elder Brother the Paſſeover, is like Reuben,25 unſtable as water. Let us ſee whether he can draw a ſtronger argument from the younger brother our Sacrament (as he is pleaſed to tearm it.)

His firſt proof is from 1 Cor. 10.17. We being many, are all partakers of one bread. Thence he concludes, That divers of the Corinthians were ready to go to Idols. verſe 14. yet all were admitted to the Sa­crament.

Anſw. 1. The dehortation doth not neceſſa­rily prove they were Idolaters, though indeed too many of them, eſpecially the ſtronger Chriſtians, abuſed their liberty in eating things ſacrificed to Idols, to the offence of their weaker brethren, and ſometimes (which was more ſcandalous) in the Idols Temple: this they did as apprehending the thing was indifferent; and by uſing their utmoſt liberty, went beyond the bounds, judging any place of eating lawfull (and that without weighing circumſtances) as well as any meats lawfull, 1 Cor. 8.10. This, though bad, was not (eſpecially before ſufficient admonition given) a juſt barre to their receiving.

2. Yet taking it for granted, many of them were guilty of greater ſins, as ap­pears26 pears by 1 Cor. 15. & 2 Cor. 12.21. How proves he from the place, that all theſe were notwithſtanding admitted. As all Jews might eat the Paſſeover, ſo all Church Members might receive the Lords Supper. All circumciſed perſons had a right to the Paſſeover, yet ſome of them might not injoy it at all times, Numb. 9.7. So all baptized perſons have a right to the Lords Supper, yet may not alwaies actually uſe this their right; nay not all true converts neither, till they be worthy actually as well as habitually. A perſon may be capable in actu primo, yet not in actu ſecundo. All the Prieſts had a right to the holy things, yet were not permitted at any time to make uſe of that right, Levit. 22.2, 7.

3. Suppoſing all did receive it promiſ­cuouſly, how proves he from this place, that the Apoſtle did allow that free admiſſion? doth the drawing an argument from practice, allow that practice? Then by arguing from baptizing for the dead, the Apoſtle ſhould allow baptizing for the dead, 1 Cor. 15.29. From their actuall communicating the Apoſtle proves they were one body; and ſecondly, That they ought not to communicate with27 Idols. Doth this manner of arguing ne­ceſſarily juſtifie their admitting all to communicate pell mell at any time?

Whereas pag. 7. he urges, That they were drunken together at the Lords Table.

Anſw. 1. Then it ſeems they were not drunk before, but at the Table; and how can that be a let to receiving which was cauſed by receiving, unleſs he will make the Effect an impediment to the Cauſe, the Conſequent to the Antecedent.

2. But granting this drunkenneſs were at their love Feaſts, which preceded the Lords Supper, I anſwer, Its more then Mr. H. can prove, that they were drunken in the ordinary and ſtrict ſenſe, ſince in Scripture phraſe the words〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and Shachar ſignifie, though liberall drinking, yet within the bounds of temperance, as is evident, Iohn 3.10. Gen. 43.34. Cant. 5.1. And the Apoſtle reproves them rather for diſorder and uncharitableneſs, then for exceſs; that they ſtayed not for their Brethren, whereby the rich fed and drunk liberally when the poor were hungry and thirſty. Compare ver. 22. &c 33. 3. What Logick is in this conſequence (ſuppoſing they were drunk indeed?) Saint Paul reproves them for coming drunk to the28 Sacrament; ergo, they ought to come to the Sacrament, even though they be drunk. Is not the quite contrary more rationall, St. Paul reproved them for coming when drunk to the Sacrament; ergo, they ought not to come when drunk to the Sacrament.

His next proof is from 1 Cor. 10.4, 5. By the way, where he ſaies, They were all admitted freely to our Sacrament. He ſpeaks gratis. Indeed, if he ſpeak as to the thing ſignified, undoubtedly their and our Sacraments are all one, and thus even Circumciſion and the Paſſeover were the ſame with our Baptiſme and the Lords Supper; but as to the outward elements, I think there's a great diffe­rence between their Manna and our Bread, their Water out of the rock, and our Wine, But for the thing it ſelf, if he will make that a preſident for free admiſ­ſion, then unbaptized perſons, yea per­ſons diſtracted, Infants, and excommuni­cated perſons, by this rule may partake of the Lords Supper, as there uncircum­ciſed perſons, &c. did partake of thoſe Sacraments. Yea, many who were born after their paſſing the Sea, and ſo not baptized neither, yet ate of the Manna,29 and drank of the rocks. Witneſs 1. The mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with them, Exod. 12.38. 2. Many of the Iſraelites themſelves who were uncir­cumciſed in the wilderneſs, Joſh. 5.5. yet did eat of the Manna and drank of the rock.

2. Their partaking univerſally of that Sacramentall Meat and Drink, is no argument for our free admiſſion, till Mr. H. can make out as great a neceſſity for our univerſall receiving as for theirs; namely, that all who receive not, muſt both ſtarve and choak, that Sacramentall Bread and Water being their daily and neceſſary repaſt. Nor will Mr. H. evade this anſwer by his parallels pag. 8. which do not run on four feet, as we ſay. And however their Sacraments and ours, their condition and ours may agree in divers reſpects; and it be very true, that God is not well pleaſed with many Re­ceivers amongſt us, no more then amongſt them; yet herein is a manifeſt difference, that their Sacramentall Elements had a double uſe and end; namely, to nouriſh their bodies as well as their ſoules; nor had they ordinarily in the Wilderneſs other food to live upon, and therefore30 they muſt either receive thoſe Sacraments or die. I hope there is not ſuch an abſo­lute neceſſity of our Sacramentall Bread and Wine. Had God made our daily food (as he did to them) a Sacrament, I ſay then it were cruelty and murder to deny any man the Sacrament, and then not onely monthly, but alſo weekly, yea daily Sacraments had been neceſſary: but that muſt have been by accident, not from the nature of a Sacrament.

His next Argument is drawn from the generall invitation to the Marriage Feaſt,Page 9. Matth. 22, & Luke 14.

Anſw. 1. Let him prove, that by the Marri­age Feaſt is there meant in particular the Lords Supper. Chriſt indeed is the Feaſt to which all are invited; the Ordinances, and eſpecially the Word and Sacraments, are the Diſhes in which this Feaſt is ſer­ved. Now the queſtion is not, Whether all ought to come to the Feaſt? but, Whe­ther all muſt eat of the Feaſt in the Diſh of the Sacrament, as well as of the Word? The former is aſſerted, but not proved by Mr. Humphrey.

2. Since the main ſcope of the parable is to hold forth the rejecting of the Jews and calling of the Gentiles (which is the31 rule Mr. H. himſelf goes by pag. 9.) Mat. 22.43. compared with Mat. 22.1. will it not follow then, that not onely Church members, but alſo Heathen ſhould im­mediately be admitted, yea forced to this Sacrament.

3. Yet further, if all muſt be admitted,Lu. 14 29 how came the unthankfull Gueſts to be excluded by the Lords own command? who yet had farre better excuſes to keep from the Sacrament then many of our Profeſſors have, Luke 14. 18, 20.

4. If this be meant particularly of the Lords Supper, then let me ask Mr. H. whether ſome worldly occaſions may not juſtly excuſe our abſence? and whether all are judged there unworthy, who are ſometimes kept from the Lords Supper by their worldly occaſions? The weigh­tieſt occaſions cannot excuſe any from the Marriage Feaſt. But I think Mr. H. will not deny, but ſome worldly occaſions may excuſe a man from the Sacrament, as is evident by analogy, Numb. 9.10.

More might be added to ſhew the weakneſs of his plea from theſe parables. But whereas he addes pag. 10. Now who is that faithfull ſteward, that gives the houſhold their portion of meat in due ſeaſon,32 but theſe that are thus doing, that is, who admit all comers, as himſelf there interprets. What a groſs, ſenſleſs, and profane inter­pretation is this? For 1. What an eaſie matter is it to be a faithfull ſteward, if this faithfulneſs lie in admitting all pell mell to the Sacrament. 2. Will it not follow by this rule, that the profaneſt Miniſters, who are moſt for free admiſſi­on, are the moſt faithfull ſtewards. 3. That the moſt pious and conſcientious Miniſters, who dare not give this bread of children to dogs, are therefore un­faithfull ſtewards? Lord! whither will not a ſelfiſh opinion lead a man?

