A rejoinder TO Mr. DRAKE, OR A REPLY Unto his Book Entitled, A Boundary to the holy Mount. Which being approached, is found so dreadful, that the people do exceedingly quake and fear, lest they be consumed.  
By John Humphrey Master of Arts, and Minister of Froome in .  
The Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God.  JAMES 1.20. 
LONDON, Printed by F. L. for E. Blackmore, and are to be sold at the Sign of the Angel in St. Paul's Churchyard 1654.   

The Author to the Reader.  
IT is man's nature, or his fortune, in the turn of Opinions to run commonly toward extremes; for while he struggles to get out of the clutches of an error on one hand, the very force of his own striving, with a little trip of Satan, letting him lose upon the sudden, throws him quite down upon the other. We have very sad experience hereof in our times, which makes the day of Reformation, between the animosities and excesses of two parties, and the mouth of Separation, to be as if a man did fly from a Lion, and a Bear met him, then going into a house, and leaning against a wall, a Serpent bites him.  
The great unhappiness of our dawning Government, next to the laying the ground of our divisions in her own bowels, has been the entrusting her pious designs to the managemen of over-eager spirits, who finding no other holdfast on the hearts of Godly men, haur pressed too hard on a Trial to the Sacramen as if they built alone on this foundation; whereas the divine right of Church-Government stands firm on its own basis, as discipline is distinct from worship. Indeed it is a pious office of those the Holy Ghost has made overseers, to look into the state of their flocks, according to prudence and conveniency, and if they take occasion at this Sacrament to do part of that office (if they have opportunity) upon these grounds, who can gainsay them? And indeed had men held forth in this trial only a christian prudence, and pastoral duty, the people would be willing to lay burden enough on us; but when a power must be estahlished, clothed with a divine right, and that urged with the terror and danger of censure, and damnation: No wonder if tender Christians, fearing a bondage bringing upon them, rise up for their precious Liberty; for Christian conscience, which is the seat and tributary only of the infinite God, abhors to become a servant of men, and while it trembles at every word of holy Scripture, as ready to be turned with a twined thread, will never be brought to bow, stoop, or abate a jot, to all the powers in the World.  
A certain Governor of the Jews having set up Trophies, covered with Armour and such Ornaments, in honour to Caesar, the people were all in a mutiny, as at an indignity to their Religion; upon this he calling the chief of them together, points to the Trophies, ask, what they thought they were, they began to exclaim, Images; He seeing their zeal, causes their cover to be taken off, and underneath they were stocks of wood; The Jews seeing that, were presently turned, and all their fury hushed into a submission. I humbly judge thus of our Reformation, if she will set up her Examination, under such Ornaments, as pretend Divinity, we shall be afraid of it as an Idol, but if she would take off the Armour and dreadfulness of it, and let it appear but an humane Ordinance for instruction, there are few, happily, but might bear with, or submit to it. If thou be kind to this people, and speak good words to them, and but please them in this Free Admission, they will be thy Servants for ever.  
I do acknowledge the spirits of many the most holy Christians, have their faces set against a mixed communion, and I do humbly reverence the many pantings-and breathe of their hearts, after a fellowship of the Saints on Earth, as near as may be to the Church in Heaven, which will ever cause it to be no otherwise with us, so long as any zeal in men's affections shall prevail over their judgements; Yet do I tenderly believe, that Christ's example inclines not their way. Indeed there is no argument sinks so deep in my heart, as to see the winding of such inclinations, against which I have Christ's own life alone as satisfactory. My Saviour Christ was holier than them all, he was the godliest man, and the sweetest and humblest man that ever breathed; He never says to any of us, Depart from me, I am holier than thou, unless at Judgement; He never spoke such a word, I warrant you, in all his life. The most holy, and the most lowly, the most separate from sinners, and yet a friend of sinners. Truly methinks the consideration of this gracious temper of Christ in that meekness of his, and accessablenesse to poor sinners, enters most nearly into the embraces of my soul, and clasp about him, when I acknowledge myself most undeserving all his benefits; Nay, if I may confess my very heart (for such an untoward thing it is) I do more sensibly (according to those poor, small, wretched affections I have) love him more for his sweetness of disposition, amidst the doubts of my condition, than in my best assurances (they are so fainting) for his dying in particular for my salvation. We never read of any he turned away, but if they will come quite home to him in spirit, they shall be welcome to all his entertainments; If they will come but to a profession, he has even some love for them also, Mar. 10.21. they shall not be grudged the benefits of that profession, Whosoever comes unto me, I will in no wise cast out.  
Now that doctrine that has so fair a countenance from the holy Jesus, that goes the way of humility, and tends to peace, which if it may be Religiously embraced, would have kept us from, and might end our divisions, and yet do no more harm unto the main, than to forward it, is not unworthy more willing contemplations. There are some have thought the World was made by a concourse of Atoms, I think, if ever the multiform opinions of men, which like those Atoms, fly up and down, about Church Government, do concur in one, they must have their confluence and coagulation at this Ordinance.  
It is observed of some diseases, that the fear of having them does bring them; we may observe it here in pious men; the fear of Church-levelling, has levelled us; their own Tenants have served to do it; the frights of our Mother, brings her travel upon her.  
There are four principles amongst us, Episcopacy, Presbytery, Independency, Erastianism. Some are for Martin, and some are for Luther; But is Christ divided? Might not one Jesus serve all parties? We know the perfect temperament of natural bodies is of the four Elements; and it may be in our Government, if the prime qualities of either of these were well disputed and allayed, they might unite, and educe a form of the richest extract for our mixed Churches.  
When Herod, to his great renown, promised the people, to re-edify the Temple, and was beginning upon it; they came and besought him by all means to forbear, till he had provided the materials, and could assure them he was able to build it a new, before they plucked down the old; which when he had taken some three years' time (if I forget not) to do, than they joyfully went about it, and accomplished it. I humbly Imagine, this would have been good policy among us, that the House of our Reformation, while it was building, had been made ready before it was brought thither, that there might not have been heard the noise of the Hammer and the Axe, in any of these clashings, while it was rearing.  
As for the Presbytery, I verily believe the spirit of zeal, and fear of the Lord breathes as eminently in most of them, as in any of the Saints on this side Heaven. I hearty wish their moderation were known unto all men, as their piety; though I doubt not too, but some very precious of them gather with us, whilst others scatter abroad; some cannot but see, and feel, and pity our perplexities. The Lord knows truly what it is that makes the hearts of many sad that should not be sad, and strengthens the hands of our separations. For my part otherwise, I could be contented to lie in the dust, for I am nothing, and can let the world know, while Mr. Drake calls Mr. Humphrey one of the number of Core, a Kain, a Deceiver, a boaster, so monstrously proud, that he even takes the judgement seat to my condemnation; I thank the Lord, if I may acknowledge my present temper, that Mr. Humphrey thinks Mr. Drake a very zealous servant of Jesus Christ; and I do advise the Reader that the harshness of his passion may not prejudice his cause, but that he will embrace the truth wheresoever he finds it, pitying his weakness, especially in these four particulars.  
1. Because the Sacrament is not to be Administered without the Church, unto Heathen, to convert them to the faith, therefore it cannot tend within the Church to any unregenerate Members edisication.  
2. Because that Infants, Distracted, and Excommunicated persons are not to be admitted, therefore there is the same reason for all ignorant and scandalous persons; The often repetition of this, is a dead fly in his Ointment.  
3. His manifold unsavory catchings at my words only and expressions, which is pursuing my shadow, and not satisfying my Conscience, as p. 15. to 21. especially p. 92, 93, 94. which is too unworthy a tender Christian.  
4. His sharpness of spirit, and sore language; His words are very Spears and Swords. I must confess they often wound me to my heart, and make me think sometimes what profit is there in my wounds? If it will do him any good, he may take the blood of them. O my Saviour! though he get no good in the making, let me receive good in their healing, let me have one drop of thy blood poured into those wounds, and how sweetly will it heal them! let me find Oylin my good Samaritan, while I fall amongst them, and thy balm of Gilead under the reproach of Zion.  
There is one passage I may not omit in his Presace, When I weigh his lose Principles with his being so favourable to the loser sort, it makes me and other to suspect his practices, etc. For my Principles, I hold thus; It is the duty of all Church-members of age to frequent the Sacrament; A man must examine himself and so Eat, he must come, and come worthily; If he be not worthy, that will not excuse him from his duty, he must do both, as in other Ordinances, and there is no escape otherwise. Mr. Drake holds, If a man be not worthy he must abstain, and that is his duty. Let the righteous judge, if this take effect, which will prove the loser doctrine. As for his censure of my life; let me excuse him with his own words, p. 2. where he waves it with this reason. For who am I, that I should judge my Brother? Good man! he is here afraid to sin against God in the judging of me he knows not; but should he know me in all the secrets of my heart, and whole life, from my youth up, Alas! he does not think of me half so bad as I do; I am verily, & in my own eyes, much worse than he dare judge of me (to wit, in his sober, not rash, judgement.) I hearty beseech him to spend as many prayers unto God to make me better in his sight, as he has done words to make me vile unto the World; and that while he says unto my Soul, Bow down that I may go over, I may lay my body as the ground, and as the streets, and let him go over.  
Now as there are some of these, who are precious and godly, may be displeased, for which I am sorry; there are others, with whom my Book, or subject of it, has found acceptance. I find 4. sorts of them.  
The first, are a humble lowly sort, that love to serve God, and be quiet; that follow their studies and devotions in a still voice, and make no more noise of Religion, than a sigh can do, and the soft droppings of a tear; These can meet no body, but they are ready to bless God for them, as seeing something in them, that makes them esteem them better than themselves; They can think every one penitent, when they come to the Sacrament, as they are themselves. When Zeal is ready to say, I only am left alone, Humility thinks, there are seven thousand besides me. These are Nathaniels, true Israelites indeed, in whom there is no guile; I bless God for a taste of some such spirits, whose sweet encouragements herein, have as it were brought water to the thirsty, and prevented with their provision, him that fled.  
The second sort, are most of the old way, amongst which, there may be indeed, too many of the loser sort, whom nevertheless we must not exasperate, but meekly admonish to repentance, and be contented, with Rebeccah, when we open the well for Abraham's servant, not to let the Man drink only, but the Camels also.  
The third, are part of the most judicious, of free and unprejudiced spirits; who judge the main body of my Work necessary, though mingled with the Author's weakness, and are ready, As the Shepherd taketh out of the mouth of the Lion two legs, and a piece of an ear, to rescue some parts of it, some passages, as useful, and fit for better Meditations: Even as amongst those Votaries, that were met withal by Ishmael, and about to be put to death, there were found certain of them, saying, Slay us not, for we have treasures; so they forbore, and slew them not among their brethren.  
The fourth and last sort, to whom I own most, are many unsatisfyed doubtful Christians, either through tenderness of conscience, or search of understanding, while the former, poor souls! look in their hearts, and find some good desires, but not a prevalency of resolution in them; while they feel sin, and a love unto their sin, and yet a hatred of that love; while they have some signs of grace, and want others, no wonder they so greedily embrace the Sacrament as a means to beget that in them, they are in doubt of, or else must come upon their certain ruin. I must confess it is a notion has entered my heart, and runs through this Book; Let the poor sinner come, as condemning himself, and apply Jesus Christ in the sense of his condition; Let him come with a rope about his neck, for our King is a merciful King. If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, 1 Cor. 11.31.  
For the latter, the wise and more piercing, as they may not be so strict in their apprehension of this solemnity, they do mainly inquire into the nature of grace; how the Spirit works it, by way of moral Suasion only, or Infusion, and that at once, or by gradual preparation; they know not whether special grace differs from common any otherwise, than the same seed cast in divers grounds, in regard of root and continuance; and conceive this Ordinance with others, to be means and helps for the rooting of it, or for the begetting those farther degrees, which make that grace, that before was not, to become saving, and so they can allow a proportionable latitude in their admission. It was the famous Tyranny of one Procrustes towards strangers, to lay them in his own bed, and if they were shorter, to stretch them out to the length of it if longer, to cut them short to his Stature. I hearty bewail the extreme rigour of too many of those we hold Orthodox, that would have all other judgements cut even with the model of their own, especially in these first effectual workings of God's Spirit, which are secret to reason, various in experience, and unsearchable; as to the way and means whereof, Jo. 3.8. there is none may limit him. For the Bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it, and the cover narrower than that a man can wrap himself in them.  
To conclude, There are two kind of Readers into whose hands my lines will come, my bare Readers, or my judges. For my bare Readers, I do hearty fore-warn you, not to trust to my judgement, but to stay and see what others will write of it, counting of me only as one that have proposed your minds, that you may be satisfied. In the mean while, I beseech you Brethren, in the Bowels of Christ, be submissive to your Pastors, and grieve not the more knowing and pious souls of those, that so indulgently watch ever you. For my Judges, I only wish them to be moderate, unprejudiced spirits, and humble men, and I shall submit unto their censures. If I have built Wood, Hay, or Stubble, on Christ the foundation, let my work be burnt, but myself saved; I sacrifice it to the flame, where it shall die, though Truth's malefactor, yet a Martyr, as to the innocency of my intentions, and to testify my repentance, turn to ashes.  
john Humphrey.   

A rejoinder TO Mr. DRAKE.  

Sect. 1 THere is a poor Book of mine got into the Press, about the Sacrament, little in its bulk, less perhaps in its worth, and least in its Author. It hath pleased one of a Reverend title, to take so much notice of it, as to vouchsafe me a confutation. I humbly think myself to be engaged to him for his labours, though his language is unacceptable, and grievous to my spirit. I must confess it is not satisfactory to my judgement, yet must I thank him for his good will at least, and charitable intentions. I perceive some of my friends are ready to look on his work only as a piece of spite, and product of passion, and have advised me to return him my silence, as an answer to fit him. But when I seriously look into my own thoughts, I find not myself so slightly affected; and to speak freely, seeing I know him not, I rather judge it to be out of zeal, though overborne indeed too much with some distemper, that makes him so hot and desperate in his Exceptions. He is afraid that the temper of my Book, which is free and hearty, is so suited to the spirits of honest people, that it will draw them after my opinion, which he judges to be dangerous, and may do hurt to them, and therefore labours (in his discretion) to deface in it, whatsoever has but the appearance of humility, or ingenuity. A man may be more froward many times, than wise. As for the many revile then, wherewith he so often blesses me, in the scatter of his indignation, I profess they move not me so much (though they grieve me too bad otherwise) in regard of the disgrace, for I am beneath it, as they they do please me in two respects, 1. That this zealous man, I count, is so much the more in my deb●, which I desire him to pay for me at the throne of Grace. And2. That if I should be in any error, (which the more I doubt, the less I know) here is some salve for it, to heal it in others, and expiate in me. For this censure, I trust in the kindness of my Saviour, shall be all the punishment he will lay upon me for my failings▪ and while I receive my evil things here, I shall hope for my good things to come, where my reproaches shall be turned into a reward, and the Book my Adversary has wrote against me, be bound to my shoulder, and made a crown to me, by being sanctified of God for a furtherance to his mercy.  
When I read Mr. Drake at first, of all his expressions, it was that Text, Ez. 13.22. that went to my heart: Methinks I could almost wish I had never been, rather than do any hurt to the Church of God; and it were better a millstone were about the neck of my Book, than that it should offend any of Christ's little ones; for though I were thrown into the Sea, thy mercies, O Lord, is even there also! This made me look the narrower within my own breast, to see what token the Lord would show me for good: Methinks I always see much infidelity swimming over my heart, which may give some rise, and secret occasion of my over-pity to such perplexities I perceive in many about the Sacrament, when others can rejoice to see their pious tears, and lay more strictness on it; I do ever suspect the worst by myself: Now while in my addresses unto the mercies of God, and all those billows of my soul that beat me to this shore, I found nothing lay so deep at the bottom of my heart, which kept me in some week's suspense, as the making my account hereof at the great day; I bless the Lord for some refresh amidst my sorrows, persuading me, that there is some true fear of God in my inward parts, though evil be present with me, Ro. 7.21. which I think once wrought in me in the days of my youth, if I remember right the love of my espousals, when I was going after him in a Land not sown, but since have been straying in a wilderness of sin, wherein I were lost without his mercy. O Lord, if in reading thy servant Drakes Book, 〈◊〉 have not feared thy righteous judgement more than man's, and been more troubled about the good or hurt of men's precious souls, than the regard of my name, let my honour lie in the dust, and my soul in ashes; Let my repentance be conformable to my sin, for it is great, O Lord, even where I see it not, and may be greater, in being hid from mine eyes till others find it: for as for those many passages, wherein I am accused of pride, and censoriousness, Thou knowest my conscience is ready to acquit me, yet will I not acquit my conscience, which may take part with my sinful nature, but desire thy mercy to cleanse me, and it, from all my secret, as known corruptions.  
For the making my Apology, or defence against my Opposer, I shall humbly crave the liberty he has taken, not to trouble myself too much about it. 'tis true, some bid me give him no answer, His language deserves no answer, but yet he shall have as good a one as I can give him. I shall only requite the freeness of his words, by being as fre● from tying myself to any smoothness of stile, or form of language, but what comes easiest to my thoughts; wherein I will deliver, as God assists me, my very heart in this controversy, being ready even to fall down and beseech a tenderness of spirit, in the undertakers thereof; for I am quite over whelmed with the fears that have got within me; On one side, lest I should hurt the Church of God; On the other, lest I should not endeavour the healing of the hurt, others I judge) have made, in the daughter of my people. It would be sad to me, to make others sad, though they should not be sad, if I did not make some rejoice, that should rejoice. But it is much sadder to lie under fears, we should not fear, and have the bones broken, that should not be broken. I have seen the tears of friends, I know the difficulties of some spirits, and my own scruples, and I do fear, there is no soul deeply tender, and doubtful of his condition, can ever solidly have peace at this Sacrament, unless it be allowed a means of Grace to examining Christians, that find as yet they savingly want it. They came to the pits, and found no water, they return with the vessels empty, and were ashamed.  
Before I begin with Mr. Drake, it will be requisite to consider in the way, how he is pleased to judge and deal with me, as if my whole book were only in opposition unto them, whom it least thought of in many parts of it. Those whom it orderly concerns, are, 1. All tender Christians in general aggrieved about this Ordinance. 2 In particular, the more scrupulous, that wholly neglect to administer or receive, only for want of discipline; which I take, is doing evil that good may come of it, whose disallowance is just. 3. Weak Consciences, made so by others strictness, that judge the Sacrament defiled to them, if they eat with any but the Godly; I have seen some experience hereof, I pity. 4. The more heady zealous Christians, that cannot be quiet without separation. 5. Then in the last place, it is against any forms to be set up as necessary to our worship, which is but arbitrary and prudential, lest it bring a burden on some Consciences, which like the poor, willing, humble Camel are even stooping on their knees to take upon them. Now a right distribution only of my Book, in the several passages to these several persons and comportments, will turn the body of it so aside to the blows of my opposer, that the most part of them may pass by empty, and do it no harm. For thou Lord, art a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of this terrible one is but as a storm against the wall.  
Now to come towards the work; In the entrance of Mr. Drake's Book, I meet with a censure; I am sorry to see it. I will not say it is a piece of childishness or incontinency, in a man of his title, nor that it is a mark of modesty in the forehead of it; but I do think that while he is so forward to be known among the Elders in the Gate, the more humble of his brethren are so ashamed for him, that they may afford him Scarlet in their blushes. I could have wished him first to have spent a few leaves in a due examen, that a conviction might appear before his suspension, which might have cooled him a little perhaps; even as the Romans were wont to bind up their instruments of punishment into bundles, which they called their Fasces, that the wrath and passion of the Magistrate (before whom in honour they were carried) might be assuaged something in their giving judgement, while the Lictors were unbinding them.  
After the Frontispiece, to omit the Preface, he gins his four first pages with a quarrel at the Title of my Book, An humble Vindication, etc. and then produces four passages for the World to judge of them, whether they savour not of pride, etc.  
Answer, I am content, let the World judge, and think upon Christ; It is no wonder he cannot find in his heart to afford my Book its due Title, that is a going about to crucify it. However, if any pious men are offended at me. I think it safest to crave their pardon, professing in the presence of God, that there was not one of these passages that came from me to my utmost memory, with the least bitter reflection upon any, but were the mere harmless daughters of invention; nevertheless, if the Mother be froward, the Child must do so no more.  
And now I appeal to every godly heart; to take off from me, as to their assent, this rash Censure, seeing there is none can be judge or witness herein, but God and my conscience, who as to these particulars do clear me; yet though I know nothing by myself herein, but my own fears, am I not justified, for there are many others may condemn me, without flying to his mercy. If my heart had not warmth, or zeal enough for some passages, nor establishment for others, nor worth enough to suffer some things in my Prefacer. Forgive, O Lord, the iniquity of thy servant, who is more ashamed of his sin, than to confess his shame, which none eyes see, but thine. And let not these scruples of my weak soul come in derision, but let me be contented yet to become more vile, while all applause of men, and vainglory, fall down at thy feet, and give up the ghost unto thy glory.   