Whereas he there addes, That Iohn Baptiſt admitted all comers to Baptiſme, yea even thoſe whom he calls vipers.

Anſw. 1. He ſaies, but proves not, that Iohn did baptize all comers. 2. Matth. 3.6. Its noted that they who were baptized confeſſed their ſins, and ſo made publick profeſſion of their repentance. Let our people do that privately before the Elder­ſhip which theſe did publickly before all the world; or (if they pleaſe) let them do it publickly before all the world, as the former did, and ſee if we refute them to the Sacrament. Should we require con­feſſion33 of ſins in every Receiver before admiſſion to the Lords Supper, we ſhould be branded with a witneſs, as pleaders for Auricular confeſſion. We onely deſire a profeſſion of their faith before receiving, which though weak, yet if true in the judgement of charity, we dare not refuſe ſuch. And becauſe we are ſure there can be no faith without knowledge, there­fore as we our ſelves have been tried by others, and that willingly, we think it our duty to try the faith and knowledge of all under our charge: and if we finde any groſly ignorant, as we dare not at preſent admit them, ſo we are willing to take pains with them, by inſtruction to fit them for the Sacrament in future. Whether this be more pleaſing to God, or the admiſſion of all hand over head, I appeal to the Readers judgement, and to Mr. Humphrey his conſerence.

Whereas for further confirmation he adds, Adultis eadem eſt ratio utriuſque Sacramenti,

Anſw. I mean Catechu­meni.I deny it, if taken in the latitude. For 1. Heathen may be admitted to baptiſme, but not to the Lords Supper, by his own grant. 2. Taking this Maxime for granted, what follows, but that as per­ſons34 to be baptized muſt profeſs faith and repentance, Mat. 3.6. Act. 8.37. ſo muſt they alſo before receiving; which makes much for our purpoſe, and againſt Mr. Humphrey.

His laſt proof is drawn from Act. 10.28. upon which inſtance he concludes with a rhetoricall Doxology, pag. 11. I thank God I have learned this ſame leſſon with a ſatisfied conſcience, to eſteem no man un­clean, but all (unleſs excommunicated) free in the uſe of Gods Ordinances.

Anſw. 1. That God, who had taught Peter to count no man unclean, taught Paul to count ſome men unclean, yea perſons within the Church and not excommuni­cated, Tit. 1.15, 16.

2. Let Mr. Humphrey ſhew me the force of this conſequence, Peter was commanded to converſe with a godly man, though levitically unclean (as not being circumciſed and a proſelyte) which uncleanneſs after the death of Chriſt was taken away; Ergo, Paul ought to con­verſe with a profane Chriſtian that is morally unclean. How ſutable this is to Scripture, ſee 1 Cor. 5.11. Further, Peter is commanded to preach the Word to Heathen, that were comers on, and35 ready to receive it; ergo, Paul may ad­miniſter the Sacrament to all ignorant and wicked Chriſtians that reject Chriſt and his Word. I wiſh he would play the Logician more, and the Rhetorician leſs, in matters of this nature, leſt he be found in the number of thoſe, Rom. 16.18. who by good words and fair ſpeeches deceive the hearts of the ſimple.

3. Conſider how he contradicts him­ſelf as well as the truth; pag. 3. he ex­cluded Infants and diſtracted perſons, here his charity is ſo large as to exclude none but excommunicated perſons.

4. That by excluding excommunica­ted perſons from the Word preached, he runs into an uncharitable and dangerous errour, hath been formerly proved, which I will not here repeat. Much more might be added, had I leaſure to follow him in his wild-gooſe-chace. I think he may well be accounted a Maſter of Arts at wreſting the Scripture; and whether he hath writ more words or errours, ſeems to me a diſputable point.

For a further flouriſh, in the ſame Page he heaps up Texts of Scripture that hold forth the offers of free grace to all, which make as much for free admiſſion36 to the ſeal of this Sacrament, as an offer of pardon to all rebels, proves, that even thoſe rebels muſt have their pardons ſealed who ſtand out againſt their Prince, as well as thoſe that come in and ſubmit upon pardon offered. Let Mr. Humphrey and all the world know, that we deſire to keep none from the ſeal, who will pleaſe to make it out to us, that (but in the judgement of charity) they have a right to the thing ſignified. Which may ſerve to take away that wonder of his, How we can have the conſcience to turn them away from the ſignes and means of grace in this Ordinance, to whom the Goſpel offers Chriſt freely.

Anſw. 1. With what conſcience can he exclude Infants, diſtracted and excommunicated perſons, to whom the Goſpel offers Chriſt as freely as to any? yea each of which may have the things ſignified, and yet be denied the ſigne.

2. Not generall offers of Chriſt, but our actuall receiving of him viſibly, is the rule of admiſſion to the Sacrament. But how many perſons do viſibly reject Chriſt, at leaſt by conſequence, Tit. 1.16. and they who viſibly reject the thing ſignified, may juſtly be debarred the37 ſign, till they manifeſt their repentance. Thus much for his proofs from Scripture. Let us now proceed to his reaſons, and ſee whether he be better at argument then at quotation.

His firſt Argument is, The Sacraments are verbum viſibile, a viſible Goſpel, &c. therefore the ſame latitude muſt be granted to them both (meaning the Word preached and the Sacrament) in their adminiſtrati­on. And here he triumphs (poor man) before the victory, in theſe words imme­diately following, Vpon this ground, me thinks, I ſtand as upon a rock, againſt which all objections, like waves, do but daſh themſelves in pieces.

Anſw. 1. If the Sacrament have the ſame lati­tude with the Word, then a Turk or Heathen may receive as well as a Chriſti­an; but this is contrary to Mr. Humphrey his profeſſed principles, as well as to the truth it ſelf.

2. His conſequence will not hold, un­leſs he can prove that verbum viſibile con­verts as well as verbum audibile, and that it was inſtituted for that purpoſe.

3. Though it ſhould convert, it proves onely that all ſhould be preſent, not that all ſhould receive.

384. Granting his foundation, I retort it upon himſelf. As the Word preached is applicable to all, ſo alſo the Sacraments; But the Word preached is not immedi­ately applicable to all; I mean as to that part of its gracious offer which is parti­cularly tendered and ſealed in the Sacra­ment. For inſtance, there are ſome righ­teous perſons (in their own conceit) that Chriſt came not to call. Mat. 9.13. many ſelf-juſtitiaries and conceited Laodiceans, to whom in that condition mercy is not immediately applicable; But to whom in ſtatu quo, the Covenant is not applica­ble, to them the ſeales of it are not ap­plicable; and where ſuch may be diſcer­ned by their groſs ignorance or ſcandall, they are viſibly as well as really unwor­thy, and ſhould not be permitted to re­ceive, where there is a juſt Authority to exclude them.

2. To come a little cloſer to Mr. H. As the Word preached may be heard by all, yet cannot be applied to all in divers things, ſo the word viſible (the Lords Supper) may be ſeen by all, but ought not to be applied to all in divers caſes; namely, when that which is ſealed in the Sacrament is not immediately appli­cable39 to them by the Word, for the Word and Sacrament muſt go hand in hand to­gether. Ergo, where the covenant of grace is not viſibly applicable, there the viſible ſign of that covenant is not appli­cable. But the covenant of grace is viſi­bly unapplicable to many perſons in the boſome of the viſible Church; ergo. And thus Mr. H. his rock proves but a quick­ſand, and his viſible Word makes againſt himſelf.

His amplification from pag. 11. to the 15. is as impertinent as his Argument is weak. We eaſily grant, the Lords Supper declares the covenant of grace as a ſign, and ratifies it as a ſeal; but that its there­fore to be applied to all, is a meer non ſe­quitur. Indeed where grace is freely of­fered by an audible word, all may, yea and ſhould hear it; and where its offered by a viſible word, all have liberty to ſee it, and ſo may be preſent at the admini­ſtration of the Lords Supper, as well as at preaching and Baptiſme: But that all ought actually to partake (be they in what ſtate they will, unleſs uncapable by age, dotage, or excommunication) is a new light ſtarted by Mr. Humphrey, which like an ignis fatuus will lead thouſands40 into utter darkneſs. Had Mr. H. either read or underſtood our meaning (as eaſily he might, had he pleaſed, by what is ex­tant in print in a firſt and ſecond diſcourſe by the Antiquaeriſt) he would not have ſhot ſo wide at rovers as now he doth. The hinge of the controverſie turns not upon this point, Whether all may be pre­ſent when the covenant of grace is ſign­ed, offered, and ſealed in the Sacrament, but whether all preſent may actually partake thereof; and in particular thoſe who viſibly reject the covenant of grace that is ſigned, offered, and ſealed by it. To keep to Mr. H. his own ſimilitude, pag. 14. A generall pardon ſent by a Prince, may be offered to all Rebels within his Dominion, all of them may hear the pardon read, and if need be, ſee it ſealed; upon which ſome come in and ſubmit really, others profeſſedly ſtand out againſt pardon offered; a third ſort ſeemingly ſubmit, yet ſecretly carry about them daggers or poyſon to murder their Prince. The King knows this, and his Ambaſſadours ſtrongly ſuſpect it. Now I ask Mr. H. 1. Whether pardon ſhall be ſealed particularly to them that openly ſtand it out? 2. Whether the41 Ambaſſadours ought not to try all that ſubmit, that it may appear who ſubmit really and who treacherouſly; and the latter being found out, is Mr. Humphrey of the minde that pardon ſhould parti­cularly be ſealed to them, as well as to thoſe who ſubmit really? If ſo, I think he is a better friend to Traytors then to good Subjects or good Government. Apply this caſe to the Lords Supper, and it will quickly put an end to this contro­verſie, now again unhappily raiſed by Mr. Humphrey, to the no ſmall joy of profane and ignorant perſons, and grief of Gods people. Every Sacrament ſeals, 1. The truth of the covenant of grace. 2. Its generall offer. 3. By ſome of the Sa­cramentall actions it doth inſtrumentally apply the Covenant to every worthy Re­ceiver, and to none elſe. Now (if Mr. H. and other diſſenters will pleaſe to under­ſtand us aright) all may ſee the truth of the Covenant of Grace, and its generall offer ſealed, and ſo may be preſent at the whole adminiſtration, which is made up of ſeverall Ordinances, the ſight and hearing whereof may be very profitable for all ſorts. But that the Covenant of Grace ſhould be inſtrumentally applied,42 per ſigilla, to all ſorts, is in a manner as bad as if it ſhould be applied to them by word of mouth, and haply in ſome ſenſe worſe. Dares Mr. H. ſay to any perſon viſibly in the ſtate of nature, Sir, be aſ­ſured that Chriſt and all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are actually and for ever yours? And will he dare to ſeal that which he dares not ſay? The lan­guage of every actuall giving is. Chriſt is thine in particular, and of every actuall receiving is, Chriſt is mine in particular. And ſhall any Miniſter dare ſolemnly to deceive any ſelf-deceiving perſon, and confirm him in preſumption, to the ru­ine of his ſoul, when he may regularly prevent that miſchief? If this be not a ſtrengthening of the hands of the wick­ed, Ezek. 13.22. I beſeech you what is?

To anſwer therefore briefly to his four Conſiderations, held forth by way of concluſion, pag. 15.16. & 17. To the firſt I anſwer, Thoſe whom we would not baptize, bad they been to have been baptized at yeers of diſcretion, thoſe we cannot admit to the Lords Supper, though baptized in their infancy. And I ask Mr. H. whether there be not many ſuch in England, who yet are neither43 children, nor fools, nor excommunicated? And here let Mr. H. remember his own rule, p. 10. Adultis cadem eſt ratio utri­uſque Sacramenti.

To the ſecond. The queſtion is not about the freeneſs of the offer, but about the freeneſs of acceptance; and whether they who viſibly reject grace freely of­fered, ought to be admitted to the ſign and ſeal of that grace. And here let me ask Mr. H. again, whether his conſcience did not check him for aſperſing us with that ſoul ſlander, pag. 16. That we admit none but ſuch as are qualified to our own minde. Doth not Mr. H. know that we plead not onely the Word of God (which is abundantly enough) but alſo the Au­thority of Parliament, for what we do in this point; by whoſe Ordinance, not repealed, we are civilly inabled to do what we do; and have alſo from them (after mature deliberation with the Aſ­ſembly of Divines) a rule to walk by, againſt which if we tranſgreſs, we are accountable to the civill Magiſtrate; and dares he notwithſtanding charge us with admittance of none but ſuch as are quali­fied to our minde? Or, 2. That in thus doing, we will not let people come without44 their price and money to this Ordinance? Do godly Parents and Maſters, by keep­ing their children and ſervants from the Sacrament till they be ſufficiently inſtru­cted in the main grounds of Religion, do they, I ſay, in this pious act put them upon it, not to come to the Lords Supper, till they can bring their price and money to this Ordinance? and yet ſhall godly Miniſters and Elders, who are ſpirituall parents, and alſo ſpecially inabled by the Magiſtrate, a civil Parent, to do the like, be judged (by one ſcarce out of the ſhell, either in Learning or Divinity) as if they were all the children of Simon Magus, and drove a bargain of Chriſt and the Sa­crament for money, becauſe they are carefull that perſons viſibly unqualified, and who think to purchaſe Chriſt and grace for money, may not have either him or it upon ſuch baſe tearms? 3. Is he not yet more aſhamed, in the ſame page to affirm, Why this is even as they conceive of Judas, who being about to ſell our Saviour, went out to make his bargain at the Supper. It ſeems, if Mr. H. may be judge, 1. We are a company of Ju­daſſes. 2. We betray Chriſt, becauſe we will not ſuffer others to murder him. 453. We drive a bargain for the buying and ſelling of Chriſt, becauſe we uſe a rod made by Chriſt and publick Autho­rity, to whip the buyers and ſellers out of Gods Temple. Thus in the judgement of greater and wiſer men then Mr. H. Chriſt was an enemy to Caeſar, Paul a ſeditious fellow, &c. The very mention of this ſlander is enough to refute it. I ſay no more, but the Lord rebuke and forgive the Authour of it.

To his third Conſideration I anſwer, 1. Its very dubitable, whether full con­viction be enough to converſion; yea, the ſtronger conviction is in the under­ſtanding, the higher doth the will and affections riſe againſt it (if not conquered and ſanctified by grace, Rom. 7.8, 9.) yea to the commiſſion of the ſin againſt the holy Ghoſt, Heb. 6.4, 5, 6.

2. That by application of the ſeal, the meſſage of reconciliation comes in its full vertue, for the working this conviction and faith unto ſalvation, is both a groſs and implicated errour, as hath in part been formerly proved. For 1. Conviction of the truth and generall offer of the Co­venant comes not by the Sacrament, as ſealing and applying to perſons (which46 rather conduceth to the faith of particu­lar evidence) but as ſignifying and offer­ing Chriſt to all, who therefore may with great profit be preſent at the Ordi­nance. 2. Conviction that Chriſt is mine in particular, cannot be wrought by actuall receiving in any but the wor­thy receiver, and ſuch is no ignorant perſon, or any that lives and lies in a known ſin, who therefore cannot receive but to his own prejudice, nor by Church-officers be admitted to receive (if viſibly ſo) without their prejudice alſo, who ſuffer him to contract the guilt of Chriſts body and blood, to eat and drink judge­ment to himſelf, and to do an act that cannot either convert or edifie him in ſtatu quo, but aggravate his ſin and judge­ment; as hereafter (by Gods aſſiſtance) ſhall more fully appear.

Before I paſs to his fourth conſidera­tion, there lies in the way one objection which is worth the anſwering, which ſeems to croſs our former aſſertion.