Sect. 2 PAge 5. He comes to my Text. Mr Humphrey's subject is Free-Admission, his ground is Mat. 26.27. with Mark 14.23. Christ's precept, Drink you all of it; and example, in admitting Judas.  
Ans. Sir, I acknowledge it, this is my ground, and it is holy ground, while I see the prints, and kiss the footsteps of my Saviour in it. Against this, he first lays down reasons, that judas did not receive, and then supposing he did, that it is not a sufficient ground for my admission. I will answer both; his Reasons are five that he did not receive.  
1. Because Christ knew him to be an hypocrite, reprobate, etc.  
Ans. Compare this with p. 9 and It was not fit, says he, Christ acting as a Minister, nay, he could not p. 11. be both judge and witness, etc. Note it, and put them together; in one place, Christ cannot give judas the Sacrament, and in the other, he cannot deny it him.  
2. Because Christ's blood was shed for remission of their sins that received.  
Ans. And not for our sins only, says one of the Receivers, 1 Jo. 2, 3. but for the sins of the whole World, and so for judas. Both these come under the point of Universal redemption, which we may safely hold, as to the visible Church, so far as reaches to the tenor and tender of the Conditional Covenant, though not of the Absolute, or Election.  
3. Because Christ promised to drink Wine in his Father's Kingdom with those that received.  
Ans. But it is not said with All of them. This reason is as good as Didimus' Christ did not appear to his Disciples, because he also was not with them. Who knows not that a thing may be predicated of a company in general, which yet is not applicable to every individual, as in 2 Thess. 1.3, 4. with 2 Thess. 3. 11-1 Cor. 1.5.7. with 1 Cor. 3.3. & c? which likewise reaches the second reason.  
4. Because judas Went out, Jo. 13.30.  
Ans. The Margin of your Bibles upon the first verse, points you to Mat. 26.2. that this Supper was two days before the Passeover, which I have stood upon; yet will not be the more confident, because he is so ingenuous not to disprove it. I shall here only take notice (that no just offence may be taken if I say, some men bear a good will to this opinion) how for the exclusion of judas, the most make a Dimissory Supper, after the Passeover, whereas some can find in their hearts (whom he approves) to have a Common Supper before, to do it for them. But how unlikely is it, says our Godwin, when they had a whole Lamb to eat between twelve of them, that they should have besides, one, or two other Suppers?  
5. Because all Christ's gracious expressions were allayed with exceptions while judas was present.  
Ans. What, All? Did Christ never speak graciously to judas amongst the rest? Pray see at leisure; and as for those Texts of Io. 6.10. Io. 13.10. he compares with the passages at this Supper, I shall say as joseph, It is not in me, God shall give an answer to these texts in peace. In the first, Christ tells them, judas was a devil, yet says he, I have chosen him. In the other, he says, All of them were not clean; he spoke it of judas, yet he washes his feet. So here he tells them he will betray him, yet communicates with them: See how sweetly my adversary makes for us. So gracious is the temper Jesus Christ, he refuses none so far as they come into him, in reality, or in profession.  
And thus having answered Mr. Drakes five reasons, which, p. 5. he tells us seem to him very weighty and convincing; Now you shall have Mr. D. himself answer them, p. 97. judas being 1. An Eminent Professor,2. A very knowing person,3. Not legally convinced of scandal, I do not see how he could be denied the Sacrament. If he see no reason why he should be denied it, his first reason then, Christ knew him to be a Hypocrite, (depending only on this ground, that he might not be admitted because such) is no reason; and his other four no reasons; but in effect he does as good as tell us thus. There are reasons indeed brought to prove that Judas received not the Sacrament, but for his part he can see no reason in them.  
Pag. 7. He reckons up many Authors (quoting Gelaspi) for this opinion; to which I Answer, as the Philosopher being persuaded to believe in the God Neptune, by one showing him those many votive tablets were hung up to him in memorial of those that had escaped Shipwreck, answered, but where are the relics of all those that were drowned? So say I, the Reverend Gelaspi reckons up here these Authors that were of opinion, judas received not the Sacrament, but what are these to all them, that were of opinion he did receive it? I reverence Mr. Gelaspi, I respect Mr Drake, I much more reverence those many Authors, but I do not value them at the rate of Saint Mark, or that one text, They all drank of it.  
But All he says, p. ibid. is put for all present, and twelve for eleven, quoting for it 1 Cor. 15.5. where it is said, he was seen of all the twelve, by Roundness of number.  
Ans. If All be put for all present, than it is put for the whole twelve, for the twelve sat down with him. But that twelve should be put for eleven, I think there is none that can but tell twenty, will believe him. His argument is this, because twelve is put for eleven, when there was but eleven, therefore twelve must be put for eleven, when there was twelve.  
Page 8. He cannot but acknowledge the force of Saint Luke 22.21. where you may see how easily one text can confute ye, his five Arguments, and six and twenty Authors. Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, is at the Table. He Answers, 1. judas might be present, and yet not receive, but this he Won't stand upon. Alas! what pity 'tis, which would stand him in so much stead and he can't make it good,2. He is very peremptory, that S. Luke Writes per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was not present as Matthew was, etc.  
Ans. Though Luke was not present, yet was he guided I believe by the same holy Spirit, that knew what he wrote. And pray look on Matthew and Mark, both, we find this story brought in with the Copulative And, And as they were eating, And as they did eat, which manifestly conjoins these two things together, to wit the giving the Sacrament, and telling of judas treason, at the same Supper. Matthew and Mark may be true, whether Luke writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or no; but Luke can never be made true, unless judas hand was at Table, what Table? the Lord's Table, the Supper, where was the Lord's Supper, in the foregoing verses. Although the Scripture sometimes puts a whole story after another, which in order of time was before it, yet where shall we find such an Hysterologie, as takes a piece of a former story, and joins it to another, as a part of it, to which if it be taken to belong, it becomes a manifest falsehood? we will not abate one jot or tittle of the truth of St. Luke's Gospel.  
P. 9 But suppose judas was present, and received, 1. The Apostles scarce ever suspected him, though discovered.  
Ans. What then? It is manifest by this, that Christ and his Disciples did not judge it necessary, to look into judas, to find out whether he lived in any known sin. They examine themselves, and say, Is it I? Now how will Mr. Dake's trial, that is a means to vex hypocrites (as he words it) by prying into others, and uncasing them, p. 49. & 117. be suitable to this humble temper of the Disciples, and practise of Christ?  
2. judas had not yet actually betrayed Christ, and it is absurd to punish any for a future sin.  
Ans. Compare this with p. 102. where he tells us the rule he goes by, and keeps men away (he says) to prevent scandal, also the sin of the unworthy receiver, who would else murder Christ, etc. Mark it, Christ may not keep away judas, because he had not actually betrayed him, but Mr. Drake must needs keep men away for fear they should betray him. It is absurd to suspend any for a future sin, and yet he suspends all, to prevent the sin they have not committed. Nay, this supposal only of a future sin, is the very ground of his Excommunication, when he debars them nothing but actual receiving in any ordinance.  
3. Christ acting as a Minister, It was not fit, It would have been an ill precedent, etc.  
Ans. I am sorry to see, that prejudice, and interest of opinion, should ever raise men to this high degree of imagination, That it was not fit for Jesus Christ, the great Master of Discipline, to take so much power over his Disciples, as the Presbytery over their Congregations: This is a sad passage, to see what a fluce this man has opened to let in the streams of contempt come in upon them.  
It is far otherwise with us, seeing none are suspended, but 1. such as suspend themselves, by refusing due trial.  
Ans. I will ask him, Suppose a religious man, nay, suppose twenty, upon grounds of conscience, or prudence, will not submit to his Trial, yet offer themselves at the Sacrament, Dare he refuse to administer it to them, and knows nothing else by them? If I should do so, seeing I am called to speak my conscience, I should fear it were a sin. Alas Sir! Will you not let men serve God, and save their Souls?  
2. Such as upon trial are found unworthy, etc.  
Ans. But I pray, have you any thing first to allege against them? If you have not, how will you bring them to trial? If they come willingly, and you find them unfit, and so suspend them; than you go about to punish them again for a future sin. The truth is, if you are really so tender in this business, you may repair to your people in that humble way of admonishing them with tears, and from house to house, Acts 20.20. I say not you are bound to this, de jure, that you necessarily sin else; but de facto, I think it might be done with more profit (if that be all you intent) and good will, as unto them. I would rather allow you twenty Elders to watch over, and instruct men for the Sacrament, than two only to turn away any from it.  
P. 10. He argues Contra; None of the Apostles were ignorant or scandalous; therefore judas and their receiving cannot warrant any such others.  
Ans. This is not true; for indeed we shall find both ignorance in the Apostles, and scandal in Judas. Here the Lion and the Calf are down together, and a little Child may lead them.  
For the disciples ignorance, it is manifest; The true saving knowledge of remission of sin, lies in Christ's resurrection, Ro. 4.25. 1 Cor. 15.17. but they were so wholly ignorant even of this grand point, that they knew not the Scripture that he must rise again, Io. 20.9. Nay, what think you, if they understood not the point of his death neither? Judge impartially, what knowledge could they have, at, and of this ordinance, if they conceived him not as crucified, 1 Cor. 11.26? Now I pray compare Mark 9.31.32. Lu. 9.44.45. with Lu. 24.7, 8. and it is said plainly, They understood not the things Christ taught them about his death, and remembered them not till he was risen. Add hereunto, we find no mention of the Sacrament, or forewarning of Christ, before the institution; so that whatsoever they did understand of the nature and use hereof, it was only what the present words did afford them. From whence we may resolve, that though people are but little knowing even in some fundamentals, and have but a rude implicit faith (I mean the word orthodoxly) and good affections, they may be admitted to this Supper; and I think moreover, that our preparation Sermons, and present Exhortations (which should be about the main) with our prayers and solemnity, may clear our own souls in this pattern of Christ, as to the sufficiency of their instruction, for edification; though where prudence directs to more, if without bondage, I humbly commend it.  
For judas scandal be pleased to look in Mat. 26.2.14, 15, 16. Mar. 14. 1— 12. ●nd you find it apparent, that judas made his bargain with the high Priests about betraying Christ, two nights before the Passeover, so that, that line of his where he says, Judas had not yet betrayed Christ, any more than Peter had denied him, is a very untruth; And as for the knowledge or divulging of it, Christ himself did (I think more than once) reveal it. But now, if there had been any Examination requisite, as Mr. Drake pretends, about their visible worthiness, to search whether any of them lived in a known sin, would not Christ have been as exact in doing his Ministerial duty, as this Man? Can not he have sent but two of his disciples unto the Priests to find him out, and witness against him, and might not john and Peter (who call themselves so) serve for Elders? And I pray now, is it visible worthiness upon trial, or visible membership, that Christ went by in his admission? You may even pity the lamentable case he here has brought himself, that he has nothing to help it, but confess, 'tis true, Judas had betrayed Christ in purpose, and compact already, but Christ charges him not with that, but foresels his actual treachery; that is, judas indeed was actually a scandalous person, but Christ did not charge it on him as as bar to his admission. He did not, that were enough, therefore it is not necessary. Yet farther, I pray take notice of the words in Matt. 26.24. Lu. 22.22. and they are spoken in the present tense, we must not yield a jot of the truth and purport of Christ's words, when Christ says, One of you shall betray me, and Verily the Son of man is betrayed, they are both true and about the same treachery; Shall, as to the apprehension, and Is betrayed, as to his fact passed in his agreement, which is said therefore (while Christ will yield to it) to be in effect done. What is here wanting now, but an opening this, and proceeding against him? and yet in the very nick he leaves it, Is not our cause plain? Besides, what man will not judge, that judas treason (which Christ tells them of) consisted in his contrivance, bargain, taking money, and selling Christ, as actually, as his coming with the Officers into the garden? So that it will be in vain to strive against the truth: If Christ's example herein be a sufficient rule for our walking, we must be content, and willingly embrace the humble peaceable way of Free-admission.  
P. 11. He only repeats the question, Whether Judas ought to be suspended? (for as for St. Peter, he wrongs him much, to join him with judas, one's sin being by design, and already on foot; the others, un-imagined before, and merely out of present infirmity,) and he answers, No. 1. Because his sin was not committed. Ans. I say that is not true, unless judas selling Christ, be no sin with him. 2. Because Christ could not be both witness, judge, and Executioner, etc. which we had before, and again more fully, p. 90. Christ as a Minister had no juridical power, to turn him, or any away, etc. Nor any, it is bravely spoken; you may read forwards, and the sum is this; The Lord jesus could not turn away judas from the Sacrament, because the Presbytery was not settled. Selah!  
He that at the great day shall be judge and Party, and tells us Io. Though I bear witness of myself, my witness is true, that is, is both Witness and Party, may, I hope, be both judge and Witness, without absurdity.  
As for the question, Whether he acted as a Minister, or Mediator? it is vain; for he acted as both. He could not institute an Ordinance for his Church, but as he was Head and Mediator, nor could he administer it, but as a Minister; the same numerical actions were both the institution, and the administration. So that, let us but look these passages full in the face, and fix wistly on them, they are quite out of countenance, and I shall need no more to put this man to a mild rebuke, than the gracious words of our Saviour Christ; The servant is not above his Master, nor the disciple above his Lord; It is enough, that the servant be as his Master, and the disciple as his Lord.  
As for Christ's temporal refusing to condemn the Adulteress, it is impertinent as to this his Ecclesiastical command, institution, and example. And for his administering only to Ministers in an upper room, it proves we may so administers; too, if need be; as his admitting judas, proves we may admit of our Chruch-members; but if he argues therefore we must do no otherwise, here is a clear negative from an affirmative, which is no consequence.  
Whereas therefore he tells us in the issue, State the case aright, (when he plainly states it wrong as to judas fact) Mr. Humphreys has made a wide and wild inference, and entreats him to take a more pertinent Text, or else he shall scarce prove himself, as he is styled, a Master of Arts. I do appeal to men's hearts, whether as they are inclinable to judas receiving, they find them not generally, standing or wavering to this Free-admission. I shall quote only our learned Hammond, Prac. Cat. mihi. p. 334. where ask the question, What we gather from this circumstance of Christ's admitting judas? answers, That those that are Christian professors, may be lawfully admitted, though their hearts are full of Villainy. They indeed, he says, are to repent before they come, but it shall be no sin to the Minister, or Communicants. So that, for the sufficiency of my ground, you have not only (pardoning such dulness) the opinion of a Master of Arts, but a Doctor of Divinity; and if you look into Mr. Prynne (that worthy Gentleman) a bunch of Fathers, They All drank of it.   

Sect. 3 MY text or ground being cleared, we come to the state, or meaning of my question.  
P. 12. For the managing his cause, Mr. Humphrey premises, 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 the Excommunicate, and no others, etc.  
Before I pass, for the fuller opening this, I must desire you to consider these particulars;  
1. I say Within the Church, in opposition to Heathen, because it is Church-membership (limited only with this capacity) I hold, that give; our right to this Ordinance, as other outward privileges. The Sacraments may be considered Precise, precisely in themselves, and it is Church-membership, I say, or an external Covenant relation, that suffices to the validity thereof; or Complexè, complexly, with the entire fruits and benefits of the Covenant, and so indeed there is no less than a justifying faith required for the obtaining of them. Our question, truly, is not concerning what is necessary in order to other ends to the Receiver, that he may be saved, (so final perseverance is necessary) but what is necessarily antecedent to the external Sacrament. And between these two, A Covenant relation visible, and truth of Grace, which is invisible, there is no middle thing in the Scripture enjoined for the rule of our admission. A visible member of the Church, and a member of the visible Church are but the same.  
2. I explain those that are uncapable in the first sense, in saying, by nature, and, that can discern no meaning hereof; (as I have added) which I do clearly to distinguish, Infants, the distracted, and natural fools, from the barely ignorant of age, who are capable to learn, and having the present means of knowledge, if it be not sufficient herein for their edifying, it is merely their own fault, and upon their own account. And there are two plain reasons for the distinguishing of these, as to this Ordinance, wherein the body of the Lord is to be discerned; First, Because this very discerning cannot be the duty of the former, who are naturally uncapable, it being an undeniable rule thus far, Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. And Secondly, Because signs cannot work upon the un-intelligent (which they wholly are) to receive any Real effect by them. It is otherwise with the latter; for, 1. It is their duty both to get knowledge, and to come. 2. They have an understanding capacity, that they may be wrought upon by it, and if they be not, it is their sin. These reasons I may tell Mr. Drake, are so ordinary and solid, that they will be as two gravel stones in the teeth of his arguments, while he champs upon them.  
3. For the uncapable in the second sense, (which word is not so proper here, but you may excuse it) The Excomminicate, I do humbly allow two sorts of them; ipso jure, or De facto. The Excommunicate de facto, are such who are both convicted, and have legally sentence passed on them. The Excommunicate ipso jure, I count, All such, though not juridically sentenced, whose crimes are open, notoriously offensive, and actual, so that there needs no proceeding secundum allegata & probata, while the conviction is manifest, and they can plead no repentance. If you will not allow me my terms, I pray abate none of my sense, and I care not. Such was the uncleanness of Zimri and Cosby, persons stark staring drunk, as he mentions; Such are Incestuous Marriages; Those that come newly reaking out of open enormities; Such I think are any that shall publicly renounce Christ, or say they won't believe in him; And it may be those, who being in not orious malice, will not forgive, but profess their obstinacy. Upon this account only, I am apt to take it, Our Church hath held such might be kept back by the Minister, when he saw it fit in his conscience, to do good by it; that is, if the shame were like to move them to repentance, satisfy the godly, and be a good example unto others. Otherwise I do not hold the Minister or Church is always bound to take cognizance hereof, for what has been shown already so plainly in the pattern of Christ, And this I speak, 1. To intimate a difference between those that are excommunicable upon trial, which the un-convict may be; and the ipso jute excommunicate, that are convict, not sentenced. For so long as the case is dubitable, & needs disquisition, 1. We are to incline on charity's side. 2. We cannot act in faith to turn them away. 3. To say you do not deny their right (de jure, as members,) yet the facto suspend them, seems to me a wrong, and a flaw to be made up. 2. To show myself reducible at the least beck of the Church, so long as she forbears to set up her thresholds with God's thresholds, and her posts with God's posts. And here I must complain of my opposer, Was not these words (unless excommunicate ipso jure, or de facto) p. 24. in all three Editions? and why then does he so overly and contemptibly bring an odium on me, by being willing not to see, or understand them? Truly this is a very wrong; for while he takes things still in the worst interpretation, he uses my book like another Hanun, He cuts off the half of the beard, and its carments in the middle. so sends away the poor thing bare, and greatly ashamed.  
For those that are capable, I consider this capacity in regard of the Church or Minister's Admission, and this I undertake, or in regard of the receivers own coming, which is more questionable. In fine, the sum and scope of my opinion came to this; As for the Receivers part, I durst not be too forward to determine; Let every man look well what he has to do; But as to the Church or Minister, I held, and do hold, that all Church-members that are neither Unintelligent, or Excommunicate, ought freely to be admitted to this Ordinance; Some cases in spiritual, and temporal prudence, being considered.  
Against this position of mine, he has some 5. exceptions, which I will note, and answer in their order.  
The first is, That Infants and the distracted, as deaf persons, are to come unto the Word, therefore they are not uncapable of the Ordinances, p. 13, 14.  
Ans. For the deaf he speaks miraculously well. For Infants, without question, it were better they were kept at home, than to disturb the Church, but only for the sake of them that tend them. His texts Deut. 29. etc. are good to prove their convenanting by their Parents in baptism, where there is only a passive reception, and the benefits relative; but as to the ordinance of hearing, it must be actual, and they are uncapable of any Real work by it. So that for conversion (if he was out of his charm) which is of unwilling to be made willing, in such a passive sense of his, (speaking of it, Really, not Relatively) as to be wrought on the untelligible, I think himself will dislike, when he hath better thought of it. For the distracted, if he will needs have them come too, I would wish him to Preach over his book to them; but to take heed of tender consciences, lest it make them so. And now whereas he doubts not, but the judicious will easily reach him, it is very likely the height of his understanding herein, may be taken, without a jacobs' staff.  
His second is, That Infants and the distracted are as capable of the Sacrament, as the ignorant are, though of age. We will take this in his own terms. Next for the Lords Supper, I ask Mr. Humphreys, why are Infants capable of Baptism, and not of the Lords Supper? If he say because they cannot examine themselves, nor discern the Lords body, etc. Then I answer, No more can grossly ignorant persons, etc.  
Ans. Sir, you must excuse me, I shall not answer you altogether so, but 1. Because Infants are naturally uncapable: In Baptism there is required only a passive, but in the Supper an actual reception. 2. Because it is not their duty to examine themselves, and discern the Lords body; Let members of age be never so grossy ignorant (& not Idiots) they are bound to get knowledge, examine themselves, and be fit for receiving, and so come worthily, though not unworthily; but Infants are not bound to be fit for receiving, to know, discern, or so to come at all. And this I dare say is such an answer as will put him quite out. 3. Because signs cannot work really upon the un-intelligent; Relative grace is conveyed to Infants, suo modo by Baptism, but Real grace cannot be wrought by any Ordinance, upon those that can discern no meaning of them, which yet is here, as at the word, prayer, etc. required of us, that it should be wrought and acted in us. I would have some men know, the Corinth's sin of not discerning the Lords body, was more of carelessness or profaneness, than bare ignorance. There is as much difference between Infants and Ignorants, as between a Do not, and a Cannot; If the one does not, yet they ought; but the other cannot, and are excused; Ignorants may not, but Infants cannot be wrought on by it. If the man had not been too slighting of me, he would never have run himself into the contempt of so many repetitions of this Infant-passage. I will reckon them as I go. Here is once.  