Object. Chriſt ſuffered Judas to partake of the Lords Supper as well as the reſt, yet by that act ſealed not to him that Chriſt was his, and himſelf was in the ſtate of grace, &c. for then he muſt have ſealed47 to a falſity, &c. Ergo, the act of giving and receiving in the Sacrament is no ſeal of evidence to any, much leſs to all.

Anſw. Suppoſing the objection were true; actuall giving and receiving, ſeals either Chriſt or judgement to every Receiver, and he that eats and drinks not Chriſt, eats and drinks judgement to himſelf, 1 Cor. 11.29.

2. In its own nature and primary in­tention it ſeals Chriſt and mercy.

3. The Miniſter in his acting ex officio, applies mercy charitativè to all the Re­ceivers who are viſibly worthy.

4. When therefore the Miniſter ſees any preſent who are viſibly unworthy, if he he inabled by judiciall power, he muſt not permit him to receive: if not (as it falls out where no Presbytery is ſettled) he muſt either perſwade ſuch a perſon to forbear, or elſe in plain tearms tell him the danger of his unworthy receiving, and that he will prove a murderer of Chriſt, as our Saviour did unto Judas: by which forewarning, I humbly con­ceive where Church-Government is not ſettled, the Miniſter may clear his own ſoul, as having not power of himſelf to admit or keep back without judiciall48 proceſs, wherein himſelf cannot be both judge and witneſs, And thus both word and ſeal go together, and aſſure particu­lar mercy or judgement to Receivers, as they are worthy or unworthy; as the Prieſts word went along with the bitter water, to do the honeſt woman good, but the adultreſs hurt, Numb. 5.19, 22, 27, 29. Contra, though the Word make moſt worſe, yet it makes very many bad ones good: but the Sacrament makes onely good ones better.

Object. But doth not the Miniſter ſeal to a lie, by giving the Sacrament to thoſe who are viſibly worthy, yet really unworthy?

Anſw. He may poſſibly ſeal to an untruth, but doth not ſeal to a lie, as admitting that perſon whom in charity (being approved upon due triall) he may and ought to judge worthy: As I may ſpeak comfort to one whom I judge to be in the ſtate of grace, yet may very eaſily be miſtaken about his condition. 2. If the Miniſter notwithſtanding ſuſpect a perſon, though legally approved, he may and ought the more carefully to warn him to look to it he be what he profeſſes himſelf to be, leſt otherwiſe for all mans approbation, he eat and drink judgement to himſelf. And49 by this means I conceive he may clear himſelf, but cannot keep back him that is approved by the major vote of the El­derſhip: onely afterwards hath power to appeal to the Claſſis, in caſe he per­ceive the Elderſhip prevaricate and con­ſpire to admit unworthy ones out of by-reſpects; as they likewiſe may do of the Miniſter. But all this doth not counte­nance the admiſſion of any who may be regularly ſuſpended, no more then of him who is to be excommunicated, but is not, through corruption of the Elder­ſhip.

For his fourth Conſideration,Pag. 26. we grant the Goſpel is the Goſpel of peace, &c. yet its as true, that whereever it comes it occaſions war; not of its own nature, but by means of humane corruption, Mat. 10.34, 35. and that by means of ſeparation which it makes whereever it comes. And is it any wonder then, that the ſeals of this Goſpel by making ſepa­ration, make alſo diviſion? Where the promiſes are not applicable ſo much as viſibly, there ſure the ſeals of thoſe pro­miſes are not applicable; the deniall whereof yet muſt needs vex hypocrites, who by this means are pried into, and50 uncaſed, as a ſoul-ſearching Miniſtry doth; and no wonder then if the devil of contention be conjured up, and Gods Jeremies, who ſeparate the precious from the vile, be men of contention to the whole Earth. Cain will be angry if A­bel finde better acceptance then himſelf; and hypocrites, who care leaſt for reall goodneſs, yet are very ambitious of all the priviledges of piety, and proclaim war againſt ſuch as deny them, though never ſo juſtly, (as the Phariſees did a­gainſt our Saviour) but I pray who de­ſerve blame for this contention, Gods faithfull Miniſters or hypocrites them­ſelves, who by viſible unworthineſs de­prive themſelves of thoſe priviledges, and yet malign Chriſts Stewards, who dare not be ſo laviſh and prodigall of their Maſters proviſions as theſe perſons would have them. What therefore he adds by way of rhetoricall amplification is frivolous as to his purpoſe, ſince none are Saints but ſuch ſinners, and none to be approved for Saints by the Church, but ſuch as acknowledge themſelves great ſinners. But the queſtion is, Whe­ther ſuch as think themſelves righteous, though eaſily convinceable of groſs ig­norance51 or wickedneſs (as the Phariſees) are to be admitted to this Sacrament amongſt humbled and repenting ſinners?

His proviſion inſerred in his third Edi­tion, pag. 17. will ſtand him in little ſtead, ſince his very ſtating the queſtion, over­throws his great Diana of free Admiſſion.

For 1. He will have free Admiſſion, and yet himſelf rails about the Commu­nion Table from Infants, diſtracted per­ſons, &c. He that cries out of Suſpenſi­on, yet takes upon himſelf to ſuſpend a world of perſons far more worthy then, or not ſo unworthy as many he preſumes to admit. Shall the Lords Supper be free for blaſphemers, murderers, &c. and not free for Infants, diſtracted perſons? &c.

2. If he can prove it is againſt Scripture­order and decency, to admit to the Lords Supper a perſon viſibly worthy, though unbaptized, I will eaſily prove its more againſt order and decency to admit to the Lords Supper a perſon viſibly unworthy, though baptized. Had Conſtantine the great and Julian the Apoſtate been con­temporary, I ſhould rather have admit­ted the former to receive, when unbapti­zed, then the latter, though baptized.

3. Whatever Mr. H. inſinuates in the52 cloſe of his Proviſion, we are as much both for Order and for the Ordinances as himſelf; and could not the Ordinan­ces be had without diſorder, we had ra­ther diſpence with Order, then part with the Ordinances. The difference then be­tween us is this, We plead for, and (bleſ­ſed be God) injoy the Lords Supper with order and decency; Mr. H. pleads for it, and injoyes it with diſorder and confuſi­on, whatever he pretends in his Proviſion to the contrary.

His ſecond Argument he draws from the nature of the viſible Church; which he de­fines or deſcribes to be a number of ſuch as make profeſſion of Jeſus Chriſt, and ſo are Saints by calling, whatever they are in truth. The eſſentiall marks whereof (where­by it ſubſists as viſible) is the preaching of the Word, and adminiſtration of the Sacra­ments. Now unleſs men will be ſo bold as to diveſt our mixed Congregations (and ſo conſequently all England formerly) of the name of the viſible Church, they cannot take from us one of its eſſentiall notes, in the free uſe of this Ordinance.

Anſw. 1. His deſcription is liable enough to exception, ſince a viſible Church ſtrictly is not a bare number of Profeſſors, but53 of ſuch as combine for Church ends. The Church is a Corporation, and not members as ſo, make a body, but as united either by virtuall or actuall conſent, &c. and that either in their diſtinct Societies, which we call Pariſhes or particular Congregations, or in their Repreſentees and Officers delegated for the publick concernment of particular Churches, ei­ther in a Claſſis, Province, Nation, divers Nations, or the whole world, whence a­riſe Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall, or Oecumenicall Aſſemblies, &c.

But ſuppoſing this to be his meaning, though not ſo clearly expreſſed,

2. I ask him in the next place, Whe­ther all Profeſſors or Saints by calling, are eo nomine to be admitted to the Lords Supper; if ſo, then why doth he ſhut out children and diſtracted perſons, who are as truly Saints by calling, and profeſ­ſors as others. Its apparent then that out­ward profeſſion is not the ultimate rea­ſon of admiſſion, unleſs accompanied with ſutable knowledge and converſati­on, at leaſt viſibly; and that groſs ig­norance appearing, or a ſcandalous con­verſation, do ſo far contradict Mr. H. his outſide profeſſion, as to make that per­ſon54 for preſent viſibly unworthy.

3. Taking it for granted, that the Word and Sacraments are notes of a true viſible Church, how doth it follow that ours are not true Churches, unleſs every particular member may partake of the Lords Supper? How many children and ſervants were in the daies of the Prelates kept from the Lords Supper, till they could give ſome tolerable account of their faith, and of the nature and uſe of the Sacrament; yet never was ſuch a mad inference as this drawn from it, that therefore the Church of England was not a true viſible Church. And certainly, if the deniall of ſome Church priviledge (though unjuſtly) were enough to un-Church a people, I ſcarce know where there is any one true viſible Church in all the world.

4. Therefore let all the world take notice of the too too groſs fallacy of this Argument, The Word and Sacraments are notes of a true viſible Church; Ergo, Without free admiſſion we have no true viſible Church. May not any ordinary capacity eaſily diſcern there are four tearms in this Syllogiſme.

The Syllogiſme ſhould run thus: The55 Word and Sacraments are eſſentiall notes of a true viſible Church; Ergo, without the Word and Sacraments there is no true viſible Church. But that Mr. H. ſaw well enough would conclude nothing a­gainſt us, who (bleſſed be God) have both Word and Sacraments, and there­fore in ſtead thereof (againſt the known rules of Logick) he ſhuffles in free Ad­miſſion into the concluſion, which was not at all in the premiſes. A clear evi­dence he is more skill'd in Sophiſtry then in Logick, and can better deceive then convince.

If on the other hand, he will make free admiſſion to the Lords Supper an eſ­ſentiall mark of a true viſible Church; let him ſee how he is confuted by the practice of our Church under the Pre­lates, in which many were kept from the Lords Supper, that were neither chil­dren, fools, nor excommunicated, and that without any prejudice to the eſſence of our Churches, as was before inſtan­ced. Yea, the very Rubrick before the Communion in the Book of Common-Prayer, ſhews the fondneſs of this opi­nion; the Curate being there authorized to ſuſpend ſcandalous and malicious per­ſons56 without (I hope) any prejudice to the true being of our Churches. Yea, the very Exhortation in the Communion commands ſuch to bewail their ſins, and not to come, leſt after the taking of the Sacrament, the Devil entred into them as he did into Judas. Now were it a duty for all to come, then were it a ſin to for­bid any to come.

Object. If yet he will object, This practice of ours, if it be not againſt the nature and eſſence, yet its againſt the wellbeing of a true viſible Church, when the members thereof, or any of them, are denied their juſt priviledges.

Anſw. 1. True, if the Lords Supper were a priviledge due to all Members; but this is the thing to be proved on Mr. Humphrey his part; and in the proof whereof (though his great Diana) he falls ſo exceeding ſhort.

2. The well being of a Church con­ſiſts much in its Government and Diſci­pline, (of which not one word from Mr. H. in his notes of a true viſible Church) Good Government lies in the Geometri­call (not Arithmeticall) adminiſtration of priviledges and Cenſures: the loweſt of which laſt (Admonition) and higheſt57 (Excommunication) we have clear e­nough in the Scripture: but becauſe Suſ­penſion and the like, are not in tearms mentioned in Scripture, therefore Mr. H. will have it wholly expunged; as if be­cauſe a man will not be gained by words, there were no other way but preſently to knock him on the head. Certainly, he that puts the extreames, cannot deny the middle from one extream to another. And as he who hath power of life and death, hath much more power to mulct, impriſon, &c. ſo the Church who hath power to excommunicate, hath much more power to ſuſpend, as being an in­feriour Cenſure, and but the way to that higheſt. Will Mr. H. deny, that the well­being of a Church lies much in its puri­ty, and this in the knowledge and con­verſation of the Members? and whether our way or his conduce more to this, let all the world judge. Let Mr. H. tell me ingenuouſly, whether he would have all groſly ignorant perſons excommunicated? I hope he is more charitable, and thinks they rather need inſtruction. And is not this previous triall before the Elderſhip uſed of purpoſe, that ignorant perſons might be put upon enquiry after know­ledge.58 as ever they value the priviledge of Sacramentall communion. Nor is the proper end of it excluſion from, but preparation of all ſorts for the Sacra­ment, for which in few months (by Gods grace) we dare undertake to fit the mean­eſt, if they will be ruled by us. Contra, if Mr. H. his free Admiſſion obtain uni­verſally without check, ſee if in a few years a Chaos of darkneſs and ignorance do not overſpread the face of this glo­rious Church. But I ſee I muſt contract.

For his confirmation of this argument from the parable of the field, &c. which he ſtiles an invincible ſupport, pag. 17. Alas poor man, how feeble muſt he needs be, when his beſt ſtrength is but weak­ness? If the Tares and Wheat muſt be ſeparated till the day of judgement, then I pray what will become of Excommuni­cation? Its apparent by the parable, 1. That the Tares were ſowen by the careleſneſs of the Servants, or other Church members, Matth. 13.25. 2. That the prohibition to take them away, was not abſolute, but onely with a caution or proviſo, verſe 29. And in truth, ſo tender is the Lord of the Wheat, that he had rather many Tares ſhould ſtand, then59 one ear of Corn ſhould be pluckt up. Where therefore there is danger of wronging the wheat, better let the tares ſtand; not ſo if we can ſeparate them without prejudice to, yea with advantage of the wheat: And therefore a bare ſuſpition is not enough to keep any from the Sacrament, but by groſs ignorance or ſcandall it muſt appear he is a tare, and not wheat, before he can be ſuſpended judicially. For as for negative ſuſpenſion before triall, that is not properly a Church Cenſure (no more then the non-admitting of Infants or diſtracted per­ſons) but onely a prudentiall forbearing to adminiſter the Lords Supper to a perſon, till he have been approved as viſibly worthy, which yet may iſſue out into a formall Suſpenſion, if any ſhall wilfully obtrude without triall, or upon triall ſhall be found viſibly unworthy, and yet will not be perſwaded to forbear till better prepared.

For his inſtance of Chriſts converſe with Publicanes and ſinners; it makes much for us, and againſt himſelf. Such Publicanes and ſinners who are not aſha­med publickly to profeſs their repentance and high reſpects to Chriſt, ſhall be very60 welcome to us as the worthieſt receivers; but the queſtion is, Whether blinde and ſcandalous Phariſees ought to be admit­ted with theſe Publicanes and ſinners?

For his grand inſtance of Judas, it hath been already anſwered. Onely I cannot but ſtand amazed at his high flown confidence and cenſoriouſneſs, pag. 19. The evidence of which fact (he means of Chriſts admitting Judas to receive the Lords Supper) has ever appeared ſo fully to the Church, that this alone has been ground ſufficient to deduce their right of free admiſſion; and what need more indeed be urged, but that men when they are willing not to ſee, will let their hand (put over their eyes) be enough to blinde them.

Anſw. 1. Sundry famous Lights in the Church beleeved this long before Mr. H. either preached or wrote, and yet thought it not ground enough for free admiſſion. But haply Mr. H. is ſo chari­table, as to judge not onely the reformed Churches, but alſo the whole Church of England (ever ſince the dawning of Re­formation after the Marian perſecution to this day) to have wilfully put their hands over their eyes, and knowingly to61 have ſinned againſt their conſciences. We may well bear this ſharp cenſure with the more comfort and patience, conſider­ing we ſuffer with ſo good company.

2. See you not how the vizard of humility falls off, and both his breath and pen ſavour rankly of pride in this unchri­ſtian cenſure? Were we as bad as Mr. H. would make us, we had undoubtedly made a great progreſs in the high way to the ſin againſt the holy Ghoſt, and deſer­ved our ſelves not onely to be ſuſpended, but alſo to be excommunicated. In the mean time I muſt be bold to tell Mr. H. that he who takes upon himſelf to be ſo free an admitter of others, deſerves, I fear, more then ſuſpenſion for this his ſcandalous and wicked cenſure of the generality of the moſt pious perſons of all the reformed Churches, and particularly his own Nation.