His third Exception (waving what is in the way to its place) is against these words, ' And no others. If none others (says he) must be kept away, what thinks he of persons infected with the plague, etc.  
Ans. Truly I think M. Drake might have been more serious, and that it may be I have been happy to leave out such impertinencies, that he might have something to put in. Who knows not if men be in a journey, or sick, they keep from the Church on a civil account? with the like. Thus does his silver become dross, his wine mixed with water, and instead of an Amphora (currente rotâ) you have an earthen pitcher.  
For his other instances I am willing to grant (as I have but now expressed myself) where there are scandals, 1. Notorious, that they offend the Congregation,2. So open, that they need no proof or debate,3. In the present fact, so that no repentance can be pleaded, such may be dealt withal, as ipso jure Excommunicate. If you shall demand of me a substantial proof, for yielding thus much, I must answer you, the Church is of age, ask it. What she in prudence hath allowed, I am ready to think, there may be good reason for, though I know it not; We are to make the fairest construction, and it may be, she would hereby teach her Children to account; revere, and dread the ground or cause of Excommunication, no less than the censure of it. Yet if any here shall make use of this confession of mine to the tenderness of others, so poorly as Mr. Drake does of the un-intelligent, to plead against me only what I yield to them, as it will be an argument of their weakness, so shall it fortify me with one proviso more, which Christ's example does afford, that, though I grant that such as these (thus strictly set down) may be kept off for the present, yet are we to choose to do that still, in Christian prudence, which is like to tend most to the party's reformation, the people's good, and the honour of God.  
His fourth is upon these words of mine, If any come in as professing, etc. p. 16, 17, 18. Here he overreaches the word, As; I say not All that come do make me profession, I think there is no necessity of it, much less, that the Minister is to seek after an Evidence of their sincerity, which were a burden to break his heart; but I say, Every one that comes in, comes as a professor, His very coming is a profession of his covenanting with Christ. Even as the Soldiers repairing to his Colours is an acknowledging his Captain, and Office: So is our repairing to Christ's Ensigns, our profession of him, the pledge whereof is the Sacrament. For his appeal to myself then, I answer, I stand not on a verbal, but a vital profession, and this is either Real, the search whereof I leave only to God; or Visible, and such is their coming. Church-membership (without this incapacity) is all the evidence we can look after. To admit any Heathens into Church-membership, requires their declaration or confession, but as for Church-members, I say this is their profession, to wait on their duty.  
I do acknowledge a profession, and a signified profession, (our Church was wont to secure this by the Creed, which I think were good still to be used) yet dare I not say any other way of that signification is absolutely necessary, than this coming only; for I desire to know where in the Gospel, after initiation into the Church, there is any other signification of men's being Professors, than their bare meeting, or assembling themselves together at the Ordinances? So that if pious sober men shall yet think it necessary to press some trial, and declaration of the faith of their Congregations to them, it can be urged, only upon the account of laying a ground for Reformation, and then, for aught I see, they must begin at Church-membership, and not at the Sacrament.  
For Mr. Drakes own undertaking, it is notable, Let the people but makes their profession before the Eldership, and we shall undertake to fit them for the-Sacrament, etc. See p. 58. and there he adds unto this, In a few months, our end being the preparation of all sorts, we dare undertake to fit the meanest. Now I pray compare this, with his language of me, p. 92. where I having said, I endeavour this only, Doth he not know (quoth he) that one fit or worthy, must be, 1. Converted,2. Unblameable,3. Actually prepared? Lay this together, and you shall see the feats of this man, that will regenerate you a Congreation, make them unblameable, and actually prepare them (of all sorts) within a few months: At least he will warrant you, before he has done with them, if they will but submit to be ruleà by him.  
His last exception is at my doubtfulness on the part of the Receivers, p. 16. His words indeed are too Masterly, but the difficulty is serious. I perceive in his judgement he makes this no question, but that while a man finds himself unregenerat, he must keep away, though he has examined himself and prepared for it. I dare not run down this stream with him. Our rule is this, let a man (not only, let the regenerate man) examine himself, and so let him eat, (not, so let him abstain.) Some interpret the words Ita probet, ut abstineat; Let him examine, that if he be not worthy, he must forbear; Others, it a probet, ut etiam edat, Let him examine, but so also that he eat. I incline to the last; my ground is this, If a thing be evil, because it is done, it must be avoided; but if it be not evil in the substance of the thing, (as no precept can be) but for the defects of the Doer, the thing still must be done, and the Doer reform. If to avoid this, Mr. Drake say, this is not his duty, I pray God forgive me, or forgive him, for I think it a grievous presumption, to make void a command of God, through his tradition.   

Sect. ANd here I might keep close, but I will open my soul, for it is melted like water, which I am ready to pour out before the feet of Jesus Christ, or any of his servants that will gather it up. I find the temper of most tender Christians, when they search their hearts for an habitual preparation required to this Sacrament, they resolve into doubts about their coming: For while our Divines do as it were strive to lay down the most searching marks of these graces, and our poor frail hearts cannot reach up to them, which the more strict we judge usually, the more spiritual, they begin to fail us, and if we go on, we are ever convinced of the want of them, and so doubt of our unworthiness.  
Now if we must hold the Sacrament to be a means of grace only to the Regenerate, and that none may come without these Sacramental graces, or thus habitually prepared, we cannot approach to this holy Table, but the terrors of the Lord must fall upon us, as trembling to be guilty of the blood of Christ, and eat our damnation. O sir! It may be the Lord has cleared your interest, that you can lay the hand of your faith upon Christ's shoulder, and say he is mine; and in the confidence of David, Gilead is mine. Ephraim is mine, Manasses is mine, this mark is mine, and that Evidence mine, here is my new name, and here the white stone. And now you may think it easy to answer these difficulties, not knowing the fears and doubts of others, when they cannot lay to heart the commonest signs, as Universal obedience, and Pure love of God, but instead of obedience, they find universal corruption, and instead of living only to God's glory, in the best of their actions. they suspect hypocrisy; So that they never hope to see the face of one Sacrament more in peace, unless they may come to Jesus Christ, as wholly unworthy of him. Thou hast ordained peace, thou hast done all our works in us and for us. O my Saviour! thou knowest this is an argument not fetched from mere invention; this is an argument is sown in men's tears, and it is fetched from the sighs and bleedings of many thousands that are made sad, that should not be sad, whilst they have received their wounds!, in the house of their friends. Alas! let us but seriously consider, either we must put this business over with a slight Examination, and connive at our failings, being ready to presume these graces are in us, because we dare not open our eyes to look fully upon them; and if we do thus, we shall bring security upon ourselves, and the blood of our own souls; or we must deal impartially, & conclude against ourselves, we have not these evidences, if then we come unqualified, the blood of Christ will be upon us. Nay if a man should be regenerate, yet doubts, and judges himself unregenerate, so long as he hold there is none may come hither but the regenerate, He that doubts of his eating, is damned if he eat. So that there is nothing left for poor doubting Christians, but an everlasting gulf to swallow them up. And are any of us Ministers, that are not in a capacity to abstain from this Ordinance, what will become of us? The Lord knows, how few of our people are truly regenerate; and shall we think every one that is not, must necessarily become guilty of the murder of Christ, (as he uses that term) and eat his own judgement? What a sad apprehension, what fears, and afflictions, must this bring on our spirits, whilst we do but as it were gather our poor people, to receive their damnation. Good Gods! What a deal of blood shall we bring on our own souls? Who can lie under that terrible guilt that is necessarily brought on us, by this dreadful opinion? Neither have we any way here to stand up for our lives, and the lives of our flocks, but to allow this Ordinance, as well as others, a means of regeneration, to examining Christians. For my part, should I believe otherwise, I should set my face against my Congregation, and bid them take heed, Here be these marks; and these upon them; and these upon them upon those; Cannot you find them in you? Beware, touch not a crumb, upon pain of your lives; Come you not hither, there is scarce a man of you but will be sure to be damned. Now let this but effectually enter into their hearts, and we shall leave the Sacrament, as the Jews did the Woman, alone with Jesus Christ, and while every one is conscious of his own corruption, we must even go out most of us, one by one, and be contented to have our names written in the dust.  
For some ease then of those perplexities, I shall humbly venture to look over that text of 1 Cor. 11. from the 17. verse to the end, which I think is the ground of them. And in the delivery of my thoughts, I beseech the Lord to guide me by his grace, that I may do no hurt, nor offend any; and I advise my Readers not to trust to my judgement, for I have no might to go out against these difficulties, I know not what to do, but mine eyes are upon him. Now there are 7 or 8 things, unto which I have a little to say, upon this Scripture.  
The first is, concerning the scope or argument of it, which is open. The Apostle is reproving them, among other vices, about their disorder at the Sacrament, which, while they mingled with their Love-feasts, they were ready to be drunken some of them, as at an Ordinary. Upon this he tells them of the Sacred institution, the sin, and danger of such do, and rectifies them in it, etc.  
The second is, concerning such high expressions, which we find not lightly in other places. And there are two grounds, I conceive, in pressing certain precepts, sometimes above others. Either the Eminency of the duty, or defects of the doers. For the former, I would not have men think St. Paul advances this ordinance, which he speaks but lowly of, 1 Cor. 10.4. above others, as Prayer, the one being only instituted, the other natural worship. But the latter is manifest; Here is a Church-sin, that sin is making that common, which was sacred, the using this Sacrament but as their Love-feasts, which were not divine, and this profanation brought down temporal judgements on them. Their carriage was so notorious, that it makes him speak so deeply of this sin, and danger thereof, to reclaim them from it, attempering his language to his occasion. For I am persuaded, if he had been to write this Epistle to many of the Church of England, as to Corinth, he would not have set it down so dreadfully, but rather forewarned us of superstition.  
The third is, Concerning the nature of this Sacrament, and that we find clearly to be a Memorial of Christ's death, or the new Covenant made by it, which we acknowledge, and show forth in our receiving. Here may be two notes, 1. Whereas the Apostle undertakes to deliver down to us whatsoever he had received of the Lord; There are many poor souls may discharge themselves of some trouble about the notions of sealing, and the like, when they sink too deep into them. 2. Whereas a Remembrance is of something only that is past; It is a question (I am not assertive) how the Sacrament is a token of the Covenant, any more than as to that most free, absolute, general act of Grace, in Gods so loving the world, that he gave his Son for a Covenant, Jo. 3.16. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, or that there is a new Covenant made in my blood. So that on God's part, it may be A testimony of Grace, in this universal act or grant thereof; and on Man's part, a Note of his profession, that he believes this, and looks for salvation only in his name. Neither in leaving the nature of the Sacrament open, need we abate any thing from the holy improvement of the use of it.  
The fourth thing is, What is this Eating and drinking unworthily? which phrase Paul himself opens in another I will speak next of. I shall now distinguish between a Worthy Receiver, and Receiving worthily. A worthy Receiver I shall account him only, that is habitually qualifyed with the Sacramental graces, or finds the condition of the Covenant actually in him: A receiving worthily, lies mainly I think in coming with reverence; This reverence I will conceive both in regard of the dignity of the institution, and due consideration of ourselves, that we make our address to it according to the state of our souls.  
To open myself, I will suppose (though what I last spoke may put it to a quaere) as others do, that the Sacrament is a seal of the Covenant, even in application to single persons. Now then there must be two things, or parts of it sealed, salvation to him that truly believes and reputes, and damnation to him that does not. Promissio (says Calvin) non minuùs it ā incredulis minetur, quam gratiam fidelibus offered. Mar. 16.16. Now if a man finds true faith & repentance in himself, he receives worthily, in applying the benefits promised to him. But if a man finds not his regeneration, and that he does not sincerely repent of his sins, he is then to come in the fear of God, applying to himself that part of the Covenant that belongs to him, being ready to lay to heart his sad estate, and certainty of damnation, without a true and total submission unto Christ, who only is offered to him on that condition. In the application of the right part of the Covenant to a man's proper estate, lies the very essence of that conviction, which the Spirit works in us at our conversion.  
The fifth thing is, What is the meaning of that phrase Not discerning the Lord's body; and it is the not putting a difference between this sacred, and a common table. I pray mark it, v. 29. and it is plainly exegetical of the former, as if he should say, by their eating and drinking unworthily, I mean this profane regardlessnesse of theirs, that they have no more respect to this Bread and Wine, than their ordinary meals.  
And this is farther clear by that illative Wherefore, v. 27. while the Apostle argues from the end of receiving, which is to show forth Christ's death, against their receiving unworthily, that is, without consideration of that end. He inquires not into the estate of the person, whether regenerate or not, but looks to their manner of receiving, because they came not to the Sacrament as a memorial of Christ, as a sacred thing, and holy institution. If the meaning of either of the phrases were to come without faith or regeneration (as some too harshly press it) than the Corinth's, that were punished for this sin, must have been not only chastened, but condemned with the World, which they were not. v. 32. The ve●y direct sin then of this place, is their irreverence, and monstrous profaneness, which I am persuaded ought not to be laid to the charge of every unregenerate Christian, if he comes humbly hither, in the sight of his condition.  
The sixth thing is, The import of that saying, He shall he guilty of the body and blood of Christ; & it is no more than if he should say, if you receive these holy signs so regardlessely, you offer an indignity to the things signified; As you commit a crime against your Prince, in defacing his Arms, or Royal Statue, wherein, there is a latitude considerable in the sin, according to the more or less evil usage thereof; and I do not approve the drawing out these words, to that harsher language of Murdering Christ, or the like, seeing there is a vast difference between being guilty of Christ's blood in the unworthy Receiver, and those expressions of crucifying the Lord of Life, and trampling under foot the blood of the Covenant, Heb. 10.29. etc.  
The seventh thing is, What is that duty, Let a man examine himself? Some read it, Let a man approve himself, and take it as to these particulars only in reforming them. I have been apt to think, Let a man examine himself; and so eat, is as if he should say, Let him so eat, as considering with himself his own estate, and purport of this Ordinance, in suitable meditations, and applications of it. But I willingly lie down unto the labours of our Divines, who generally make this self-examination to be a searching into our hearts, and our estates; about our sins, in looking over the Commandments, to repent of them; and about our graces, in looking over our evidences, that we come with an habitual and actual preparation. Only I must lay down three cautions. 1. Take heed of standing too much upon this, if you find it in you. When you come as one worthy, you may challenge the benefits of the Covenant, upon bringing the condition; but if you do so, look well to that condition, for if you appeal unto Caesar, to Caesar you must go; there are some might have been saved, if they had not appealed to their condition. 2 If you find not these graces, and are grieved in the want of them, let not that stave you off from Christ; But humble yourself, resolve against sin, and think I shall be so much the more beholding to my Saviour, not only for his benefits, but also for my condition. Though it be faith only can receive any thing from Christ, yet is the sense of our unworthiness, a proper qualification to bring us to him, both to receive that faith, and the benefits of it. 3. If thou findest thyself wicked, and living in sin, thou art to repent, and mayst defer thy coming upon resolution to prepare against next Sacrament; But if thou thinkest to go on in thy course, and so forbearest, I tell thee (as I judge) thou must come, and apply to thy soul, that part of the Covenant that is properly thine. Thou art to eat, and say with thyself, As this bread and Wine holds forth Christ and his benefits only upon condition, so it shows what I shall lose, and as sure as I eat and drink I shall be certainly damned, unless I repent, and leave these courses, for here is the seal unto the truth of God's word, and I yield unto it. Deut. 27.26. All the people shall say, Amen.  
The last thing is, What is this Eating and Drinking damnation? and it is the incurring, either with some, a present temporal punishment, (and so the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and sense too, v. 32.) or, with others, the merit, desert, or gift of eternal. Both which, nevertheless, a due judging ourselves, through God's mercy may prevent, v. 31. And here I must give you two distinctions, which you are to receive, as you intent to have peace in this thing.  
The former is, between a general, and particular receiving damnation. In general, Divines say certainly, Every unregenerate man receives his damnation as he reads, hears, prays, & works his damnation in every thing he does, Tit. 1.15. which things nevertheless must be done. The meaning is, I take it, that nothing he does, or can do comes up to the condition of the Covenant, but there is some failing and sin, which must be accounted for at the great day, and so it is said to increase their damnation, though their account would be yet greater (we must conceive) if they should not do these duties at all. But for this particular, Eating damnation, which is the effect of the unworthiness of this place, incurring a more peculiar, or deeper guilt upon a person, may not be charged, I think, upon any, but upon those that come so irreverently, without respect to this holy institution, that they sin in the very fact, in using it as common thing, which ought not to be done. An unregenerate man may come Christianly, though but in an outward conformity to this Ordinance, it is our duty; but he may not come presumptuously as to a common Table, and profane it.  
The other distinction I must commend to tender spirits, is between Eating damnation, and Sealing damnation. The one is the effect of irreverent unworthiness provoking God; The other is only a confirming, and attestation of the truth of the Covenant to every man according to his condition, which is much for the honour, and owning of God. Methinks my heart is enlarged, and I must tell you, these two things must be separated as far as Heaven and Hell; I wish there were some further distance, that the plague of the one might never trouble you under the notion of the other, which has eat unto our very hearts, that I am afraid men won't receive this manifest truth. It is a most precious sweet mercy of God when he denounces judgement upon an impenitent sinner, to awaken his soul, and bring him to repentance; It is the very like, or same gracious act of his, in sealing to his word to set home that conviction, as it were using all means (as Christ did with Judas) to work upon him. Now it is likewise every man's duty (while God shows us the way, it must be so) that lives impenitently, to apply these threaten, to assure and seal them upon himself, and so to take that part of the Covenant (as I express it) that belongs to him. So that this thing, which has appeared so terrible to drive men from the Sacrament, that they do but seal or apply damnation to themselves, is the only thing of concernment for them to do in this estate, as they ever look to be converted and saved. O that every sinful Christian would but do this with due reverence, and a serious conscience, and I would assure him this sealing his damnation, is the only way to eat his salvation in the use hereof. If you ask here, But how then is Christ offered to such a man? I answer, Very well, as truly as he is preached in his threaten; Christ is never offered to any, but as wrapped up under the tenor of the Covenant, which contains both wrath, and life. In the Word and Sacrament, there is necessarily shown forth to the hypocrite what he shall lose, unless he will become sincere, as to the sound believer, what he shall have in the partaking of them. There is something sealed actually, and something potentially to every man; Actually the regenerate hath life sealed to him, but Potentially damnation, if he fall away from his faith; which though we believe he never shall, in respect of God's grace, yet as on his own part he is frail, this is a means to make him stand. An unregenerate man hath wrath actually sealed to him, but potentially, all Christ's benefits, which is as it were a voice behind him, that though he be in this present fearful estate, yet if he will but repent and believe, he may get out of it, and be saved. Thus do Judgement and Mercy interweave their forces to bring in a sinner unto Christ.  
And here may be removed that dreadful scruple of some poor Christians, who apprehend they have been unworthy, and there damnation has then been sealed, now the seal being sure, how can what is sealed ever be reversed? I answer, The alteration is made only in us, the Seal is the same, and what is sealed is the same. A man walks in one place, and is in the shade, he turns into another, and is in the shine; yet the Sun is the same: The Sacrament seals the Covenant, Man seals to his condition; while he walks not accordingly his damnation is sealed, when he reputes and does, his salvation; Actually and potentially both are sealed, and according to his walking, he hath the influence thereof, whether of the light of life, or shadow of death.  
There is one Iron only entered my soul, and it was this: If the Sacrament be a Seal, it does exhibit and convey something to the Receiver, and that to the unregenerate must be dangerous. Here then let us know, and arm ourselves, that Sacraments being only Moral Instruments, cannot convey any thing that is Real unto the soul by way of Obsignation, but only that which is Relative, making no change but as to our Estates, and relations to God; the very end or proper effect being chief to assure us thereof, I mean, make us more believe, consider, and lay them to heart, if good, for our comfort, if bad, for our conviction. Now this very assurance, as farther degrees of faith and love in the worthy Receiver, and hardness in the unworthy, which are Real things, are not externally exhibited, I say, by this sealing, but internally wrought or effected according to the acts and exercises of our Souls on those objects, that may be said thereby to have an influence on us. Now then, let an unregenerate man so come to the seal, that he lays close to heart his damnable condition, being the more humble and sensible of it, it has its very right effect upon him, and is a help towards his conversion, while it does not Physically convey God's wrath, for that it cannot, but Morally work only the sense of it on his Spirit, which if he let's wear off again, without amendment, his sin of hardening will lie therein, and not in his coming.  