His third reaſon he takes from the nature of Chriſtian communion and Church fel­lowſhip, which ought to be in charity, in humility, without judging, every one eſteem­ing others better then themſelves, &c. eſpecially in the Miniſter, who is to be gentle to all, ſuffering the evil (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to win them by this free way to repentance. And62 how impoſsible is this, if we muſt go to cen­ſuring of mens worthineſs and unworthi­neſs, preferring our ſelves; rejecting others; the ready way to nothing but heart burnings and diviſions, as we have too ſad experience already in moſt Congregations.

Anſw. 1. When men are out of the right way once, whither will they not ramble? Raſh judgement and private judgement cannot ſtand with charity and humility (out of his own mouth I con­demn the man, who may well be ſtiled Maſter of Arts at raſh and private judg­ing,) ergo, true and publick judging cannot ſtand with charity and humility. Doth he not in this deal with the Church, as ſome Anabaptiſts deal with the State, take away the Sword of Go­vernment, and ſo make a fair bridge for univerſall Toleration.

2. If there muſt be no judging in the Church, where then are Church Cenſures and Excommunication?

3. Epheſus is commended for trying and judging, Rev. 2.2. and that ſhe could not bear thoſe that were evil, &c. and not therefore charged by Chriſt as proud or uncharitable.

4. The Apoſtle 1 Cor. 5.12,13. com­mands63 them to judge Church Members, that is (in Mr. H. his Language) to be proud and uncharitable.

5. Do we deſire anymore of the mea­neſt then we ſubmit to our ſelves; yea, to a far ſtricter triall then they are like to undergo? how then do we lift up our ſelves above them, or eſteem our ſelves better then they?

6. Doth the gentleneſs required in a Miniſter, forbid him to try and inſtruct his people? I thought gentleneſs there required, had been rather a qualification then a prohibition of Miniſteriall triall.

7. Doth〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉there ſignifie a ſuffering the people in their ſins, that Miniſters ſhould be dumb dogs, and drowſie ſhepherds, ſuffering the ſheep to ramble as they pleaſe, and the ſwine to wallow as they pleaſe, &c, and admit them to the ſame priviledges with the beſt? Such a Miniſter may well be counted a good fellow, but ſure Chriſt will never reckon him for a good and faithfull ſhepherd. Doth Mr. Humphrey think the way to bring to repentance, is to ſuffer them in their ſins? ot that there is no way to reduce them, but either admonition or excommunication? May64 not perſons be won by deniall of ſome priviledges due to regular members, if they have not loſt ail ſpirituall inge­nuity?

8. That hereby heart burnings and diviſions are occaſioned, blame not this excellent courſe, which of its own nature is a means of love and unity by the mu­tuall communication of Paſtor and Flock, Elders and People, in gifts and graces: but the pride of moſt, and igno­rance or prejudice of ſome well meaning people, who will not ſubmit to this eaſie yoke, Pſal. 2.1, 3. Matth. 11.29. nor do conſider, that the ruling Elders are either elected or eligible, 1. By them­ſelves. 2. Out of themſelves. 3. For their advantage, to allay the power of Miniſters, who if ſole Judges of Sacra­mentall worthineſs, might at leaſt be under a temptation to wrong weaker Chriſtians, and through paſſion or pre­judice to keep them away, whom Chriſt would have to be admitted.

9. If by trying and judging others, we prefer our ſelves before others, then there muſt be no trying or judging of any in the Church; quite contrary to the Scripture, and the power of the Keyes65 given to Church-Officers. Beſides, let the Reader further take notice of the uncharitableneſs of this man. 1. In char­ging us to prefer our ſelves before others. True indeed, what the Apoſtle ſaith of bleſſing, Heb. 7.7. that may we of triall and judgement, The Trier and Judge is in that act above him that is tried and judged: but did we prefer our ſelves to this ſuperiority? or were we called to it both by Civill and Eccleſiaſticall Au­thority? Doth not Mr. Humphrey try and judge others in the exerciſe of his Mini­ſtry, doth he therefore prefer himſelf above his people? indeed if he ran be­fore he was ſent, well may he bear that charge. But we challenge Mr. Humphrey and all the world, to name any among us who take upon them to try or judge others, before they were called to that Office. Let him take heed leſt in this raſh cenſure he be not like Corah and his company, Numb. 16.3.

3. To load us the more, he brands us in the cloſe with the odious charge of rejecting others, as if that were all the work of the Presbytery, to ſit and reject their brethren. He takes no notice how many are admitted, to the mutuall com­fort66 and edification of themſelves and thoſe who are over them in the Lord, who bleſs God for the care our Builders take in purging and repairing Gods Houſe and the new Jeruſalem, however oppoſed and diſcouraged by Sanballat, Tobiah, and other Samaritans: and I wiſh too many (I hope reall Jews) did not too much correſpond with them, Neh. 6.17, 18, 19. I am ſure Mr. Humphrey by this unhappy book of his, hath done Sanballat and Tobiah more ſervice then either Nehemiah or Ezra, the Lord for­give him.

For amplification of his third Argu­ment,Page 20. he preſents the example of the Phariſee and Publicane; and inſinuates that we at leaſt〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉act the Phariſee.

Anſw. 1. How doth it follow, that by triall of others we think better of our ſelves then of others, as the Phariſee did here? His judgement was purely private. 2. Without any triall: Ours is publick, upon juſt and indifferent triall, whereby often we are brought to think better of others, worſe of our ſelves, but never to think better of our ſelves then others, whom yet in ſome caſes we dare not ad­mit, ſince its poſſible one really worthy67 may be ſuſpended, and another onely viſibly worthy may be admitted; ſince in this, as well as other trials, the Eider-ſhip muſt proceed only ſecundum allegata & probata, and he who is worthy per­ſonally, may be unworthy diſpoſitively. And here again he chargeth us with ſuperſtition and uncharitableneſs, becauſe we will not admit all freely; as if there were no Meane between profaneſs and ſuperſtition, between charity and licen­tiouſneſs.

His ſecond inſtance for amplification, is from Luk. 5.31, 32. (the quotation is miſtaken by his Printer, and the ſenſe by himſelf) wherein Chriſt is repreſented as a Phyſician onely of the ſick, and came to call, not the righteous, but ſinners.

Anſw. 1. What is this againſt us who make it our deſign to admit none but ſuch ſick ones and ſinners as Chriſt did?

2. It makes much againſt himſelf, if he will urge it in order to the Sacrament, ſince its evident Chriſt here makes a diſtinction and ſeparation; and 1. Would not have all admitted; and 2. In parti­cular he rejects ſound and righteous ones, namely that were ſo in their own conceit, and ſuch were moſt of the Phariſees:68 and do we ſuſpend any others then thoſe who ate wiſer in their own eyes then ſeven men that can render a reaſon, and fitter for the Lords Supper (if themſelves may be judges) then the beſt of the ap­proved or approvers?

Pag. 22. His third inſtance is John 8. from the woman taken in adultery, ac­cuſed by the Phariſees, but not con­demned by our Saviour.