And now for my part, if I have fallen on the truth, yet am I nothing, for it has been my fears and doubtings have even brought me to it, who must sadly confess myself to be such a truant to the proficiency of grace, that I am justly turned down unto the lowermost form of such poor sinners that are jealous, and do even question the sincerity of it. Amongst these, I have thought it safest, in coming to this Ordinance, to condemn my condition, and while I do so, methinks the Apostle speaks comfortably to me, If we judge ourselves, we shall not be judged. Poor souls! Is not this sweet to you? Let it enter into your hearts, when you come in your tears, as it were weltering hither; the very same place that has made you tremble in speaking so dreadfully of unworthiness, does yet assure you, but if you condemn yourselves as unworthy, you shall not be condemned; I would not for any thing that passage were left out. The meek jesus will never spurn at thee, when thou liest down before him. O my soul! whiles others are even embraced in Christ's arms, let me have but a hold of the hem of his garment; whiles they are as it were ravished with the kisses of his mouth, let me be but so happy to lick up the very dust that is at his feet; the least hem of his righteousness, the least dust of his mercy, shall have virtue enough in it to save me. For the close of this business, as to the part of the Receivers, which I must yet leave to be judged of those that are more able, I do humbly beseech some moderate Spirit, that is good at a broken bone, to speak some words in season for the refreshment of the weary, and deal not so roughly, as this man has dealt with me; for why should you break a bruised Reed, cast down by the troubles of his soul? Why should you call a man Marah most despitefully, because the Lord hath sent him bitterness? And amidst the reproaches that are fallen on me, will you throw more on me? If you will, I will go tell my Saviour of you, I will hearty pray him to forgive me, for fear I have deserved them, and will be contented to be made conformable to him, though I am reviled in my agony, and have Vinegar in my cross.   

Sect. 5 I Come now again to my Opposer, having vindicated my ground and state of my question; the next thing is my proofs or Scriptures, which I think are clear and open for us. The first proof was from the Passeover, Ex. 12.3.47.50. 2 Chron. 30.5. Speak unto Israel, Let every man, all the Congregation, the whole people, etc. unto which I will add judas, who cannot be doubted to be at the Passeover with Christ. The force of this proof to the Sacrament, lies not only, that there is the same grace signified and consigned in both, but the same ground for the applying both, which is, external Covenant relation with them as jews, with us as Christians. Against this he has four things, pag. 19 to pag. 25.  
1. He alleges my own text, Numb. 9.7, and confutes my plea. If Mr. Humphreys, says he, plead, that only Legal uncleanness excluded men from the Passeover; I ask him why? He will answer, Because it defiled the holy things, etc. But so did Moral, etc. pag. 18.19.  
Ans. Here Mr. Drake is miserably mistaken, Mr. Humphreys intends not to answer him so sillily, but because it was Gods positive command, that Levitically unclean persons should be separated from the Camp, but there was no such law for Moral uncleanness at all, but the contrary, that all the Congregation were to eat thereof. And thus you see how by unpinning one pin, there is about two of his pages quite undressed, yet the naked innocents' are not ashamed! As for his proofs then Leu. 18. Ez. 23. etc. they are busily vain, about what none need deny; but as for his words upon this, Where was Mr. Humphreys eyes? Did he not read? Did he not mind? etc. One would verily believe this man had clearly the truth of his side, and some plain manifest Text to show me, where the Morally unclean were to be debarred; But, would you think it? that for all this there is not a tittle or show of any text to this purpose. So that these petulant expressions do put me in mind of that lively invention of the Tailor's wife, that would still call her Husband Lousy Fellow: Such a womanish obstinacy is there in Error, that when it is even drowned in the depth and weight of the plainest Scripture, will yet persist reviling, so long as there is left it but the nails, and gesture of an argument.  
P. 19 That all unclean persons were to be suspended the Passeover, is evident by 2 Chro. 23.19.  
Ans. For shame do not say so. 1. Doth that place speak of the Passeover? 2. Doth that place speak of suspension? 3. Doth that place speak of Moral uncleanness? Is it probable that the Levites at such a time did, or could, in such a concourse try and examine them concerning Moral cleanness or uncleanness? 4. Might not the Morally unclean, as well as the Excommunicate and Publican by Mr. Drakes own Doctrine, p. 202. come into the Temple? 5. And what is Jeh●iadahs setting Porters at the gates of the House of the Lord, as to the very point of eating the Passeover, which we know was done in private houses?  
2. He excepts, Because Infants eat the Passeover. Indeed we read of such Children being there as were capable of Instruction, Ex. 12.26, 27. but whether their Infants were to eat thereof, I refer to others, and shall only score it up, Twice. See Ainsworth, on Exodus 23.17.  
3. He pleads Excommunication was a bar to the Passeover, and that this was for scandalous sins, not Levitical pollutions, p. 20, 21, 22, 23.  
Ans. To save labour, who will not be willing to grant this in the main? But what follows then, only as I hold, That men must first be Excommunicate, before they be kept from the Sacrament. And who would think so grave a man should let the world see him, playing with his own shadow, some four leaves together? His Exception at my word [Type] in the way, if strictly taken, is not amiss; Whereupon, I will note firmly against himself, that the Exclusion of the Legally unclean from the Congregation, is no proof for him to plead, to keep the Morally unclean from the Sacrament, but a type indeed, that such, in whom the leprosy, bloody issue, or death of sin reigns, shall be excluded heaven, where nothing shall enter that defileth, Rev. 21.27.  
4. Having told us of 3 degrees of Excommunication among the Jews, and 4 among the Greeks, which happily were originally the way of receiving in Penitents, rather than the degrees of casting them out; He tells us, It is evident that Nidui was a bar in particular to the Passeover.  
Ans. I pray mark it, Nidui was an Excommunication for 30 days; Now if it were a bar in particular to the Passeover, a man could never be excommunicate by his account but at Easter. The truth is, Nidui was no more in reference to the Passeover, than any society, for it was a separation from all communion both civil as sacred, for four paces. And as for the question, Whether such a one might eat of the Paschal Lamb at the same distance of four paces, as he might hear, pray, and come in other company, it is not worth the searching, seeing it is twelve to one throughout the year whether it ever happened to concern the Passeover.  
To close up this proof, let us turn again to that text Numb. 9 and consider, 1. That every soul here was enjoined to this duty upon pain of being cut off, v. 10.2. That if a man were unclean, it kept him off but a month, v. 11. which could not therefore be of Moral pollution. 3. That the ground of this bar in Levitical uncleanness, v. 7. was merely the Law of God in reference to the Camp or whole Congregation, Numb. 5.23. Levi. 13.46. not peculiarly to this Ordinance, and therefore whereas some do prevaricate, and make use of this Text, (which is a sign they have nothing else to say) against the daylight of Free-admission in other places to this Passeover, and yet urge it so often, with such eagerness of belief, as if they would convince all others by it, they seem to me, as men Baptised into the old Sexton's Spirit, that will have their own clock be right, their own opinions true, howsoever the Sun goes.  
My second proof was from 1 Cor. 10.17. These Corinth's were scandalous many of them, and yet says the Apostle, We being many are all partakers of one bread. Against this M. Drake has three exceptions. p. 25, 26, 27.  
First, He extenuates their crime, and counts it no bar to their Receiving. Secondly, He confutes this himself, and proves they were guilty of gross sins, by 2 Cor. 12.21. and so will not allow them to be admitted. Thirdly, He supposes this too, and questions only Paul's allowance of it. Thus you see how playful the man is, that at one breath he can blow his bubble out, and in, and out again.  
For the First, it is manifest, that these Corinth's were Fornicators, 1 Cor. 5.1. Contentions, 6.1. Carnal, 13.3. Unchristian, Uncharitable, Disorderly, c. 11. etc.  
For the Second, the Text is full to the point; St. Paul says they were all partakers of this bread? Mr. Drake says, But how will he prove notwithstanding they were admitted? Mr. Drake says, They had only a right to it, in actu primo. St. Paul says, they all partook of it; whom shall we believe, Master Paul, or Saint Drake?  
For the Third, That he allowed of this practice, that is manifest too, 1. In that he doth not forbid it, which if it had been sin, he must have done. 2. In that he urges their very coming, as a means and argument to reclaim them from Idols. 3. In that he does as it were even give his assent in a plain precept for it, 1 Cor. 11.33. Wherefore when you come together, tarry one for another; Hereof I appeal to the judicious for this meaning, that their coming was good, and their disorders to be reform.  
A tender Christian may here object, v. 20, 21. against our mixed Communion, I would not have you have fellowship with Devils, you cannot partake of the Table of the Lord & the Table of Divils'. I answer, the Apostle speaks not of divers persons (in the whole Ch.) going to one Table, but of the same persons going to divers Tables, and he plainly reasons from their partaking of the one against the other. From whence I argue, Those that were engaged from going to Idols, partook of the Lords Supper; but it was not the regenerate only, but all their intelligent Members were hereby engaged from Idols; Ergo, All their intelligent Members partook of the Sacrament, and were to partake of it, if the Apostles argument be sufficient.  
As for his mollifying the word Drunken, I, disapprove not; and if any man be quite so; I hold him unintelligent, and fit for the present to be turned away from all Ordinances.  
My third proof was from 1 Cor. 10.3, 4, 5. which, I think, if it be well laid to heart, might ease us of our scruples. Read Calvin Inst. l. 2. c. 10. sect. 5. 6. who agrees with my explication of it. His objections are two, p. 28. 29.  
1. He says, I speak gratis in saying they were admitted to our Sacraments.  
Ans. I pray see the words, does Saint Paul speak gratis? They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drank of the same spiritual drink, and Rock, which was Christ. Mark it, he says the same, not only the same thing signified, but the same symbols, the same meat and drink, or the same Sacrament. So that Mr. Drake is mistaken, and his arguing from their Elements being not the same, is very low, as if because we have sometimes Sack, sometimes Claret, we had not the same Sacrament. Calvin tells us, they enjoyed iisdem symbolis, as the Text doth, which I conceive herein, that there was specifically, the same Sacramental union, between the signs and things signified, in their, as our Elements. They all drank of the Rock which was Christ, they did not all drink really of Christ, but symbolically, and so do we, symbolically than they are the same, that is, the same symbols, or Sacrament.  
Whereas he urges here, The uncircumcised and Infants, again (which is now thrice) were admitted, his Argument will but ever come to this, because our Scriptures sometimes seem to prove more, therefore they cannot prove the less.  
2. He brings in the ordinary shift, That this was necessary to preserve their lives, and so they were admitted, etc.  
Ans. This I prevented, by showing that to this very scope and purpose doth Paul parallel these Sacraments of theirs with ours, to let the Corinth's know, that they had no other than the same privileges with the jews, in their Fre-admission. If he should say I make no more of your coming freely hither, than of the jews, all drinking of the Rock, it were no plainer to me than what he has spoken. He doth acknowledge it so, in finding such a large instance to compare with it.  
For the difference he makes between our Elements and theirs, which he says is manifest, namely, theirs was to nourish their bodies, as well as their souls, etc. It is gross, and fit for none to say but the Papists, that hold there is left only the qualities of bread (that cannot nourish) in transubstantiation.  
And whereas he says, They must have choked and starved else, I say, if it be necessarily, sin to Eat of Christ Sacramentally, unless men are regenerate (as Mr. Drake holds) there is no doubt but they should have rather died than be guilty of the blood of Christ; (which he phrases murdering him) and have sooner famished their bodies than damned their Souls. If it be not a sin but accidentally; Here is a good reason indeed for their eating and drinking All of them: but what reason is there St. Paul should parallel our eating and drinking with theirs, unless it be true likewise, that we are to eat, All of us? it is not his bare saying The parallels do not run on four feet, will serve, for you may see he won't let the Apostle so much as stand on one, if he denies our Free admission.  
Before I pass, I have two things here for tender Christians. 1. That to Eat Christ Symbolically, is no such dreadful thing as is made of it (I mean above other Ordinances, it is as sinful to use them unworthily as this) for Paul makes no account to say, they all drank Sacramentally of him, provided always you come with reverence, both in regard of the nature of the institution, and your own condition. 2. That the want of grace is no just hindrance or excuse from our profession. There is a general profession of God in opposition to all Idols, in which sense I take it, the whole people only could so commonly be said to enter Covenant, With all their heart, and all their soul, in some places. So there is a general profession of Christ, that salvation only is in his name, which every Christian may profess truly, though he be no true professor. It is a great weakness of some that think for fear of hypocrisy, an unregenerate man may not do his duty. Hypocrisy, is either opposed to truth, which is dissembling, such an action that is evil propter fieri must be avoided; or to sincerity, and such an action that is evil only through accident of the doer, while in the substance it be good for all his evil disposition, the thing still must be done. A Christians profession, (a pledge whereof is this Sacrament) may be hypocrisy in one sense, but not in the other.  
My fourth proof was from the Parable of the Feast, Lu. 14. Mat. 22. which I judge has more force in it than some think, though less than others. Mr. Drake here is in a straight; if he allow it applicable to this Supper, it is clear against him. The Servants bring in All both good and Bad. If he will not allow it, he doth not only go against the stream of Divines, (and that not solidly) but wrists out of their own hands their main argument from the exclusion of him that had not the wedding garment, which being the act of the Lord, is not well applied neither. The truth is, the Feast does not signify particularly the Supper; but it is as true it does it in general, as other Ordinances. The Feast is Jesus Christ, set out in his Ordinances, and outward privileges, unto which there is a free access, and interest of the Good and Bad within the Church, so that for the main, we have our full weight, that the Servants, whose office it is to be the Dispensers' of the mysteries, have not any power for discrimination of the guests in their admitting them to the Feast; and therefore, unless they can prove it by some warrant otherwhere, are not to judge of the worthiness and unworthiness of their Church-members, as to the offer of Christ, in this Supper. It is true, If men be scandalous, they are liable to censure, but who does not see this upon another account, I mean of discipline, to satisfy the Church, amend them, and warn others. But if you do it upon this ground of setting up a discriminating Ordinance, I must speak my Conscience, I think it not according to the mind of the Lord of the Feast. Again, As for the unintelligent, as Infants and the like, who does not see, that the Feast is still free, but they are uncapable? they make no excuse, but God does excuse them, and so they can't be compelled. But if you set up Visible worthiness for a rule of Admission, you assume a power of discriminating the guests; You may call it your zeal, your care, and piety, yet is it a power (as well as a burden) even over God's Ordinance, and differs as much from our Ministerial instruction, Catechism, and admonition, as a separating the vile from the precious by the word of God's mouth, and the doing it without, until you prove it.  
And now for his four particulars, p. 30, 31. First, He distinguishes between the feast, which is Christ, and the dishes wherein he is served, which are the Ordinances. This is something ingenuous; but whereas he applies this, that a man may be invited to a feast, and yet not to the dish in the feast; it is very fine if we should serve him as the plain man did his Son, that pretended he could prove two eggs to be three, by his Logic; Well, says he, I will take the one, and your Mother the other, and now do you prove the third, and take it for yourself. Let us have the dishes, and what will become of Mr. Drakes feast? Thus hungry, and hardly bestead, does he pass through it.  
Secondly, He urges, Then should Heathen be admitted. Ans. And so they may, if they come in in an orderly way, 1 Cor. 14.40. they must first have a right by Church-membership, and then being once within the Church, they are alike admitted to all privileges.  
Thirdly, He adds, How were the unthankful guests also excluded (Luke 14?) and answers himself, Because they would not come.  
Fourthly, He tells us, Worldly business sometimes may detain a man from the Sacrament, Numb. 9.10. Ans. Who doubts it, and yet the feast not neglected, if the business be indispensible? But as for the strength of his reason here, it is as good as the Fathers, that would have his Child excused to his Master, for not coming to School, because he was dead.  
In the way, For my quoting that Text, Lu. 12.42. with 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. Acts 20.28. Mr. Drake need not have given me such ill words: I make no interpretation of them, but that it is the Ministers duty, duly to dispense the Ordinances, which if he does do, they do not touch him, but may convince those that think it their conscience wholly to omit it, and this I hope may turn the edge of his rebuke. For my part I do not think myself fit to be compared with Mr. Drake, or the least of the godly, but with the greatest sinners, and bow down my practice at the feet of God's mercy. Forgive, O Lord, my failings, for they are even more than the hairs of my head! Yet do I think, that both those that exclude all, and they that exclude any (who are neither Unintelligent, or Excommunicate) come short in the importance of these Scriptures.  
My fifth proof was from john's Free-baptism, even of those he calls Vipers, Mat. 13. upon that ground, Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti. See Mar. 1.5. And they of judea went out, and were All baptised of him, that is, All that went out to him for Baptism were admitted; and yet Mr. Drake, as he is wont, answers me thus overly, He says, but proves not that john baptised all comers, p. 32. he should say, He does not prove it, but only brings Scripture for it.  
This axiom (which I think I had of Pemble) he denies, p. 33. 1. Because, Heathen may be admitted to Baptism.  
Ans. I had thought when men had been converted to the faith once, they had been Christians. 2. Because it makes for him, seeing there was an outward confession at Baptism.  
Ans Who would think it, he should fly for shelter to this Sanctuary, even while he pollutes it. You must take the meaning thus, There is Eadem ratio, but not in omnibus. It holds in the main, that the same faith which will admit one of age to be Baptised, will also admit him to this Sacrament, and that is an Historical faith only in profession; yet as for making that confession, though it he needful at Baptism, in admitting them to be Church Members (as we are willing to know whom we enter into our society) seeing we have Scripture for it; yet not at this Supper where we have none, for when men are Church-members already, their very coming is their profession.  
My sixth proof was Act. 2.41, 42, 46. Which Text he leaves out, you may conceive it has silenced him. For while we find thousands admitted thus freely and equally (not omitting his phrase of Pell-mel) in their breaking bread (I say even wholly alike) as in doctrine and prayer we dare not fall down to that Sacramental Rule upon trial he would set up, if it be once held as necessary and divine (though we acknowledge the prudence and piety of others) seeing it has not one word to speak, or the least argument left it concerning this Scripture, that it should open the mouth, or move the wing, or peep against it.  
My seventh text was Act. 10.28. which I say, I apply only as to the expression. Yet does he pursue it with four pitiful exceptions, p. 34, 35. For the first whereof it is untrue, St. Paul says not Tit. 1.15. the unbeliever is unclean to us, but all things are unclean to him.  
For the second I shall satisfy after I have proposed this question, in answer to his two other; Whether do you think him more piercing in the third, to find only the unintelligent left out, or ingenuous in the fourth, to speak so eloquently, when he has done? I have heard of one, that would undertake ye, to confute all Bellarmine in two words (Mentiris Bellarmine) by Mr. Drakes language and confidence, he may be the man.  
And now for the force of these words, I told you in the beginning, we must distinguish of passages unto their right parties; there is a sort of weak Christians that think they shall be defiled if they Communicate in our mixed Churches; this text may be full and solid for them, though it reaches not others. Mr. Drake should be more tender, than to debilitate their supports. Dear souls, I have seen some of your tears, and let this dry them up for you, you are not to account them common and unclean that receive with you, If yourselves be clean, all are clean to you. The soul many times, that is not taken with a reason, may by an expression. A man may be common and unclean three ways, 1. Levitically, and this is abrogate; 2. Morally, and this defiles a man's self, and not another; 3. Faederally, as appears in 1 Cor. 7.14. Now while persons are Faederally clean, as all Church members are, being separated by external Covenant to Christ from the World, we need not doubt but they may be communicated withal without any pollution. Indeed Mr. Drake says here, such and such are Morally unclean, but what then? It is not Moral cleanness, but Faederal cleanness is the ground of our admission, and a man is not Faederally unclean till excommunicated. He objects, wicked Christians reject Christ, p. 35. and answers himself with me, p. 84. Though they transgress they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do, and are Church Members till excommunicated.  
And these were my Scriptures to establish us, in this sweet truth that leads us unto peace, and though he has done his endeavour to hinder you of the benefit of them, yet for all his opposition there is not so much as the girdle of their loins loosed, or latchet of their shoes broken.  
For the close hereof I gathered up some Texts, Io. 6.37. Rev. 22.17. etc. that do set forth the most free offers of Jesus Christ, which though Mr. Drake makes but light of, p. 36. do pathetically enter the spirits of others, that have but a little embraced this sweet notion, that the Lord Jesus is proportionably gracious in his external privileges to a Christian profession, as he is in his internal saving benefits to the sincerity of Christianity. Here he says three things, the one is, With what Conscience can I keep off Infants? This is now four times. The other two are the same, which in their naked sense comes to this: Though Christ be offered freely, yet it must be to such only as we judge truly receive him. The truth is, the word and the Sacraments are but the same public instrument, delivered as a sealed writing for the use of the Church, and are equal privileges (if I may call the same equal) to all the Members of it. I do even pity mortality, to see what a few words, a few enfoldings, can hid Truth from us; what sense is in this? Jesus Christ is to be freely showed forth, to bring men home effectually to him, and yet must the Receivers make out their right unto the Minister, before we dare offer, or conditionally apply him to them.  