Anſw. 1. Doth this man take the Scripture for a noſe of wax, that he perverts it ſo groſly, cither through ignorance, inſtability, or prejudice? (to ſay no worſe) what is this to our Sacra­mentall triall? The Phariſees came to trap Chriſt with a practicall caſe and a civill caſe, John 8.5, 6. Had Chriſt bid them ſtone her, he had been accuſed to the Romans as ſtirring the Jews up to act the ſupreme power which was taken from them by the Romans; ſee John 18.31. Had he forbid them to ſtone her, he had been ſlandered to the Jews, as an enemy to, and contradictor of the Law of Moſes. Our Saviour at firſt waves an­ſwering to ſo captious a queſtion, ver. 6. But when that would not ſatisfie their malicious importunity, he gives them ſo69 wiſe an anſwer, as 1. He avoyded both extreams; and 2. He caught them who came to catch him; And for the woman, though he condemn not her perſon either to civill death, as being no civill Judge, Luk. 12.14. nor eternally, as not coming (in the ſtate of humiliation) to deſtroy, but to ſave, Luk. 9.56. John 12.47. yet he condemns her ſin, and gives her good counſel, John 8.11. What is this to our keeping perſons viſibly unworthy from the Sacrament, and that by juſt authority in a publick and judiciall way? I wonder this man doth not now condemn the civill Magiſtrate for executing adulterers, inceſtuous perſons, Sodomites, &c. which Chriſt and his Apoſtles would not, 1 Cor. 5.1, 6, 9, 11. onely they judged them ſpi­ritually, ſhewed them the danger of thoſe ſins, and Gods mercy in pardoning and purging them. Are not many juſtly cut off both by the Civill and Eccleſiaſticall Sword, whom yet Chriſt, as abſolute Lord of life and death, may pardon? Shall not man do juſtice, becauſe Chriſt ſhews mercy? Had this woman been ſtoned to death, had that been any barre to Chriſts Pardon? The moſt righteous Judge in the world is conſcious of the70 ſeeds of inceſt, murder, &c. in himſelf, ſhall he not therefore condemn ſuch perſons legally convicted before him? The moſt pious Miniſter or Church Of­ficer is conſcious of the like, ſhall he not therefore either ſuſpend or excom­municate ſuch perſons, when legally converged and convicted upon juſt triall? David himſelf was actually guilty both of murder and adultery, was it ever after unlawfull for him as a King and Judge, to condemn ſuch perſons? Indeed the conſciouſneſs of our own weakneſs and guilt, ſhould make us put forth ſuch acts with abundance of ſelf-reflection and pity to ſuch offenders, but hath not the leaft ſhew of warrant to root up or make void the power of triall and judgement, either in Church or State. Fooliſh pitty mars a City in this caſe, ſhall the woolf be ſpared to worry the ſheep? If ſuch pity be not the greateſt cruelty both to ſoul and body, I know not what is.

Pag. 22. His fourth reaſon ariſes from the vanity, formality, and impoſſibility of ſelecting people to this Ordinance. For put the caſe you will have a gathered company, I pray whom do you account to be fit and worthy receivers? if not all that make pro­feſſion71 as we do mixtly, then thoſe only that have an intereſt in Chriſt, and are true Believers. Well, but how will you be able to know them? The heart of man is deceitfull above all things, who can know it? And if we can hardly diſcover our own hearts, how ſhall we ever diſcern others? So that all will come but to thoſe that have the faireſt ſhew, thoſe that ſeem ſuch; and you cannot be ſecured but there may be and will be ſome hypocrites; and ſo this true partaking, as all one body and one blood, in ſuch a mixt communion as you pretend, vaniſhes, and there can be no ſuch matter. But now if men here ſtand upon a formall purity, and will have the outward pureſt Church they can, they go to ſeparating again (as we have daily teſtimony) till they are quite ſeparated one from another; even as in the peeling of an onyon, where you may peel and peel till you have brought all to nothing, unleſs to a few teares perchance, with which the eyes of good men muſt needs run over in the doing.

Anſw. 1. Here Mr. Humphrey thinks he hath us faſt: But let me intreat him not to boaſt before he put off his harneſs. And that both himſelf and others may ſee how wide he roves from the mark,72 we ſhall deny both his Extreams, and tell him that neither bate profeſſion on the one hand, nor troth of grace on the other hand, is the rule we walk by in admitting perſons to the Sacrament, if conſidered quatenus. Could not all the art Mr. Humphrey hath, think of medium participationis, between theſe two ex­treams, which will do very good ſervice for his conviction and our juſtification?

1. Therefore let him know, that we look at his rule of bare profeſſion, as a very looſe principle, which will open a door not onely for the wickedeſt var­lets, as murderers, &c. but alſo for chil­dren and fools, contrary to his own principles, now in print. And indeed, if bare proſeſſion were enough to warrant admiſſion to the Sacrament, how dares Mr. Humphrey excommunicate any bap­tized perſon, though he be the wickedeſt villain that ever Tyburn groaned for, ſince even the worſt of them are profeſ­ſors, as well as the trueſt Nathanael? Therefore ſay we, Profeſſion, if joyned with ſufficiency of knowledge in funda­mentals, and ſutable practice in conver­ſation, at leaſt negatively, that there be no evidence againſt a perſon, as living73 after conviction in a known ſin; this is the rule we walk by in admiſſion to the Sacraments; though withall, we do not neglect inquiry after truth of grace, ſo far as may ſtand with charity.

2. Let him and the world know, that truth of grace in the heart on the other hand is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper. The reaſon is, becauſe we cannot admit divers perſons, though we ſhould infallibly know they had truth of grace; as 1. Children and fools, di­vers of whom undoubtedly have truth of grace in their hearts; and that becauſe they cannot examine themſelves, nor diſcern the Lords body according to the rule of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 11.28, 29. Nor 2. Such, who though they have truth of grace, yet fall into ſome foul and ſcan­dalous ſin, for which they deſerve ex­communication it ſelf, and much more ſuſpenſion, which is but an inferiour degree of excommunication. As truth of grace cannot excuſe a man from death, if he be a murderer, &c. ſo neither can it excuſe him from Church Cenſures, if he be foully ſcandalous, eſpecially if wilfull; which yet for a time may ſtand with truth of grace, witneſs Aſa, 2 Chr. 7416.10, 12. Doth not Mr. Humphrey know that a perſon habitually worthy may be actually unworthy? or that a perſon in­viſibly unworthy may be viſibly worthy; and contra? Did he never hear of the worthineſs of perſon and the worthineſs of preparation, viſible worthineſs and reall worthineſs? Reall and compleat worthineſs (I mean as to its parts, when a perſon hath grace, and in ſome meaſure of truth labours to fit himſelf) is onely known to God: outward or viſible wor­thiness may be known to man by due ſearch and triall, accompanied with cha­rity and prudence, in which better to fail on the right hand then on the left; and where we ſee competent knowledge and have nothing to object againſt a mans converſation, the perſon profeſſing his univerſall ſubjection to Chriſt, and deſire to receive for his further edificati­on, the Elderſhip ought to give ſuch a one the right hand of fellowship. And ſhould he afterwards be uncaſed, the ſame power of the Keyes which admitted him, can either ſuſpend or excommuni­cate him, according to the demerit of his carriage.

And whereas he objects, That do what75 we can, hypocrites will creep in: That we eaſily grant, but its nothing to his purpoſe, ſince not hypocrites ſimply, but hypocrites as uncaſed, or godly men as groſly extravagant, are the object of Church Cenſures. The beſt uſe therefore can be made of his peel'd onyon, is to draw tears from his own and others eyes for theſe extravagant diſcourſes of his, whereby he hath (as much as in him lies) troubled the Church, hindred Reforma­tion, ſtrengthened the hands of the wick­ed, and ſadned the hearts of the righte­ous, whom God hath not made ſad, Ezek. 13.22. Had we the peeling of his onyon, we would take off onely the skin, and make good uſe of the pulp, either for food, ſauce, or medicine. And ſo much good do him with his Onyon, whether he feed upon it, or weep over it.

Pag. 23. His fifth reaſon he gathers from the uniformity of the ſervice of God. If all other Worſhip lies in common, it is an in­trenchment upon the common liberty, to put an encloſure upon the Sacrament.

Anſw. 1. Let him anſwer himſelf; if all other worſhip lie in common (for this I ſuppoſe he means by uniformity) for chil­dren and diſtracted perſons (unleſs they76 trouble the Congregation) why doth Mr. H. encloſe the Lords Supper from them? Let him extricate himſelf, and then ſee if we come not out at the ſame gap. Where hath Chriſt in terminis for­bid children and diſtracted perſons to receive? If Mr. H. can exclude them by conſequence, the ſame or like conse­quence will ſerve us to exclude divers far more unfit to receive then either of them.

2. Muſt all Divine Service be laid in common, becauſe moſt parts of it are? Why then not all time, becauſe ſix parts of time are ſo? why not all places and perſons, becauſe many are? Let us bleſs God ſo much of his Service lies in com­mon, and not quarrell that all lies not in common, ſince the beſt are unworthy that any part of Gods Worſhip ſhould lie in common.