I do humbly conceive, here is the false notion that perplexes the many. We that are Ministers (they think) are sent by our Prince Jesus to our Flocks, as Rebels, to offer grace and salvation; if they come in and truly accept him, we are to seal their pardons; if they do not make this (visibly) appear, we may not apply the seal, without being guilty of the blood of Christ. Now this is a very ill apprehension (which we shall rectify as we go forwards) for we must not make the notion of sealing so dreadful, and bring so much blood upon our souls. I think this is true indeed, in reference to the heathen, whom we need not fear to judge visible Rebels, and they must come in and profess Jesus Christ in opposition to all other Religions, before we can seal the Word to them. The Word is no sealed Word (even outwardly) but to the Church; and when they are made Members once, it is then sealed; we seal them an equal right to all Ordinances, and Privileges, and whatsoever is exernal we confer to them. But being received into the Church, and professors already, we cannot compel any trial of them more (unless by way of Catechism and instruction wherein yet there is no man too old to learn, Lu. 14.) but it must be, as to the truth of their profession, or effectual sincerity, which for to do (where no scandal calls them in question (it is to go about to judge men's) hearts, and to enter into the seat of God, and make ourselves dispensers, not of the mysteries only, but of the grace, while we take a power to judge of men's worthiness, and according to visibility, seal them their pardons. This is a business of sad consequence to give occasion, and some holdfast to those Anti-christian Scandals, are cast on our Ministry by them that would undo us.  
I must confess I believe it was only the zeal and piety of good men, that made them thus to rise up against ignorance and sin, without intending to enter upon God's Throne, but if we have erred, and must be laid down, it may be in the dust, I hope we shall acknowledge his hand, and if he shall return our Captivity from the Rivers of Confusion, where we have sat down and wept, we will remember again our jerusalem, and when thou hast restored us, our Harps now hanging on the Willows, we will sing of thy goodness, in the wont songs of thy Zion.   

Sect. 6 HAving asserted my ground, the state of my question, and my proofs, I must come now to my Reasons, where if I do not sometimes tie myself to every particle, when there seems to me to be much repetition, & but little matter, yet will I endeavour, according to my small ability, to give such satisfaction I have, to every thing that is weighty (if not to all) in this business between us: And I beseech the Lord jesus to pity my infirmities, and assist his weaker vessel, who is even helpless of all strength, but in dependence on him.  
My First Reason was from the Nature of the Sacrament, It is the showing Christ's death, a visible Gospel, and so a firm ground of Free-admission. Unto this, the sum of what he says over and over, from p. 37. ad p. 52. comes but to this, All may be present, but not actually receive, granting the foundation.  
I shall begin with the last, His words are these, The Word, and the Sacraments, 'tis true, must go hand in hand together; but the Covenant of Grace, or the Word, is not (visibly) applicable to all, therefore not the Sacrament:  
For my answer to this which is all his weight, with but a very few grains more; we must know, The Ministers of Christ are the Ministers of the new Covenant to be revealed, and that is not of the Absolute, Heb. 8. which is secret, and belonging to Election, but of the Conditional Covenant, (or the Covenant in its conditional capacity) which is tenderable to all the world, and that more especially applicable with a distinction of outward privileges or interest to the Church. Now look what is the tenor of the Covenant, the Sacrament seals, and nothing else, for we both hold it is the same with the Word. Now I pray what needed such a torrent of words in this plain case? May not I say to all, and every intelligent Church-member, If thou believe thou shalt be saved? and may not I seal to such, what the Word says? which he grants. And do not all understanding men know, we cannot seal Jesus Christ and his benefits to any, but on the Covenant terms, which is conditionally? Would one think Mr. Drake should ask me such a question, p. 42. Dares Mr. Humphrey say to a person in the state of Nature, Sir, Be assured All the benefits of the Covenant are actually yours? The language of every actual giving is, Christ is thine in particular.  
I answer, This is a manifest error, The language of the Sacrament, is the language of the Covenant, and that is not, Christ is thine, but Christ is thine if thou wilt believe. And who doubts but I dare say so to one in a state of Nature, conceiving we know it not, and cannot judge thereof; even as unto one in a state of Grace; Christ is thine upon the same terms, as he does to one visibly worthy, yet really unworthy; that is, If thou do now resolve to accept of him. For, Let me ask him again, Dare Mr. Drake say to the visibly godly nay to the most really holy, Sir, Christ is thine Absolutely, as in particular, I assure thee of it. If he dare, he enters upon the absolute Covenant, and the Ark of God, and says what no Mortal may say; But if he can say only Christ is thine in particular upon the condition of the Covenant, Here is no more than may be said unto others.  
If this will not suffice, but you still think, though where a man is visibly to be admitted, you can safely say to him, Christ is thine in particular, whether he be in the state of Nature, or the state of Grace, seeing indeed you know it not, yet you dare not say so, when you find (which thing I utterly renounce to be visibly undertaken) that some are yet in their natural estate; I answer, In my opinion, for all this, you may only take the language of the Covenant wholly aright, which is thus, Here is Christ, If thou sincerely acceptest of him, to save thee, if not, to condemn thee, unless thou repentest, and all is safe nevertheless.  
The solidity of this answer, may appear the more by this man's weakness to salve that objection, p. 48. which otherwise cannot be done. It is this, Does not the Minister seal to a Lie, if he seal to the unworthy? He answers most miserably, He does but seal to an untruth, not to a lie, so long as he comes in to the Elders, and is thought visibly worthy by them; Well, But what if the Elders should admit one visibly unworthy, and the Minister judge him so to be, yet the major part carrying it, What shall become of him then? Here his untruth must be a lie again; It is not his pleading an admonition, or that he can't help it, will serve him, if it be positively a lie, or a sin to admit any that is visibly unworthy, he may not offend his conscience, and presume upon God, though he lost his place and life too. So that he must on necessity come over to us, and then he may know how neither to commit an untruth nor a lie neither, by saying, He offers or applies Christ but conditionally, or upon his own terms, and then the door is open for our Free-admission. The truth is, seeing that the Minister is God's Ambassador, and what he does, is by his Commission, we may as soon say The God of Israel can lie, as that the Minister ever seals an untruth, or lie either, in doing his office; but you may sit down by my Expression hereof, p. 49. The Sacrament seals generally the truth of the Covenant (freely and absolutely) to all engaging them unto it, but the interest of single persons in the benefits (as in the threats) is always conditional, or according to the tenor of the Gospel.  
With my Readers leave, though this be both what is partly received, and sufficient, I shall speak a little more. The very body of our Religion, consists in the knowledge of the Covenant, and Application of it. Under the Covenant, comes in the knowledge of ourselves, our states, our Mediator, and what he has done for us. And under the Application, the Spirit, and his office, The Ministry, and the Church. For what concerns us here; About the Covenant, we are to know the tenor of it, and the seal of it. The tenor of it is apparent, Mark 16.16. For the seal, Let us consider, It is either the Real, true, effectual Seal, that ratified this Covenant between God and Christ; and that is his blood, Heb. 9 or the Symbolical, External seal, which is only a representation of this unto us; and that is the Sacrament. Concerning the Application, we must know two things, the Applyer, and the Subject to whom it is applied, Both are likewise External, or Internal. The Internal Applyer is the Holy Ghost, whose work is therefore called the seal of the Spirit, This glorious person cannot be called a seal otherwise (but by a Metonymy of the effect) as he is the inward Minister, to apply the Covenant both in working the condition, and sealing thereof. The External Applier is ourselves (the Ministers) who are but his Earthen Vessels, while the Excellency of the power we must leave freely unto him. For the subject to whom it is applied, It is the Church. This is manifest, Christ jesus did lay down his blood for the Church, Acts 20.28. Eph. 5.23, 25. The Church then likewise is either the invisible, which consists of such members that are truly in Christ; or the visible, of all such as do profess him, as outward members thereof. Now by the blessing of God, our work may be done, if we do but rightly sort these things together; The Internal effectual seal, with the Internal effectual Application; and the External seal with the external application. The Effectual seal of the precious blood of Christ is in the hand only of the Internal Minister, to apply it to the invisible Members, in whose hearts he both writes the new Covenant, and seals it. The Outward seal of the Sacrament is in the hand of the Outward Minister, to apply it to the visible Church, and the Members thereof. Now let but the External Minister take heed of entrenching on the Internal Ministers office, as he would look to his life, in not meddling with God's Ark, and I hope the fear of God may end the controversy between us.  
For his other thing here, He grants We have proved that All may, or are to be present, but that must be all, If it be applied so, 'tis death, etc.  
Ans. I am very sorry to see what a frivolous thing man is, how every little trick and trifle can put us off.  
1. If there be such a stress to be laid on Actual receiving, (which the Lord forbidden) yet may the Minister be Free in his offer, in delivering the Sacrament in general, as Christ says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Take, Eat, in the plural number, and while he sat at Table. There are 4 or 5 reasons given by others for this way; but that which moves me most, is this our own reason, that 'tis a visible word. Let the Minister then deliver it in general to his Congregation as he preaches the word; And while he declares to the whole Church This is the body of Christ which was broken for you, the Receivers make application to their own parts. Now if any Receiver who judges himself unworthy, should wave his very Taking only unto the rest, it might seem a kind of tender confession, and act of humility. And so let but the business lie there, and the offer of Christ shall be free, yet no guilt on the Minister; and the administration free, and no guilt on the Receiver. The Minister do his office, and the people their duty, and both pleased.  
2. This I speak as to men's scrupulous suppositions, but I must confess (though I like a delivery in General, rather than particular) I can no ways endure the rending these sacred actions one from another; When Christ has said, Do this, this thing, or Do thus, as it seems the Syriack reads it, that is after the same manner, Drink ye All of it, and they all drank of it, I think it an injury to the holy institution, to separate what Christ has joined, as the Papists do, in withholding the Wine from the Laity. I must confess this is a device ingenuously framed to serve the turn, and I fear it has got itself reverence in the hearts of some godly men; yet does it seem to me a thing but of sad consequence to us, and indignity to God. For either this presence must be held necessary, as our general duty, or left at our liberty: If we hold they may be present only, and bind not any to it as a duty, who does not know, that there is the confluence of the Word, Prayer, sing, Meditation, in the administration, which to lay waist is open impiety, and unbidding those things, which are questlonlesse yielded to be means of conversion: But if we hold it (as certainly it is) to be our duty, not to neglect such occasions, so that we must come to the Sacrament, yet if we offer but to take and eat, this Actual receiving only, shall be our damnation; The sinful adoration that was brought on the Elements, by the conceit of Real presence corporally, had not so much dread in it, though more supenstition. Nay, let us consider a little, shall profane men, while they stay the administration, think themselves secure from guilt, so long as they do not eat and drink, only, as if the Covenant and the Seal was not otherwise applied to them, What hardness on their hearts? What sensual apprehensions will this bring on them? Nay, what unholy and contemptible thoughts of the God of Heaven, that looks on us, as if he regarded our very eating and drinking more than our spirits? Not that I am so moved at Free-presence (let the prudent judge of it) but that actual receiving is not as free to our intelligent members. Indeed if persons be Excommunicate, (as the Primitive Church did punish such with bare presence) or men have their gathered Companies, if they do not communicate with those that are present, and hear, their reason is open, they own them not as their members; but as for us that are not yet convinced by them, either we must maintain, or new mould our mixed Congregations.  
This for his crop in general, there are some Ears yet standing to be cut down in particular.  
P. 37. If the Sacrament have the same latitude with the Word, than a Heathen may receive it as a Christian.  
He has here left out my main caution [Within the Church.] Let us know, the Gospel may be considered as the Bare word, or a Sealed word; As an instrument in the writing to be declared, and read over to all, or as a sealed instrument delivered to peculiar use. Or the Word may be considered as to the publishing the contents and tender of the Covenant, or to the appropriation of privilege we have in it. To the Jews belonged the sacred Oracles, and the Covenants; The contents might be preached to bring in proselytes, yet are they said truly with distinction of outward privilege, to belong only to them. If you like not my phrases, you may make better, but here lies the point; The blood of jesus Christ does peculiarly belong, by way of appropiation, to the Church, Eph. 5.23.25. This blood seals the Covenant, the Sacrament represents that blood: Now as the Spirit applies the Effectual seal only to the invisible Church; so the Minister can apply the outward seal only to the visible. Though the Word then may be declared to Heathens, It cannot be sealed to them, but when they turn Christians. The Covenant is a sealed Covenant only to the Church. There is this distinction of privilege as it belongs to us, that it is sealed in the outward application thereunto, that so every Member (without a just forfeiture) has a public right, in the use of it.  
P. 38. There are some righteous persons in their own conceit, many self-Justiciaries, etc.  
Ans. Of all men I think that such as these had need most of conviction, but I find not the Scripture sends out any spiritual Hue and Cry, to make search for them; if it did, I will not for any thing say who are the men; but sure some Ministers, upon certain marks, might begin with their own Elders: nay I think, upon the main known mark of I thank God I am not like other men (if you see Mr. D. p. 90.) some Elders might take up their own Minister, upon suspicion.  
P. 39 All may be present at the administration, as at Preaching, and Baptism, but that All ought Actually to partake,— will lead thousands into utter darkness.  
Ans. Not to mention his unhandsome language, where the sense is so dreadful, I answer,  
1. If a man swear by the Temple it is nothing, but the gold of the Temple makes him guilty. If a man partake of the whole administration besides, it is nothing for all his unworthiness, but if he actually receive, he becomes a debtor. Which is greater, the bare eating and drinking, or the whole sacred institution and consecration, that sanctifies the action?  
2. It is not his instance of Baptism, will wash off this superstition, wherein this good man has taken a deadly conceit, for there are no actions here to be repeated; the weakness is clear as its own water. But I argue, if a man is bound at this Ordinance to make inward application (together with the Word) of what is represented, though the outward sign is forbidden, as to be twice used; How shall we deny both the inward and outward application also in the Supper, where both are commanded? The truth is, the very sealing the Covenant, applies wrath to every impenitent, and life to every one that has true faith, whether we should see it only, or receive it. And if it be not eating commends us unto God, I do not stand upon this outward receiving, as any thing considerable, in comparison of the reverential application of the Covenant, in a right use of it, according to our condition.  
3. For admission of all intelligent Church-members, I am free; but as for their own coming, I have spoken more tenderly, than his speeches. Yet will I confess my present inclination is thus, I hold, A man must examine himself (I place much on this) and so receive according to his estate. God commands John to destroy Ahab; john his disposition is evil in it, and does but commit murder, which God will punish, Hos. 1.4. yet nevertheless must the thing be done, and as commanded, it is both approved, as good, and rewarded, 2 Kings 10.30. Christ jesus says to his Church, Do this; Mr. Drake says, If an unregenerate member does it, he shall (I must say only he may) become guilty of Christ's blood in the action. Nevertheless it is not his disposition being not right, that can nullify God's precept, but that he must both examine himself, and so eat.  
4. Whereas then, He thinks my opinion will lead many thousands to Hell, I am humbly afraid that his will do it; I do professedly charge every soul, that they look well into their conscience what they embrace, and the Lord be their direction. For my part, I am thinking, when jesus Christ shall call us both to account at the great day; he will say to me, Why have you brought in all unto my feast? I shall say, Lord, even as thou hast commanded, Thou hast said, Do this, Drink ye all of it, and I must not mistrust the goodness of thy word, and thy gracious efficacy to go along with it. I durst not for my life make void thy blessed command. And what then, if he shall say to Mr. D. And why have you, contrary to my express words, taught your own Commandment for the precept of God, that it is an unregenerate man's duty to abstain? When I said Do this, you have said Do it not, unless you be sure you can also so do it; whereby you have strengthened the Careless, hardened the impenitent, and afflicted tender Consciences, laying waste this Ordinance of mine in many places, whereas one ought still to be done, and not leave the other undone: Let me seriously forewarn this pious man, that while he has laid that text, Ez. 13.22. so heavy on my soul, that he provide himself to answer unto it.  
P. 40.41. He brings in my Simile, but takes hold of it by the left handle; We must not think as we are Ministers set over Christ's flock, we are sent to them as Externally Rebels, that they must come in and profess before us, to be admitted to those privileges, which they have a right to already, as well as we. No, the main point of the Simile lies here, that the Instrument of peace, committed to us, is a sealed Instrument, the word of reconciliation is a sealed word to all the Church, Every member has an equal right to the Seal, as the writing, and we cannot pluck off, or put on, our Lords seal at our pleasure. It is a weak conceit, that we are sent to our Members, as it were with their pardons unsealed, to try whether they truly submit, and according to our judgement, to seal them. We must conceive our Seal is set by Christ himself to his own Proclamation, and we have no other than what belongs to the whole Church; But if we look any further than Church-membership, we enter the office of the inward Minister, and take a power of meddling with the inward sealing, which does not belong to us. It is the want of discerning between these inward and outward things, has misled Mr. D. who has not yet considered how the Covenant is a sealed Covenant, to all that are but Christ's external people, and that this Seal is a standing seal, & both Covenant and Seal make up one public instrument for the use of the Church. We may see this in Circumcision (from whence we borrow the notion of a seal) Gen. 17. I will establish my Covenant between are and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations. Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Here you see how it is a standing seal set to the Covenant, and both established with the whole seed, so that by this one act as it were, of public delivery, Every Church-member (that was then any one of Abraham's seed,) had a right to the seal without any more plea, as other public privileges, for ever after in their generations.  
Now whereas he puts the case, that some who come to the Sacrament are but Rebels, and how shall we seal unto them? I answer, we cannot judge of the hearts of any that they are inward Rebels, and we may not judge that they are outwardly so, when they outwardly come in, unless we have something to allege against them to prove their Rebellion, and then if it be such as deserves it, they may be Excommunicated, but while they are Church Members, we cannot deny them their common privileges. But for his expressions, Of their seeming to submit, yet carrying Daggers, and Poison about them to murder their Prince, and therefore they must be searched, etc. Besides the vanity of the words, I must tell him, 1. There is no Scripture that warrants his pretended trial of Church Members, about their coming to the Sacrament, that is flat. 2. Much less, that he may take a power of search as to the truth of grace, which is an entering on God's Throne, and the Spirits work. 3. This is clean contrary to Christ's example, who set up no Sacramental trial for judas, at least for any thing we can find of it. But alas, that is nothing to Mr. Drake, he has found out a way to turn this off with a wet finger, p. 9 & 90. Which if you confer with this passage, he tells us, That they who are the Servants, by all means must needs try, examine, and keep men away, for fear of some secret Treason unto Christ in coming hither; but Jesus Christ the Lord himself, must not have power to make trial of, or suspend judas that really intends to murder him, because the Presbytery was not settled.  
To p. 44. I answer, Godly Parents and Maesters instruction of their Children and Servants unto the Lord's Supper, may be good, as the Ministers Catechising them, without this ill language he here gives me. I would willingly allow a man some Salt in his discourse, but his is brinish; there are some ingredients to be in ones Ink besides Gall.  
To that question, what Christ sealed to judas, p. 46, 47, 48. without regard to the rest, which is amiss, I judge he speaks well herein, The word and the seal both go together, and assure particular mercy or judgement to the Receivers, as they are worthy and unworthy, that is, according to the Covenant-tenour, and their own condition. This is good, though his comparison of the bitter water following this, and that the Sacrament can never do good to any, but such as are good already, seems to me such a slander of that precious Ordinance, I would not be guilty of for all Mr. Drake is worth. But I pray consider this really, whatsoever Christ does in his Ministry, must be a gracious act, and be capable of gracious ends, so that this action must be in its own nature a means to have done him good, if he had made a good use of it, and 'tis accidental to the thing, he did it not. Yet did Christ, in this actual estate of his, Mr. Drake says truly, seal to him judgement, (you must conceive it, as to his own part in Receiving, for the Minister seals no interest but conditionally.) Now the truth is, as the Word is a sweet savour to God, and a means of salvation, in his threaten as well as its promises, because it does but still declare the Covenant, whereof they are parts of it; so is the Sacrament, while it seals judgement, or while it seals life, seeing it does but seal the Covenant equally in both. Here than I humbly conceive still (submitting myself unto mercy) lies the main upon the Receivers, to examine their hearts, and so to come in their addresses to Christ, that they rightly apply the Covenant unto themselves, according to their condition. Always carrying in mind these two things; First, That thou put far enough asunder the blessed work of sealing the Covenant, though it denounces thy judgement unless thou repentest, (for it does it not otherwise) and that cursed sin of thy abuse hereof (if thou dost not lay it to heart) in eating damnation. Secondly, That what the Word denounces, and Sacrament seals, they convey not Really, but only Relatively, for they are not Physical, but Moral instruments, (which Mr. Drake did not think of in his bitter comparison) so that while they assure thee of damnation, they do thee no hurt, if thou make a good use of them for thy conviction, but if otherwise, as all means else, they serve but to increase it. You may happily say this notion is strange, but is it not true, and as for the ingredients, what every one yield? who will deny the Sacrament is a visible word? Does not the word say, he that believes not, and reputes, is damned? that is, is in a present state of death. Must not every one lay this estate of his to heart? Does not the seal assure the same thing only with the Word? Is not our Receiving, the application of what is sealed? And is not the application, or setting home the right part of the Covenant on a man's soul, the very business (by the grace of God) of his conviction, and conversion? What then remains, but that man have the information, and God the glory?  
He repeats often, Where the word is not applicable, neither the Sacrament. This is his strength, and I close with him, and urge, But if every man is to apply the Word; and while he is impenitent, he is to lay to heart the threaten, and wrath of God, as the only way to mollify, and work him to repentance; than it is clear the seal may be applied so likewise. The Seal and the Word (he speaks fully) must go together. If you offer to say it seals not this part of the Covenant, but only the promise and grace, than you take away all danger, as it is sealing to the most unworthy, and make our admission more free; though if any dare say it seals not the whole Covenant, you may as well believe it is no seal at all.  
P. 51. He has Infants up again, which is now five times, but for his words, Shall the Supper be free for Blaspemers, Murderers, etc. (which, who doubts but may be excommunicated, if not put to death) and his undertaking to prove his rule of visibility to the Sacrament, to be as orderly as Baptism, it is like himself, to say all day, and prove at night.  
For his answers to my 4 Considerations, I reply as briefly. To the first, An historical faith suffices unto Baptism, Acts 8.13. To the second, Acceptance is either in sincerity, which we cannot search; or outward only and visible, and that for Church-members, is their receiving. As for any other, the Scriptures he pleads as abundant enough, are none at all; but if ill words will do it, he has authority enough. To the third, where are many things, I say, 1. Though conviction is not enough to convert without grace, what then? Is it not a means therefore with it? 2. His implicated errors are his own, for conviction of the truth of the Covenant, does come directly by sealing it, and conviction of the general offer, by the applying it to every single person. I think some nicety between offering and applying (which as to the Minister is the same) troubles the man, But3. Conviction, that Christ is mine in particular, as to a faith of particular evidence, as he expresses it, comes not at all by the Sacrament; Because 1. The Sacrament seals nothing but the Word, which speaks not particularly, I believe,2. What is common to the Hypocrite, with the true Believer, cannot bring any evidence to me. So that this arises only from the testimony of my own conscience, and Spirit of God. If this man were less confident, he might come to know more, and be better informed.  
To the Fourth, It is true, the Gospel may occasion divisions, as the Bridge doth the tumults, and noise of the Waters, but I think it no way of the Gospel, that goes about to make them. Let the wise, peaceable and godly, mark the cause, and avoid it. As Factions are in State, Separations are in the Church; you shall never unite, so long as you maintain the ground of them. ●t is a little thing will raise up the spirits of men, when we know not how to allay them again, and you shall sooner divide them into more Schisms, to ruin both the Minister and the Church, than reduce them to what they were: For the spirit of Division being once up, will be still fetching in more and more fuel to our opinions. Even as the Magician (in the Fiction, Camerarius Hist. Med. lib. 3. c. 15.) that was wont to take a stake of wood, and speaking certain words to it, it would become a man, he bids it fetch him fire and water, and when it had done his work, with some other words turns it into a stake again. A certain Friend overhearing these words, would needs do the same: He takes a stake, speaks those Words, It turns to a Spirit, fetches him fire and water, when he had enough, he bids it cease, and bring no more; but having not the Words to charm it back into its self, that continues; He fearing, takes an Axe, cuts it in two: upon this, instead of one, there is two men fetching fire and water, never leaving, till they had almost brought both him and the house unto confusion.   

Sect. 7 MY second Reason was drawn from the visible Church, and the Notes of it. The visible Church is a number of such as make profession of jesus Christ. This I take to be the very nature thereof, and profession of Christ reciprocal with it. The Essential notes, that is, (I count) those things wherein this profession is set forth, are the Word and Sacraments. I know many grave Divines do add a third note of Discipline, and some include it under them; but I think this rather conduces to the well-being, than the being of the visible Church. I do not doubt but our Churches where we have no discipline established, are yet true Churches, but if we should not have the administration of the Word and Sacraments, though the invisible Church might be amongst us, yet not the visible. Nos asserin us (says Calvin) Ecclesiae formam non externo splendore, sed longè aliâ not â contineri, nempe purâ verbi Dei predicatione, & Sacramentorum administratione. Now what does competere essentially to the Church, as visible, must competere to every Member, in status quo, so that so long as a man is a Church-member, he cannot be debarred this profession in the public marks of these Ordinances. Only, let me here desire my Reader once for all, whensoever I speak of Church-membership, as our ground and common right to the Sacrament, whether before or after, to take it always with the known and yielded limitations of our admission, that is, unless men be unintelligent (as Infants and the Distracted, etc.) or excommunicate (whom for the present I account no Members) and to avoid all future cavil, unless there be also some manifest occasion on a civil account, as sickness, infection, or the like, that are granted impediments to it.  
Upon this he has four particulars, p. 52, 53, 54. 1. He adds to this description, a combining to Church ends, which indeed is virtually included, but does suppose it to be my meaning, though not expressed so well as he has done it.  
Ans. A discreet Lady being upon Marriage to a worthy man, but not rich, and persuaded against it by some interest friend, in the words of the Apostle, It is good to marry, but better to be unmarried; Truly says she, I have always studied only to do well, & must leave it to you that can, to do better. So say I, I have endeavoured to set down only what serves my turn, and is to my purpose, but leave it to Mr Drake to be more curious (if he please) in his additions.  
2. He asks me, Whether all Professors or Saints by calling, may be admitted to the Lords Supper? I answer directly, & eo nomine, with our due cautions, they ought; for they are herein only called Saints, as separated from the World unto this very Communion in God's Ordinances. And now you may expect some weighty Argument to convince us to the contrary, let us heart it. If so, then why doth he shut out Infants, and Distracted persons? It's apparent then, etc.  
Ans. Would you ever imagine this same six times repeated thing (and ever provided against) should be all now he has to say, and yet tell us it is apparent, when as to us poor mortals, it seems nothing at all? Let me therefore here certify you once again, that when St. Paul enjoins us to examine ourselves, and discern the Lords body, it doth not excuse any of age, but they are both to do so, & come, both to prepare and eat: We must do what we can still, when we cannot do as we ought, and if we receive no good by it, it will be our sin; but as for Infants, etc. we manifestly know, there is no such thing, it is no sin of theirs if they are not fit to come. For ignorance then and scandal, if it be not such as makes us forfeit our Church Membership (that is become excommunicate) it cannot contradict our outward profession; for a visible professor and Church Member, I think are terms convertible, and that very Church Membership and profession, lies in the communion of these Ordinances.  
3. He grants my Notes, but objects the keeping off Children and Servants till they can give some tolerable account, etc.  
Ans. There is a difference between what is done juridically, by compulsion, and what is done only as prudential, by advice; Between forbearance, and exclusion. I think a man may conscionably forbear his coming sometimes upon many occasions, and much more upon pious ends regarding preparation. My ground is, because affirmative precepts oblige us semper, but not ad semper, so that there may be much of Christian prudence used in the ordering our more solemn duties; upon which account only, I take it, are Godly Parents and Masters to be commended in this thing, so long as they follow them with instruction, and so may those Spiritual Fathers, that go no farther in the like admonitions.  
4. He would have the World think I go to deceive, because my Syllogism should run thus, The Word and the Sacraments are essential notes, ergo, without them there is no true visible Church; but this concludes nothing against him.  
Ans. Not to return evil words, I humbly answer, if this do not conclude against him, yet does it conclude against them I more intended to convince, than him; when some cannot afford the Sacrament at all to our mixed Churches. I may truly tell Mr. Drake, it was no intent of mine to dispute with him, or offend any, but that we might sit under our own Vines, and drink of the Wine thereof with our people in peace, without these sour grapes being put into it.  
P. 55, 56. He instances the Rubric, and Exhortation in the Book of Common-prayer, which I believe little thought to be made use of to this purpose.  
Ans. For the Rubrics allowing the Minister to suspend some notorious evil livers, I take it upon the account of ipso jure Excommunicate, the end being expressed to satisfy the Congregation. For the Exhortation, [whereas it mentions only heinous sins (If any of you be blasphemers, adulterers, in malice, or any grievous sin, etc.) we may distinguish happily between sins that cannot stand with sincerity, which no wilful sin (we hold) can, or with profession, as Church-members; it may be it reaches not the first, but the last, upon the former account. While a man is guilty of that deserves a censure, if convicted, he may humbly sentence himself, unto a more solemn repentance, before he comes, and give no offence. But if you apply it to all known sin] I am willing to take it, as matter of prudential advice only (with godly Mrs before) in this sense, If any of you are actually in some sin unrepented of, (as malice, etc.) you may forbear this Sacrament at present, so long as you resolve to prepare yourselves against the next; But if you shall wholly refuse to come, you are to know how sorely you offend God upon these terms, to neglect his Ordinance. But for Mr. Drake now, methinks he should blush to produce me this authority, which himself despises. I would wish him seriously to ponder their former Exhortation with this, and therein weigh these words, as given us from their experience. Whereas you offend God if you do refuse his holy Banquet, I admonish you, that unto this sin you will not add any more, by standing by as gazers, and not partaking yourselves of it. This makes the fault much greater, and is a farther contempt, having the mysteries of Christ in derision. Is it not said, Take ye, and Eat, Take and Drink ye all of this? With what fate then shall you hear these words? Will not this be a neglecting, despising, and mocking the Testament of jesus Christ?  
P. 56. He acknowledges this practice of his were against the well-being of a true visible Church, if the Lords Supper were a privilege due to all members.  
Ans. I think herein his cause is yielded (to all clearly, but what we have excepted) for there is an Inward right or privilege to this Ordinance, which is invisible, we here speak not of; and Outward, or visible right, and that is Church-membership. As for the subdistinction of this, to be more remote, or immediate, found out by some, we cannot receive without warrant from Scripture.  
I pray look unto the Passeover, what gave a man right to that? See Exod. 12. Every circumcised person shall eat thereof. There was nothing but a man's entering into the visible jewish Church, was the ground of his admission. Turn to Acts 2.42. What gave those 3000 right to continue in breaking of bread, as doctrine, but only that they were added to the Church by Baptism? and immediately this fellowship belongs to them. See 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. The Sacrament is the Communion, or token of our Communion in Jesus Christ; Now I argue, If every Church-member in statu quo, is in Christ Io. 15.2. externally a partaker of his blood, so as to sanctify him, Heb. 10.29. and redeem him, 2 Pet. 2.1. than he has, I hope, an immediate right to that which is but a token hereof; So long as he is in communion, how can he be debarred the Communion? These outward things must go together, and you must cut him off Relatively from communion with Christ, or the Church, be you can deny him the outward pledge of his profession. While he is in the body, he may partake of the body, The Church is the body of Christ, and so long as we are one body, we are one bread, and partakers of that one bread. There needs even nothing here, methinks, but drawing the curtain, and you see it day all abroad.  
P. 56. Good Government lies in the Geometrical (not Arithmetical) administration of censures, etc.  
Ans. Mr. Drake does well to speak for himself, for if there be any thing in this good Government he means, hangs by Geometry, it is this suspension, while he places it in the air between Admonition and Excommunication. As for his argument from the greater to the less, we know it holds not, but in things of the same kind: Now Excommunication is of divine institution, but where will you find his suspension? so that his Reason truly, is this, Because he may exercise that which is a Church censure allowed in the Word, which is the greater; therefore he may set up that which is no Church censure, which is the less. The casting scandalous persons out of the Church, with due caution, is I think of Divine right, but the Excommunicating a man from one Ordinance, so that he is still a Church-member otherwise, is to me an opinion upon the hearth unturned. The lump is the Church, and I see not how the leaven can be said purged out, while it is a part of it. Excommunication therefore, I judge, does properly respect Church-society in general, or Church-membership; and all the Ordinances Relatively, as I take it. An Excommunicated person I doubt not may be admitted to some Ordinances, as the word (and it may be prayer, as the Church thinks fit) to do him good, while he is kept from others, as the Sacrament, yet is he not to be accounted hereby a Church-member. He may come to hear in the state of a Heathen, as the word is published to all, Mar. 16.15. But as the Word is a Sealed Word, and belongs with distinction of privilege to the Church, he is Relatively cut off from his interest in it. So that he is to reckon himself (for all this common favour) as one externally cast off from the Church, and all her Privileges, that the terror thereof may drive him to repentance, and bring him home. And upon this account only of being (Relatively) out of the body, do we juridically debar him (as I hold) communion of the body.  
Pag. 57 Because suspension is not mentioned in Scripture, therefore Mr. Humphreys will have it 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.  
Ans. 1. I pray, let all tender Consciences take notice, that this thing (distinctly) contended for, with such strictness, is confessed in terms, not to be in Scripture2. Whereas the whole business of Excommunication is placed by him, in actual receiving, from which he suspends all that refuse to submit unto his way; it follows that this man, before he does so much, as go to gain some by words at all, he presently knocks them on the head, and yet would be thought very favourable, that he doth no more to them than he can possible. As for the commendation of his own way, as a means to purity, instruction of the ignorant, good conversation of the Members, etc. I answer, These are indeed commendable things, to be pursued, without these terrors, and burdens upon the Conscience, in reference to this Ordinance.  
Pag. 58. He tells us, My support from Christ's Parable of the Tares and Wheat, Mat. 13. is feeble.  
Ans. But is is strong I hope to maintain our mixed Churches against separation; when the Net is drawn, then shall the fishes be separated, and when the Harvest comes, then shall be gathered out, all things that offend, v. 41. And if herein it be invincible, it would serve me, had Mr. Drake let me alone. But seeing he gins with me, let us try him; the ground on which he stands is visibility; if any man be visibly unworthy, he must not admit him upon any terms. Now see how directly this is against the words of the Parable. v. 26, 27. The Servants come and tell the Lord of the Tares, they discern them, they are apparent, they are visible Tares, yet the Lord commands to let them alone; I think Mr. Drake must shut his eyes upon this Text, if he will yet persist in making visible unworthiness the rule of excommunication. But now what has he to say unto this? 1. He says, It's apparent the Tares were sown, when men slept, v. 25.  
Ans. But what is this question, how they were sown, to their growing together? I remember Erasmus brings in two men, as very conceited to have others think they could hear well enough, when they were both stark deaf, and thereupon discoursing together; methinks Mr. Drake while he speaks so notably to the purpose, might serve ingenuously to make a third between them. 2. He says, He forbids them on this Proviso, lest it should hurt the Wheat, but he can do it (he thinks) so curiously, it shall be much advantage to it.  
Ans. I pray mark it, The Lord judges the plucking up the Tares will hurt the Wheat, (shake, unroot, grieve the tender) Mr. Drake says it will do the Wheat much good. The Servants take their Lord's proviso, to forbear, Mr. Drakes takes it to do the contrary; you must think Mr. Drake a little wiser than these Servants.  
As for his terms, of Negative, and positive suspension, we may approve (if he will) under their own notions of admonition and Excommunication; but whereas he objects, If the Lord will have the Tares let alone until the day of judgement, what will become of this Excommunication? I answer, there is no doubt of Christ's reconciling his own Ordinances.  
P. 59 Christ's converse with sinners makes for us, who publicly profess their repentance, but not Pharisees, etc.  
Ans. 1. Sir, Public Confession will hardly down, and Auricular we do not approve. 2. Christ sometimes conversed too with the Pharises, I hope to do good upon them. 3. I had thought Christ had often companyed with sinners, to bring them to repentance, and not with such only as were penitent already, and that I think, applied here, makes little for you.  
P. 60: He brings in some expressions of mine with amazement, the sense whereof, (as harmless as the words) is but this, I judge Christ's act of admitting judas, hath been generally prevalent with the Church, for Free-admission, and that it might yet be sufficient, but that men are not now so willing to receive it. For my part, I do but declare herein, according to our former Church, with the practice of Mr. Perkins, and such godly men that have gone before us. And as for such that are now otherwise minded, I reverence them, I have no evil thoughts of them, the Lord knows it, Mr. Drake need not so unjustly, and so direfully, first accuse me, then condemn me for what he forges, as if I deserved to be more than suspended, which in his sense, makes me tremble, it should enter into his heart Ah Lord! Is this the temper of holy men? Judge me, try me, (though I am vile otherwise, and most unworthy) if herein there be any iniquity in me, why I should be thus devoted to the pit of Hell, even irrecoverably, if thy mercy did not exceed this man's infirmity. Thou seest, these censures are things too sharp to be put into the hands of such Children of thine, who have so little discretion for to use them, and it may be the effect of thy Fatherly wisdom, to keep their knives away from them, when they are ready to do such shrewd turns with them. It may be the Lord will look on my affliction, and require me good for his cursing this day.   

Sect. 8 MY third Reason was from Church-fellowship, which ought to be in charity, humility, without judging, every one esteeming others better than themselves, etc. Now if men will go to set up a discriminating Ordinance they cannot keep themselves from entrenching on these duties, and occasioning divisions. Our sad experience has made this argument too weighty for Mr. Drakes particulars, which are not worth the naming, unless he could first prove it the Ministers duty, to discern between the worthy and unworthy, as the rule of admission. When Moses saw two Israelites fight, he parted them, and made them friends, but when he saw an Egyptian striving with an Israelite, he saved the Israelite, without any regard to the life of the Egyptian. If this rule of visibility had any foundation in the Scriptures, we should certainly endeavour to reconcile these texts to it; but when it has not any at all, and yet is striving against our peace and unity, humility and charity, we must save the Israelite: these duties must be preserved, whatsoever becomes of this opposite thing that contends with it.  
Not that I hold all judging unlawful, for I doubt not, but there may be both a Public, and private judging; Public judgement is either in Civil causes, or Church-censures, both which are sufficiently warranted in the word upon due conviction. Private judgement, is either upon ones self, or upon others, I think sometimes the one may be sinful, as the other without sin, and that not only, in case of outward actions which are apparent transgression, but in some charitable suspicions upon occasion (as job over his Sons) tending to admonition. This I do speak, that I may not abate from the zeal and piety of any over their relations, though we allow a free-communion.  
For his 9 things, p. 62, 63, 64. I return briefly, 1. A judging one's self as worthy, and unworthy unto the Sacrament, is private, but sound judgement. A judging others as to the truth and sincerity of grace, though public, is not, I think, a warranted judgement. But a judgement of probability, as to a visible fitness, and unfitness, upon a charitable jealousy, may be solid, as to advice and counsel, but not, as to be a rule of admission, or suspension.  
2. The censures of the Church upon Heresy or scandal, after due admonition and conviction, will stand firm (as they have ever done) without this judging at the Sacrament.  
3. Ephesus is commended for her trial of the false Apostles, as to their doctrine, not for a trial as to the Sacrament. She could not bear those that were evil in the Church, it were a wretched interpretation, to say, she could not bear them only at the Lords Supper.  
4. The Apostle, 1 Cor. 5.7, 12, 13. speaks of the like Excommunication from the whole lump, that the evil report of such a notorious action (I take it) might not leaven their Church's reputation, by his being reckoned of their company.  
5. The trial of the Ministers at our Ordination, hath express warrant for it, but there is no Scripture sets up a trial of our members unto the Communion.  
6. The gentleness required of an Elder, 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. will hardly stand with Mr. Drakes spirit, which makes him the more unfit for this trial, if it were meet in others.  
7. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, does not allow us to suffer men in their sins, for there is a reproof in the spirit of meekness, but it does allow us to suffer, and invite them (unless excommunicate) unto God's ordinances.  
8. It is a censure befits only Mr. Drake to judge it out of pride in the most, and ignorance in the best, that they do not conform themselves in this thing unto him, when it may be the lamentation of their souls, to see the miserable effects already of it.  
9 As a man cannot note a fault with more mildness than in Scripture-terms, and bring himself in it, as I have done in these words, Preferring ourselves, Phil. 2.3: so there cannot be expressed more bitterness to a fellow-Minister, ordained as he (if he would know it) by the Presbytery, than to number me in the company of Corah, Sanballat, and Tobiah.  
And now should I return him his own language, p. 61. See you not here how the vizard of piety falls off, and his breath and pen savour quickly of pride? Should I say, If this do not smell strong of sublime Pharisaism, I beseech you what doth? as he has it p. 93? Or rather should I hearty advise him to take heed there be not a guilt herein upon his own conscience, that so galls him to the heart, (in a hatred of the remedy, instead of the disease) I should be justified by his words, but do not know whether I shall be approved by God, in making it a means to show him his sin, and humble him for it. For my part, while he can even wish the earth might open and swallow me up, I desire the Lord to open his eyes, that he may see the rents he helps to make, to swallow up the Church: And though he obtain not his wish as to the Earth, yet has he prevailed much as to the waters, which have overflowen my soul, and even been ready to swallow that up, with the sorrows and wound of my heart under these his bitter accusations. The Lord executeth judgement and righteousness for the oppressed.  