3. There is no part of Gods Worſhip ſo encloſed, but all perſons of age and diſcretion may injoy it, if the fault be not their own, and that upon very ho­nourable and equall, yea eaſie conditi­ons.

4. As in every Ordinance ſome part is in common, ſome part incloſed, ſo is77 it in the Sacrament. In every Ordinance a great part of the Letter is common to all, the ſpirit of it is incloſed. In prayer I can bleſs God for truth of grace wrought in ſome, but can I without ly­ing praiſe him for true grace wrought in all? In preaching the Miniſter ought to apply ſome commands univerſally, others to ſuch and ſuch ſtates, conditions, and ſexes; threatnings to obſtinate ſinners, promiſes to the penitent, &c. Is not here a plain incloſure? If all parts of prayer or preaching be not applicable to all, ſhall all parts of the Sacrament be appli­cable to all? We deny not but all may be preſent at the exhortation, conſecration, adminiſtration; but the queſtion is, Whether all may actually receive, and whether the ſeal may be applied to them whom the Covenant of grace in ſtatu quo is viſibly inapplicable.

Hereby alſo will appear the weakneſs of what he adds by way of amplification, Are all the commands of God univerſall? why not (Do this) alſo?

Anſw. 1. Many commands of God are not univerſall, as was ſhewed before; and why then may not this be of that number?

782. If this command of actuall recei­ving be univerſall, why doth himſelf li­mit it by excluding ſome perſons?

3. Then it were a ſin for the Miniſter or any other to perſwade any to forbear the Sacrament, though he came with his hands imbrewed in blood, or actually drunk, or played the part of Zimri or Cosby in the face of the Congregation immediately before the Sacrament: For neither can my wickedneſs, nor the per­ſwaſion of any creature, looſe the bands of an univerſall command. Were I cer­tain this were Mr. H. his judgement, as I have ground to ſuſpect from what he de­livers pag. 7. haply I might ſay more to him, but till then ſhall forbear.

What further he objects is truth, That an unregenerate man ſins in every ſervice and duty, yet muſt not thereupon plead a quietus eſt from ſervice: but there is not par ratio in order to receiving. 1. Becauſe its not every mans duty to receive. 2, Be­cauſe other duties, though ſinfully by him performed (inſtance particularly in hearing the Word preached) may be means of his converſion, not ſo the Sa­crament unworthily received; of which more hereafter.

79In the ſame Page he throws his glove, firſt to the Independents, then to the Presbyterians. To the former in theſe words:

Let our Independents anſwer, Why do you allow a Syntax in the whole Service of God beſides, and bring in a Quae genus of Anomalás and Heteroclites onely at this Ordinance?

Anſ. 1. The Independents are much beholding to him for his favourable opi­nion of them, as good Proficients in Chriſts School. They are good Gramma­rians indeed, if they have perfected the Chriſtian Grammar ſo, as to leave in it but one Anomalum or Heteroclite.

2. I think its rather optandum then credendum, that they allow a Syntaxis in the whole Service of God beſides.

3. Yet as to free admiſſion in order unto preſence at all Ordinances, I be­leeve they (as well as we) allow a ſyntax in the whole worſhip of God.

4. Heteroclites and Anomala's are no more abſurd in Worſhip, then they are in Grammar. As no rule in Grammar but bath its exception, ſo no part of Worſhip but hath its incloſure. Of which after­ward.

80And therefore though I cannot juſtifie any of the Independents in ſeparating from our Congregations, yet if in exclu­ding from the Lords Supper perſons viſi­bly unworthy, they act upon the ſame principles with us; in ſo doing, though they bring in a Quae genus of Anomalacs and Heteroclites at the Lords Supper, yet they violate not the Syntax of Divine Worſhip. If they walk by other rules or principles not warranted, let them plead for themſelves, I am not of their Coun­ſell.

But for his challenge to the Presbyteri­ans (or at leaſt ſome of them) How we can admit of children as Members of the viſible Church (being born of Chriſtian Parents) unto Baptiſme, and yet turn away the Parents of thoſe children from the Sa­crament? Thoſe that have gone about to anſwer this, had better haply have ſaid no­thing: for our free courſe of Baptiſme and a deniall of this, is ſuch a ſeam-rent as will never be handſomely drawn up, though ſtitcht together. Nevertheleſs in yeelding the one, they have granted the other.

Anſw. 1. How can Mr. H. admit the children themſelves to Baptiſme, and yet deny them the Lords Supper? If herein81 he act by faith, let him ſhew a Divine Precept by which he excludes them. If he bring a proof by conſequence, let him conſider if that or a like conſequence will not exclude others (as well as children) for whom he keeps the door open.

2. How can himſelf admit children to Baptiſme, and yet excludes their parents from the Lords Supper? If the parents of a child baptized be either diſtracted or excommunicated, Mr. H. being Judge, they ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper; whereby its apparent, that even in Mr. H. his judgement, the childes baptiſme is no neceſſary medium to prove the Parents muſt be admitted to the Lords Supper; which yet he urgeth a­gainſt us, but forgets how he wounds himſelf with the ſame weapon.

3. To come cloſer to the Objection; two things by way of anſwer are very conſiderable, 1. That we clear and ju­ſtifie the promiſcuous baptizing of chil­dren of Chriſtian Parents, be the Parents themſelves never ſo unworthy. 2. That the promiſcuous admiſſion of children to Baptiſme, is no ground for the pro­miſcuous admiſſion of their parents to the Lords Supper.

82For the firſt of theſe: We admit chil­dren to Baptiſme, 1. By vertue of their remote parents, who may be good though their immediate parents be bad, Acts 2.39. The promiſe is made to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, &c. To your children indefi­nitely, not to your next children onely. Which is yet more evident by comparing Levit. 26.45. & Micah 7.20. where the Covenant of Anceſtors and Parents ex­tends to the children for many genera­tions, till the children themſelves in per­ſon renounce the Covenant. This alſo is hinted in the Text under the notion of them that are afar off, which is ex­tendable not only to remoteneſs of place or of ſtate, but alſo to remoteneſs of time; that is, as Beza notes, to your children in remote ages to come, Omni­bus longè poſt futuris. Nor is it in the Originall〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Gentiles were〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epheſ. 2.17. and ſo oppoſed to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but future generations are〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In this par­ticular, mercy triumphs over juſtice, in that God who puniſhes the parents ſin to the fourth generation, extends Co­venant-mercy to a thouſand generations,83 Exod. 20. ver. 5, 6. Nor was Peters deſign here to foretell the calling of the Gen­tiles, but to incourage his Auditors to faith and repentance; ſince (as Beza well notes upon the place) the myſtery of the Gentiles votation was not yet known to Peter himſelf, nor was expe­dient to be revealed to theſe new Con­verts, had he known it never ſo well. As the Covenant of Adam, ſo the Co­venant of Abraham; as the Covenant of Works, ſo the Covenant of Grace is extendible to many generations: and where the root is holy, there not only the immediate, but alſo the moſt re­mote branches are federally holy, Rom. 11.16. and that whether the branches be naturall or ingrafted, ver. 17.

2. Children may be admitted by ſti­pulation of others to ſee them educated in the faith into which they are baptized, be the parents themſelves never ſo wic­ked, yea excommunicated, yea Papiſts, and thus baſtards and foundlings may be baptized. See Ameſius his Caſes, lib. 4. cap. 27. Nay upon this account divers learned men very probably conceive, that even Heathen children may be baptized, if once taken into a Chriſtian84 Family, where the Governour or Go­vernours undertake for their Chriſtian education, and they are out of the po­wer of their Heathen parents; for by being members of a Chriſtian Family, they are made members of the viſible Church, as civill, though not naturall children of Chriſtians. I am ſure this Doctrine is conſonant to the Analogy of Circumciſion, Geneſ. 17.12. where not onely the childe born in the houſe, but alſo bought with money, was to be circumciſed, yea bought of ſtrangers, and not of the ſeed of Abraham, as is expreſs and evident in the Text. Thus an Hea­then born in the houſe, or bought with money might eat of the holy things, Levit. 21.11.

3. Theſe is ſomething conſiderable