Alas Sir! Is it any advantage unto me to see our Church in her ruins? can I repine at that double honour you would get, in ruling well, as in labouring in the Gospel? Do not I rather deplore the burden on yourselves, and indignation of others in lieu of it? Would it not be as much happiness to me as my fellow brethren, to have that Government established, which is thought most conducing to our own good? And can I take any such pleasure in the disorders, dis-respects, and contumelies, of an unwieldy people, as much as any, for want of discipline, that I should be against it? No, it is the unwarrantableness in Scripture, the unsuitableness with men's Spirits, the improbability of the effect; it is the desire of peace, unity in the Church, and the taking away the root of our divisions, especially it is the infinite account on the Minister's Soul, the many grievous wounds, and perplexities of tender Consciences, that have engaged my soul●, and interested my spirit for a freedom at this Ordinance. And now, if it shall please the Lord, to make me a poor instrument, to bring refreshment to any of his people amidst their afflictions, concerning themselves, or our mixed Communions, I shall be contented to be reckoned by this man, for a Sanballat or Tobiah, if I may be accepted of my God in the words of Nehemiah, Remember me heerin O Lord, according to thy great mercy, and wipe not out the kindnesses I have done to the house of my God, and the offices thereof, but wipe out all my failings, and my offences, with thy goodness, and the precious blood of jesus Christ.  
Pag. 65. His note is good (though words bad,) We are more apt to take notice (of what men do ill, than what they do well) of their sitting to reject a few, than of the many are admitted to their mutual comfort, etc.  
Ans. I know not which is more comfort, to have all visibly worthy, or to have charity enough to make all so, I am sure, the seeing the vilest may have a good use on our hearts, if it humble them, and makes us look on ourselves, as them, without the difference of God's mercy. It is indeed a comfortable thing, to be with our brethren round about our Father, with none but His Children, receiving our portions of the blood of Christ, yet need it not deject, but enlarge our devotions, to see an attendance of Servants also coming along with his Sons, in their due profession of a like outward dependence on him. While the Glory of the Lord filleth the Temple, his Train may be suffered to reach unto the Earth.  
Pag. 66. to p. 70. He brings in my 3 passages of our Saviour. The first was about the Pharisee, Lu. 18. Which I have expressed with that tenderness, and caution in the showing the fault, and not grieving the faulty, that I commit it farther to their consideration, pitying Mr. Drakes poor excuse, That his judgement was private and without trial, as if a thing for being more public, were the less evil; and when he judges himself worthy, and many unworthy, he asks the question, Yet how do we think ourselves better than others?  
The second was in Lu. 5. where Christ entertaining so many Publicans and sinners at Table with him, gives us the reason, that he came to call them to repentance, that is, to convert them; and yet Mr. Drake says, What is this against them, Who will admit none unto Christ's Table, unless converted already? For his interpretation of I come not to call the righteous, he wrongs Christ to say, 1. He would not have all admitted. 2. Rejects the Righteous, for this must be taken in regard of the effect, not tender of his grace. 1 Tim. 2.4. Christ rejected not the Pharisees, but they rejected him, Mat. 23.37. He offered his grace as freely to them, as any others, but the fault was their own, they would not come into it. Whosoever comes unto me I will in no wise cast out.  
The third was a sweet place in Io. 8. where, who doth not see how impertinent Mr. Drake is, about opening that Text (though he doth it well enough) as if he could not distinguish between a proof, and illustration. My sense is this, the tender consideration of Jesus Christ, in setting the jows to the sifting their own hearts, when they came with intents of judging the Woman, might be a good allay for many amongst us, that are so forward about the censuring others, and indeed, is so taking, Mr. Drake fre●s at it. For my part I can patiently bear with his terms, of Ignorance, Instability, Prejudice, Perversion, so long as I find a complacency in my spirit, and comfort in this passage above most I have writ. Methinks I have some passages are not so fit for me, I can even mourn over them, that they seem too pious for the writer; but this is an Argument, may be my very own, an Argument that becomes such a poor sinner as I am; the very prevailing thing at the bottom of my soul, and not so much an Argument, as the very confession of my heart. Indeed I was afraid that this acknowledgement of my Conscience would have turned to my shame, but I have found it my peace, and whilst I have confessed mine iniquity, my God I hope does forgive me, and answer my reproach. For when Mr. Drake tells me, I am proud, a Pharisee, a Corah, I can but turn to this place, and I hope I am not so. For my answer then to him, his error is open, in taking his Sacramental judging for warranted, which is the thing in question. 'tis true, men cannot bring this passage against the Magistrate, nor to take away our censures which God has commanded in the Church, yet is it sufficient, I hope, to make us take heed, and be very loath to set up any censures (as of visible worthiness) which Christ has not commanded us. So that to close, as I said at first, if this were once proved a precept of Christ, I would yield to Mr. Drake in every particle, but seeing men are assured there is no such thing, it is in vain to conceive chaff and bring forth stubble, which his own breath serves but to consume, while of all his particulars, he that is now so hot, shall not have a coal left him, to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.   

Sect. 9 MY fourth Reason arose from the formality of a selection at this Sacrament, as vain, and endless; vain as to the really worthy, because we cannot know them, and endless as to the visible, because this is the door of our separations.  
Look we unto the Church as it was amongst the jews; The whole Nation, Deut. 12.2. is said to be a holy people, a peculiar people, Ezra 9.2. Dan 8.24. In Deut. 26.16, 17, 18. there is this reason, because the Lord had given them his Statutes. Compare it with Ro. 3.2. and 9.4. To them belonged the Oracles, and the Covenants, etc. I pray mark it, as the jews were separated from the World, in the acknowledgement of the true God, and profession of his name, they are a holy, peculiar, adopted people, insomuch that Moses says expressly, God did hereby avouch them to be his people, and they him to be their God. Now unto whom the Covenants belong, the seals of the Covenant do belong; but the Covenants we see manifestly belong to them hereby, as professors, or members only of the Jewish Church, and that we must know too, by way of privilege, so as that they are interested in the outward benefits of it, and reckoned externally in Covenant with God, even in cases of very grievous transgressions, if you seriously ponder Ex. 32.7, 8. with 11.13. Ps. 106.39. with 45. etc. In Eze. Idolatrous Children are said born to him; and Christ calls them his own. Io. 1.11. who were unbelievers, and received him not. And hence therefore did Circumcision, and the Passeover, belong to them on that account, for we find their whole seed to be Circumcised, and counted holy, Ro. 11.16. and when they were once Circumcised, Ex. 12. there was no need of proving any other right unto the Passeover. There is a place here in prevails much with me, Exod. 24.8. where we find Moses upon this very respect, making no distinction, in sprinkling the blood of the Covenant in general upon the people, with these words, Behold the blood of the Covenant God has made with you. I pray pause a little, and think, what do we more in delivery of the Sacrament?  
Look we again as we are Christians; We shall find there is no privilege belongs to the Elect, but in an external relation, it is frequently attributed to the visible Church, in the New Testament. There is an external Vocation, Sanctification, Adoption, Redemption, etc. The Apostle calls the Hebrews Holy Brethren, and partakers of a Heavenly calling, Heb. 3.1. when yet there was a heart of unbelief (ver. 12.) he fears in them. The Corinth's were very vicious, 2 Cor. 12.21. and upon this account he at first wrote to them, 1 Cor. 1.11. yet does he style them, as they are of the visible Church, Saints by calling, Sanctified in Christ, 1 Cor. 1.2. And even those of them that were given to Fornication, 1 Cor. 3.17, he says they were the Temples of the Holy Ghost, using that as an argument to reclaim them from it; Even as he tells them, all were in communion with Christ, and partook of one bread, wherefore they should flee Idolatry, 1 Cor. 10.14, 15, 16, 17. There is then a double Christian, and Jew; An outward Jew, and Christian, and an inward Jew and Christian, Rom. 2.28, 29. Even as there are these outward and inward privileges and relations. Now that which makes a Christian or jew to be inwardly a jew or Christian, gives him an immediate right to the inward privileges, which is truth of grace: And that which makes a man an outward Christian or jew, gives him immediate right to the outward privileges of the jew and Christian, and that is Church-membership, or profession. And this business, methinks, is sweetly decided for us by Christ himself, when he sums up the whole visible Church into these two heads only, Many are called, and few chosen.  
As for what Mr. D. has to say against this, p. 71, 72, 73, 74. it is barren, as a field already gleaned. In general he says, 1: In the rule of admission, they are not to go by the truth of grace. It is well he is brought to confess this, which so often otherwhere he thinks himself bound to pry into. See Page 117. His trial there, is to uncase many outwardly pious, that live in some known sin, and discover them to be hypocritical, yet here it is not the rule he goes by. It is pity but the Lawgiver should be Lord over his own rule. His reason is, because Infants, etc. which is now seven times. 2. Nor by visible profession, or Church membership, which way the Scripture goes, because it is too lose for him. The godly, forsooth, must not go the ordinary road of Christians, lest the wicked come along with them. His argument is as good as this, I must not go the horse-way, because I am a man. 3. He has found out a medium, a middle way, which before these times our Church never knew, and he may be famous for the discovery, seeing there is scarce a trace or footstep in the whole Word, any else can find for it, besides him. We have had one Drake already famous for shooting the Gulf, you shall now have another, for cutting the straits in this business of Admission.  
In particular, Page 71.72. Can not all the Art Mr. H. hath, think of a medium participationis?  
Ans. 1. The whole Art Mr. H. professes, is to be a humble follower of jesus Christ, who tells us of no medium here, while he divides all his guests (as I have said) into the called and chosen, Matt. 22.14. Which close being brought in unto this Parable, may happily serve both to check Mr. D. that will be wiser than his Lord, and help to direct us in the rule of our admission. The servants can look but to the one, who are Saints by calling, as the Lord to the other, who are Saints by Election.  
2. I doubt not but if Mr. D. finds out one medium, there will be enough to find out more, for if ever there were any Sects or Schisms in the Church, they run upon this same account, that they have found out the true medium as well as he. If we maintained our profession, we might have kept out our divisions, but in the yielding the one, we are lost in the other. Mr. Drakes words here are but vain, when we see these sad effects. There is a wound made in our very bowels, which the Church has received by her own sons, while they have given the occasion of separation from her. This is the whirlpool wherein she loses her Children, whom as soon as she has fostered under her wings, and with long travels gotten but out of the shell, they presently leave her; Even as those Ducklings that are hatched under a Hen, let them but come once to see the waters, they regard not at all the clucking of their Mother, but run themselves in the depths of their own imaginations.  
P. ibid. We look at his rule of Church-membership, or profession, as a very lose principle etc.  
Ans. And what does he think of Christ's action, in admitting of Judas, was that a lose action? and are the Scriptures lose Scriptures? what reason has he for this? Because it will open a door for Infants, etc. Alas, good man I, Is this it? and I pray what else? As also for the wicked, etc. He should say in plain terms, It is a lose principle, because it is not his principle, and then he had hit it.  
For his instance of children, which we have had now no less than eight times over, merely out of penury, in having nothing else; Methinks I may only answer him, with the Philosopher, when he took another a-bed with his Wife, that was extremely ill favoured, O miserable man (says he) what necessity has brought thee hither? O poor Mr. Drake! what wretchedness is this, that he should have no other argument to make use of? For his other instance, if profession be Mr. HE s, ground, how dare he Excommunicate any Baptised person, though most wicked? I answer, As the Priest durst shut up the Leper from the whole Congregation; because of God's special command, 1 Cor: 5.13. Indeed if the Priest would have kept him from the Ordinances, when he was not to be kept from the Camp, he had no warrant for it. Though I dare not exclude any Church-member, in statu quo, while his right is good, yet I hope I may, where he has forfeited that right, and is made no Church-member by Excommunication. Because I must admit of him that is a professor, therefore may not I exclude him, that is for the present in the state of no professor? It fares with children here, as it does in their lands, it is not for want of a right, but want of a capacity, they do not enjoy it; but it fares with the Excommunicate, as in men's forfeiture of their Estates; Their whole right to it is lost for the present, until there be a recovery by their repentance.  
Page 74. Doth not Mr. H. know, a man may be habitually worthy, and yet not actually, etc. Dia he never hear of Real and Visible worthiness. & c?  
Ans. For the former, I do know it is a good distinction, as applied to the Receivers, though I believe it no ways concerns the rule of our admission. But for the latter, I must confess I have heard of the Visible Church, Saints by calling, Professors, etc. but this Visible worthiness, as distinguished therefrom, I have not lightly read of, but in him, though I willingly in opposing him, make use of the terms as brief, and very significant of his meaning, that is as Exotic to the Scriptures, as the expression.  
And now methinks I see many pious men, conscious of their own uprightness, as so many jobes, ready to stand up and justify themselves; behold therefore, I shall be as another Elihis, form out of the Clay; I have heard you say we are innocent, our way is righteous; But where are your Scriptures? Where is any precept for it? or example in the Word? doth it seem good to you to put a yoke on the Brethren, when you are not sure, it seemeth good also to the Holy Ghost? Is there any thing worthy all your labours, watch and pious designs, that has not clear Authority from Christ? Or is there any such thing, worthy our Church's troubles and alterations? Have ye been so tender of your own consciences, about some circumstances at this Table formerly, that you should not now leave the substance of the duty free unto others? And have you in the issue found any such fruits, and blessed effects, as you have expected in laying this foundation, whereof our spiritual enemy takes advantage to bring a burden upon our own Souls, perplexities to tender Consciences, displeasure on the general, and accidental danger to us all▪ in opening the door to our endless separations? How hath the Lord Covered the Daughter of Zion with a cloud, and cast down from Heaven to Earth the beauty of Israel? Reproach, and Division hath broken our hearts, we looked for some to take pity, and there was none, and for comforters, and have found none. Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned, Renew our days as of old.  
Pag. 75. Upon that allusion of mine, about the Onion, out of pleasant, he brings bitter; whether the man be more flat or spiteful, let others judge; I am sure, the Emblem of the Spider, sucking venom out of those flowers the Bee does honey, is lively represented in this place. For the sense of his words, which are a censuring of all us that hold for a free offer of Christ at this Sacrament, to be opposers of the Church, and the Wicked, and his party only the godly; I answer him humbly in the words of Christ, Luk. 9.55. You know not what manner of spirit you are of. It is not so easy a thing, to discern, between the right hand and left hand of jesus Christ; It is not your part to sever the Sheep and the Goats, to write Doomsday, and the book of judgement. It was a kind question of Joseph to his brethren, How does the old man, is he yet alive? I will ask my virulent opposer, the same question, Sir, What think you of the ancients of our Church, and their former practices? How have they done a long time? Is your Father well, the old man, of which you speak? Are they all of them of the wicked? Is this your kindness to them in their age? to bring down so many grey judgements with sorrow to the grave.  
For the manner of his expression, with his dagger of that text, Ez. 13.22. (though used by rote before to Mr. Prynne) I must confess it is very grievous to me; Mine eyes cannot look upon it, but they affect my heart; O Lord! Do thou bow down thine ear, and hear, open thine eyes, an behold, for me, the reproach, he has spread here with p. 92, 93, 94. etc. before the world; See Lord, if thou wilt allow such language, and such spleen in one of thy children, and not reprove him for it; Rebuke him, O Lord, yet not as a Son of Ashur, but as a Son of judah. Let all bitterness, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice, and be you kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.   

Sect. 10 MY Fifth Reason was drawn from the uniformity of the service of God; If the Lord has appointed all his ordinances in common for the visible Church, why would man sever what Christ has joined? The strength of this truly rednced to its fountain, issues from God's precept, and our duty, which, so long as they must stand, the question may not need so great debate, whether we must obey rather, God, or man.  
There was no Nation like the Jews, unto whom the Lord gave his Statutes, says Moses, it was the whole people, the whole Church, to whom the Statutes were given; Amongst these Statutes, they had the Passeover, which you may see to whom it belongs, Exod. 12.3. Speak unto all the Congregations; Mark it, is not here a general institution, as of any other ordinance? so that the whole jewish Church, or all the circumcised, is the adequate subject (if I may use those words) of this duty? Compare it with Numb 9.3. and God says, he that did not keep it, should be cut off. Will any man now imagine (unless Mr. Drake) that none but the regenerate were to eat thereof? Turn then to the Gospel, and do we not likewise find the Sacrament instituted thus for the whole Church? The Lords words are, Do this, Drink ye all of it, a standing precept to all the Twelve, as representatives of the Universal Church, as visible, while judas is amongst them; and it is expressed, They all drank of it. Out of Zion shall go forth a Law; upon this obligation, we find the whole number of Professors, breaking bread every week, Act. 20.7. and daily, Act. 3.46. but we find not a word about any discrimination at it: Is not this then a general command for the visible Church? and was not here the practice common? Again 1 Cor. 11. you have the whole institution repeated, and enjoined till Christ come, ver. 26. And then ver. 33. he concludes directly thus, When you come together to eat, tarry for one another. He speaks, no doubt, unto the persons he reproves, which we may see how vicious they were, and yet their coming he holds to be good, that must still be done, but directs them to carry themselves better there, which likewise ought not to be left undone. One would never think it should have needed to come under proof, that this is a duty belonging in general to the visible Church, or that any should hold, that it is a precept only for the regenerate and Elect, if we did but consider that Saint Paul is so far from making distinction of these Corinth's at it, that he brings it in the Chapter before, as an ordinary privilege, without any dispute, even as freely as the very Manna, and the rock, which rock was Christ.  
Unto this I will add only those words, Gen. 17.10. This is my covenant you shall keep, Every manchild among you shall be circumcised; from whence it appears, the condition and keeping of the Covenant is either inwardly in the grace, or outwardly, in the administration; If a man be not inwardly in covenant to keep it effectually in the grace, yet so long as he is externally in covenant, he must keep it still in the administration, that is in the Ordinances.  
It is therefore, as I am afraid, very dangerous to hold with Mr D. (let the pious judge between us) that it is only the regenerate (for so he speaks it) not every man's duty to receive; for this opens a door unto neglect, making man's impotency, a sufficient reason to nullify God's precept, and to justify one sin with another. I shall therefore here produce you Mr. Perkins (for we must be plain herein) in his Cases of Conscience, whose authority I hope will go, he lays down these three rules.  
1: Every man of years living in the Church, and being baptised, is bound in conscience by God's command, Take, Eat, Do ye this, to use the Lords Supper. You see here Church membership is the rule this Eminent man went by, and yet I hope was not one of the wicked, for all Mr. D's censure. 2. Every man is to receive it often, 1 Cor. 11.26. considering it is nothing but the showing the Lords death. He comes up to our very ground herein, as a visible Gospel. 3. Every man is to receive, and use the Lords Supper, according to the laudable custom of his own Church, etc. Nothing can be more full and honest. Indeed it is true, if a man live in any known sin, he ought to repent before he come, he must come, and come worthy, he must come worthily, yet he must come, whether he be regenerate or unregenerate, he must obey still; our necessity of sinning cannot evacuate Christ's authority, or man's duty. When an Action hath evil in its own substance, it is to be omitted; but when the Action is of its self the matter of a precept, and so hath evil externally cast on it by the Agent that doth it, here the Action is not to be omitted, but the Agent to be reform.  
For Mr. D's answers here they are trifles, p. 75, 76, 77. 1 He brings in Infants again, which is the ninth time, and he is confident to extricate himself by the same ga●. But he is a little mistaken, for I have put him in two such thorns, that he shall sooner prick himself to the bone, than fairly get out of it. 2. He says six parts of time are common, yet not the seventh. 3. He says on. 4. He is very fine. The whole Ordinances he distinguishes into parts, they are not applicable universally, and so the Sacrament. Where if the man be serious, I answer. 1. Mr. D. must not part those actions Christ has joined. 2. Moses makes no doubt of applying the Covenant universally to the people, and it is in my mind that that passage may do much. 3. The Word itself, or covenant, is applicable to all, in the whole parts of it upon its own terms, that is, conditionally. 4. If this will not serve, Take but the language of the Covenant aright, Mar. 16.16. Here is Christ, If thou truly accept'st of him, thou shalt be saved; If thou do not, the Word declares, and the Sacrament seals to thee, unless thou repentest, thou shalt perish; and then all the difficulty is over, and our scruples done.  
P. 78. If do this be universal (leaving those two other things like the rest) than it were a sin to persuade any to forbear, though a Zimri, Actually drunk, etc.  
Ans. 1. His instances are ipso jure Excommunicate. 2. As Christ says, Do this, Paul says, Put away from you such a person. We do not deny from Christ's universal, Paul's exception. 3. Though there is no occasion that may make us commit a sin, yet are there many occasions sometimes of forbearing a duty. A man may leave his gift at the altar, and go and be reconciled, but he must not take away his gift from the altar: The business may be deferred, that must not be wholly left undone. If I know my brother evil, I think I may admonish him to repentance▪ and give him instructions of preparing himself better against next Sacrament, so long as I do but bind the obligation more on him; but if I advise him upon such reasons as will wholly keep him away, my advice is evil. Affirmative precepts do bind universally, as well as Negative, but not ad semper, against all occasions. I may in prudence, I think, advise my brother of such an occasion, for the advantage of his soul; but if I tell him it is not his duty, I make myself Lord over God's command. As the Church has always attributed much unto prudence in the ordering this solemnity, especially as to her more seldom and frequent administering, so may her Members happily take some example, as to their receiving. Forbearance on necessary (Numb. 9.10.) or pious grounds (Matt. 5.23.) reaches but to the ad semper, and may be lawful; but for to hold, it is not a man's duty while unregenerate, this reaches the semper, and loses the bands of God's command. Let this zealous man take heed, it be not laid to his charge.  
I will add, If the man be careless, and regards not his coming, but being conscious of his evil life, he thinks he shall eat his damnanation, and so lays it by, which is the case of thousands, I think we are here to set our faces against such, and to let them know, that it is not man's wickedness can void or annihilate the authority of Christ: so that they are still for to come, and the obligation lies on them, to apply the Covenant for their repentance. O my vile soul! why dost thou fly? This shows the guilt that is on thy conscience, and wouldst thou hid thine own eyes from it? Come man, and see what thou hast done; Here is Christ's blood, which thou dost shed with thy transgressions, and will not this melt thee? See how the corpse doth as it were bleed at the presence of the Murderer, and will it not melt thee? if it does not, it shall rise up against thee. Behold here is sealed to thee eternal condemnation, unless thou repentest, and sincerely comest in to jesus Christ; Lay it well to heart, man, and think on it, there is no way besides left thee for to escape it.  
Pag. ibid. He grants, though an unregenerate man sins in all his duties, yet must he do them; But says, There is not par ratio in order to receiving, 1. Because it is not his duty,2. It cannot convert him.  
Ans. The former of these I have spoken to all this while, and shall thus enforce it: If the Sacrament be not the duty of an unregenerate man, then must regeneration be a qualification required in the precept, as necessary to receiving, and so be essentially antecedent to the Sacraments; but regeneration is not essentially antecedent to the Sacraments. For 1. Then Baptism was not administered validly, and according to rule to many by the Apostle, Acts 8.13. john 6.66. with john 4.1. Acts 20.30.2. Then such as were baptised before they were regenerate, supposing they came to be afterwards regenerate, were to be baptised again, because their former baptism had not its essentials. 3. Then can no man administer either Sacrament to any but himself, for he cannot act in faith, seeing he is not sure others have the essentials. 4. Then can no doubting Christian himself receive, for he cannot act in faith so long as he is not fully persuaded of his own regeneration. The truth is then, though regeneration is a qualification necessary to the receiver, in regard of other ends, to wit, for the obtaining the entire benefits of the Covenant sealed, yet not absolutely necessary to receiving; Even as saving faith is necessary to the hearers of the Word, for the obtaining the effectual benefit of salvation, yet not absolutely pre-requisite to hearing, for faith may come by it. If it be an evil to set up our posts with God's posts, what is it to remove God's posts, to set up our own? The Lord jesus says plainly, Drink ye all of it, but Mr. D. says No, It is not every man's duty.  
The second follows necessarily upon this, if it be every Church members duty of age, as Mr. Perkins, and Divines commonly tell us, than it may tend to his good, as sure as all God's Commandments are good; and if it does him not good, it will be his sin. For my part I am very sorry to see how men for the sake of this are forced upon it, to deny the other. When Christ says, Believe, there goes a power with his precept, as when he said, Lazarus, Come forth; Else it were vain for us Ministers to act, that are but earthen instruments. And shall Christ say, Take, and we make nothing of it? Is this it, men so earnestly contend for, to make the word of Christ an empty word, as if it could not quicken us? Alas Sirs! this is nothing but mere distrust. A pious soul may even bleed to see his Saviour's command laid waste, because we have so little faith in it. Christ is not a Minister of the letter, which kills, but of the Spirit, which he conveys through his commands. The good Lord pardon, and help in us, this great evil of unbelief. And as for all the injuries this man out of his zeal has done unto me, Accept thou now, O God, from a melted heart, and wet eyes, this poor prayer of mine for him, that his own bitter words may not sink so heavy on his soul, as they have on mine, when he comes to see how much he has done amiss.  
Before I pass, methinks we have need here of some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon this truth, which seems harsh, that the unregenerate sins in all he does.  
There is therefore a doing good or evil, either Simply, in regard of the matter of God's precept; or Relatively, in regard of the Sanction of it to its end, as it comes under the condition of the Covenant, whereby we expect life: In the first sense, a man though unregenerate may do well, and that which is right in God's eyes, and be rewarded for it, 2 Kin. 10.30. yet sins in the second. There is a faith only, that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him; and there is a true justifying faith in Jesus Christ. The actions of Moral men, that have proceeded out of the first only, I dare say in the behalf of God's goodness, are so far accepted as virtuous, that they shall be rewarded (according to their trust he will not fail them) either Positively, with some temporal blessings, or Privatively, with some degree of mitigation, in their eternal punishments; so that It shall be well still with those that do well, that none may want sufficient encouragement to do good. But yet I say whatsoever actions do not proceed from that other faith too, which is truly saving, they are said to be sin nevertheless, in that they come not up to that perfection or sincerity, Gen. 17.1. required in the Covenant, as the condition its self, Ja. 2.20. or rather testimony thereof, unto justification of life, or everlasting salvation.  
Page 79. He throws his glove first to the Independents, then to the Presbyterians, etc.  
Ans. In those words of mine, Let men on one side answer, Let some of our other, etc. I must confess they fell from me at first without the least thought of Engagement. I know that every one is not fit to take up the Gauntlet for truth, and I am one, as Mr. D. says truly, that am not yet scarce out of the shell of learning, or Divinity; and therefore let not the host of Israel come out, to seek a fleae, or hunt a partridge upon the Mountains.  
For the one side, I think our difference lies only about the Church, for as for their own Members, they scruple not at a Free-admission, no more than I, and whether they turn away any before Excommunication, I cannot say, but guess so. So that if there be scruples among themselves, they that are humble, may make some use of me, they that are not, need not be offended, seeing Mr. D. tells them, they are beholding to me, for my too favourable opinion of them.  
For the other side, (p. 80.81.) My question is to some, and it may be but few of them, How they can baptise the children, (as Members of the visible Church, being born of Christian parents) and yet turn away their parents from the Sacraments? I will not infringe what Mr. D. has said here, p. 82, 83, 84. at the very largest for Infant-baptism, seeing as to my question it falls beside it. For if any will say, they do not baptise their Children, as born of Christian parents, but by stipulation of others, or upon account of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I say nothing against them, I wish it may be maintained; but as for those who never took notice or not approved of any other ground of their Baptism, but as they are immediately born Christians of such as visibly profess Christ, according to my terms; The right which the parents derive upon their children, unto Baptism, must be acknowledged to be in themselves unto the Sacrament; They cannot give, but what they have. So that, unless there be a manifest impediment to retrench that right, or the present enjoyment of it, by Excommunication, Distraction, or Infection, their Church-membership is sufficient, and the argument valid, from the one to the other.  
Against this p. 81. Mr. D. brings in the old business again, which is now about ten times, with a second thing like it; And p. 85, 86, 87. (for that which is between, p. 82, 83. 84. I wish it may pass) he has 4 particulars more, the substance of the whole comes unto this, That the parents must have a farther right to show, than what they have common with their child unto this Ordinance. And here indeed lies the very point of our difference, I hold it is Church-membership (where there is none of our former yielded impediments) that gives an immediate outward right unto the Sacrament; He holds, A man must be first tried if he be visibly worthy, and it is that alone can give him admission. For the one now, look over Mr. Drake and you shall find still whensoever he falls upon this thing, he has nothing against it, but that silly reason (from the untelligent) so often repeated; Had he any thing else, would it not be alleged? and has he nothing else, and will you be captivated? For the other, look over the Scripture; This is the thing lies on him to prove, and see if he can produce you any precept of God for it; if he has none, will his own word go? While he has so little against us, and no Text for himself, his skirts are discovered, and heels made bare.  
Let the prudent judge, If our argument from Church-membership is even the chief and most solid ground upon which we do baptise our Children, as the jews, by being born jews, had a right to Circumcision, although we cannot lightly find in Scripture that any were admitted without a profession of faith unto Baptism; what weakness shall we bring on ourselves, if the same thing shall not be held sufficient (without a known cause) unto the Sacrament, whereunto we find no confession any where required, but as soon as they were once Church-members, Acts 2. 42. this fellowship immediately gave them a privilege to it?  
The Sacraments serve for two things, for our faith towards God, and profession one with another; Though our Church-members do not all come with that faith, whereby they should receive the effectual benefits of the Covenant, yet do I not see how they can be so easily debarred their profession of Christianity, in opposition to all other Religions, as the jews did often, freely, and universally, enter into Covenant with the true God.  
P. 87, 88, 89. He brings in my argument of Christian liberty, from Ordinances of men, Col. 2.18, 19, 20. which must not be suffered to creep into the seat of God, as necessary to our worship. And this, I take it, does prevail much with many that fear God.  
Against this he says 4 things, 1. Let the Readers take notice, that in Mr. Humphrey's judgement, the putting a bar to Free-admission, is an humane, not divine Ordinance, etc.  
Answ. I doubt not but they will take notice that I do willingly yield to all our known Barrs (under the Unintelligent, and Excommunicate) the Church has allowed; but am fully persuaded, that this bar Mr. D. would set up otherwise, has no foundation in the Scriptures, and must wish him to take heed, that while he sets up his visible worthiness upon trial, as the rule of our admission, which Christ has not set up, his own words (We like not the pressing of humane inventions upon the conscience, especially in Divine worship) do not rise up, and fly upon him. I pray God give him a sight, how he professedly maintains, what he dislikes, and of those sad evils his opinion has done.  
2. He asks, By what Scripture and consequence I can keep off Infants, and the Distracted? and he will by the same exclude all persons visibly unworthy, or else he will be of my Religion.  
Ans. Seeing he says so, I will express myself once more. My ground is 1 Cor. 11.28, 29. Upon this ground I draw this consequence, That those whose duty it is not to Examine themselves, and get knowledge to discern the Lords body, are not to come; Such are all Infants, and the Distracted, it being naturally impossible. But can Mr. Drake now say the like here? That it is not the duty of all visibly unworthy, to get knowledge, and examine themselves, that so they may come? Dare he say so? If he dare not, I hope he will perform his promise, and yield to the truth. Besides, as I have said, they that have an intelligent capacity may receive some good impressions by it, (and the more weak, sometimes are more affectionate) but as for Infants, and the Distracted, we know signs cannot have any real work on them.  
3. He says, If his bar were only prudential, I should do better to submit, than dispute against it.  
Ans. If I should do the Church service, in submitting to this way only as humane, then shall I do God service, to oppose it as divine, and not let it sit in his seat, as a necessary antecedent to this Ordinance. And I doubt not but jesus Christ, that has shed his most precious blood to purchase our liberty, will be jealous over it, and not suffer our Consciences to become the servants of men, nor yet these pious men to become servants to themselves. Indeed I know we have good distinctions here, as to the obeying of men, between the obedience of the outward and inward man, and that simpliciter, necessitate consequentis, & ex hypothesi, necessitate consequentiae, but I fear what in itself may be prudent, the sad effects will make otherwise.  
4. He brings in the Distracted (or unintelligent) again, and so in the issue, would be justified.  
Ans. Methinks it fortunes pretty happily, for seeing this is about the twelfth time, it is a fit jury to do it for him. And whereas I remember he brought in my Onion, in the close of the last reason, Had we (says He) the peeling of it, we would make use of the pulp, either for food, sauce, or medicine; I will advise him by all means to keep it for the secon●, for while the cold meat of this his even tainted passage, comes so often to the board, it may stand him in some stead to help to hash, or stew, and serve it in with it.   

Sect. 11 MY sixth Reason was drawn from the Minister's innocency in his Admission, through seven particulars, which he goes over from p. 89. unto p. 97.  
1. I do but my duty. He answers, This is to be proved. Though Christ speaks in general to all Ministers of his Church Do this, or Do thus as he did that admitted the twelve. Though St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11 delivers down the same thing to us without any limitation; Though we are engaged in our Ordination to the administration of the Sacraments; Though we are Stewards to dispense, and not retain these sacred mysteries, 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. Pastors, to feed the whole Church, & not keep their bread from them, Act. 20, 28. Servants to give the whole Family their meat in due season; yet doth he say, This is not a general rule for all Ministers. If it be special, let him show the Text for it, where be his exceptions? Hath he any place to prove that none but the visibly worthy are to be admitted? when these commands are general, it lies upon him to prove the limitations. This reason must allow, but if he will say it, though he cannot prove it, and deny us though he cannot disprove us, I doubt not, but he may be too hard for any body upon these terms, while he keeps two such mastiff Arguments unmuzzeld by him, as ill words, and obstinacy.  
2. I have no power to turn away any. (I speak of such as are in questions) This he accounts most true, see what interest will do; but as for the use he makes of this, which I have formerly quoted, it is to be lamented. Yet is it no wonder, it is so like his own self. When Christ says Do this, He doubts not to say, It is not a general rule for us. When Christ says, Drink ye all of it, He says, It is not the unregenerates (that is, the most of men's) duty. When the Evangelist says, The twelve sat down with Christ, He will have it but eleven. When Paul says, All the Corinth's were partakers of one bread, He says, They had but a right to it in actu primo. When the Scriptures have not a word to say for him, He tells us, They are abundant enough; and where indeed they abound, he counts them nothing. So here, when we hold that Christ had such full authority over his Church, that we make his precept and example our only rule to conform ourselves to, he boldly and openly tells us, Christ had not so much power to turn away one of his Disciples, as he and his Elders have over his people; And yet doth he here as it were applaud himself with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such is the nature of this selfish conceit. Plutarch compares it to a Hen, that leaves a handful of good grain, which is cast out to it by others, and g●●s ascraping for some single rotten corn, some poor dirty Notion, in its own invention.  
3. I hope the best of all. He says, So did Ephesus, Revel. 2.2, 4. but he may mistake, while the Church hoped well of them, It might bear with them, to do them good; but when there was no hope to do them good otherwise, it was time to censure them. For his other Scriptures, they are answered in their places; and for the Magistrate what follows? The total consequence is this; where we have no ground to Excommunicate any, we must Administer, and hope the best of it; where we have, we must hope the best, and do that. The best is to be hoped in doing what we ought, but the worst is to be feared in doing what we ought not, or cannot prove.  
4. I know God can turn the worst, even at this Ordinance, if he please. This he counts true, but he questions his will; and requires of me some promise or precedent for it, For promises we have sufficient. Am. 5.4. 2 Chr. 15.2. Mat. 7.7. etc. We find every where God has promised in general, that he will vouchsafe grace to those that wait upon him in his Ordinances, Seek ye me, and ye shall live. Now then let any show me an exception in particular against this Sacrament, or else these promises stand good.  
Truly Sirs, You do not deal justly and honestly with this Ordinance, to detain from her that portion of grace and power the Lord hath vouchsafed, in co-partnership amongst her fellows, and put her to the charge and labour of suing for it, when you might as well serve Prayer, and some of the rest so, but that the keeping their stock in your hand will hardly turn to any advantage to you. The common Law here we will try her right by, is this, Quicquid praedicatur de praedicato, praedicatur etiam de subjecto. While she is a fellow Ordinance with others, she must have her share in the general nature, as they are all appointed the means of Gods bestowing his grace; so that here it manifestly lies upon you, to show some special text to the contrary, where Converting grace is denied to it, or else in justice you are cast. For a Precedent, I humbly bless God, I am not wholly neither left without witness, but we may have one to produce in its place. And I could wish, that searching men would inquire a little, and seek after these things, and I doubt it not, but they would find such experiences, and effectual impressions on many at this Ordinance (when unmoved at others,) that as the Jews wondered, when they heard the Gentiles also received the Holy Ghost, so should we, at such clear convictions of the Sacrament, being a means not only of the regenerate, but unregenerates edification.  
5. I endeavour my utmost (de jure) that all come prepared. Upon this he reviles two or three pages, whether spitefully: against conscience, or ignorantly, himself knows. 'Tis true, de facto, as to his whole course and series of actions, as he has it, No man can say he does his utmost, and Mr. H. as he note well, less than any; but I say De jure, to exhort men to examine themselves, and forewarn them of the danger of neglecting their duty, is all the Minister can do, which himself grants, where there is no Presbytery. Yet herein I say not neither, I do this, (which every one commonly does) but I endeavour it only, and in the very next lines too acknowledge my many Omissions. But if it be Mr. D's design to make me seem vile, and proud to the world, and he dare take upon him to become the searcher of my very heart, even in such confessions to the contrary, Be thou O Lord, my Witness, while he takes the throne, and will be my Judge. And though he be so extreme against me, to mark what I have done amiss (in what never came yet once into my thoughts) yet be not thou so extreme against me, or against him, but cover all my failings, and his injuries, with thy Mercy, and my charity.  
6. I humbly confess all our sins (as Hezekiah) desiring true repentance, and a pardon for all our omissions. This, he says, he cannot but approve in me, after his heavy reproaches, but would have you note here a contradiction. If he have done his utmost De jure, what needs he desire pardon for his omissions?  
I answer, for my failings De facto in particular, though I should have done in general what De jure I ought to do, which yet I dare not assume to myself, without flying to ●●ds mercy; if you carp at the words, I value them not, take my own meaning, (which I have truly told you) and Christ himself (I humbly bless him) teaches me to satisfy you, When you have done all, (or your utmost) say, you are unprofitable servants.  
7. And so lastly, I venture the issue all on God, knowing his Ordinances are a sweet savour unto him, whether we are saved, or perish by them. He excepts, this is not enough, A Physician may not give Physic that may kill or cure, and venture the issue on God.  
Ans. But if the Physician, 1. saw a necessity,2. and had no other way,3. and hoped it might do good, etc. then he might conscionably do it without question, or else I believe he would be hardly able to answer himself, what some Churchyards may have to say against him. Mr. D. must take these seven particulars together, as bound up in one reason, and then they will hold him, but if he goes to pull out the single sticks, there is no doubt but they may be broken. It is not enough to trust in God, confess our sins, hope the best alone, who does not see this? but if it be also our duty, and we have no power otherwise, etc. Take all together, and they are irrefragable. And therefore I pray compare himself hither, p. 47. and see how willing the man is, to take exceptions; I think if he saw his own face in my glass, he would be ready to quarrel at it. His own confession is this, By a particular forewarning the Minister may clear his own soul, I conceive, where no Government is settled, etc. And do not I suppose we have no Government, and the Minister forewarn all (though as to particular cases there must go much prudence, and I hold no necessity) according to his Conscience? and therefore why should he lay such vile expressions on me, for what he allows? Does he say, he may clear his soul, and may not I say, he is innocent? Should I return now, no mortal man can say he is clear, and so fall upon him in his lose terms about justifying himself, which he does often, would not every one see how weak were that cause has need of such supportments? and would it not render me flat to those that fear God? No, I shall rather bless God for what is yielded, and think it worth both our labours, (as it was a main scope of mine) if this be but satisfied. I shall reverence the care, zeal, and pains, of Mr. D. wherein (he says) he does so far exceed me, in fitting all sorts by examination, counsel, and prayer; yet must not approve his ground, on which he does it. If he will tell his people, As you are Church-members, I cannot deny communion with you, though in Christian prudence only, I would humbly thus and thus advise you; I accept his piety, Let our Consciences be free, Let our needless scruples, our wounds, and terrors be healed, and I have done. Let the Sacrament be returned, like the Ark, again, unto our Israel, and I shall be content, to have the new Cart that brings it, to be cloven into Wood, and the two Kine, offered with it▪ as a sacrifice unto God.   

Sect. 12 Unto these reasons I added two more, From the command and good of coming; from the evil of omitting this Ordinance.  
For the command, I did but name here because included before, as I have now opened in my fifth reason, 〈…〉 on the strength of 〈…〉 He objects, p. 97. 〈…〉 Receive, because Mark, Luke, and Nathaniel were not there▪ 〈…〉 is he much prettier over 〈…〉 where he that is so much against this command of actual receiving, will ye have 〈◊〉 and the Distracted come to the sight, to be converted at it.  
His grand argument which runs through his Book, is this, ●he Word (and Prayer) is the instrument of conversion, so not the Sacrament, therefore natural men as well as others must hear that, but may not receive this.  
Ans. This arguing is palpably weak and gross (besides the matter untrue) It is not an unregenerate man's duty, because it will not convert him, as though it were man's benefit were the ground of duty, and not God's precept; whereas a thing is not our duty therefore God wills it, but God wills it, and therefore it is our duty.  
For Judas, it is already answered. For, 1 Cor. 11. it is manifest, after St. Paul has convinced the Corinth's of their unworthiness, yet their coming together he approves, and that not to look on, but to Eat, v. 33. The case is clear, if men be without prejudice, the duty was still to be done, and their carriage to be amended. But whereas he adds, Why should Mr. H. put th●se asunder which God hath joined? I answer, how comes Mr. H. to be accused, and Mr. D. be in the fault? I say, a man must examine himself, and so Eat, he must do both, I join them. He says the unregenerate must examine himself, and so abstain, He separates them. Nay he says, he must be present too, but not Eat, which is even another Schism in the actions. His words then, Mr. H. says, let a man Eat though he does not examine himself, are a slander. I place very much on this. There are two things I hold an unregenerate Christian is still to do, to examine himself and to wait; to wait, and to examine himself. He must consider his own condition that he may pray according to it, when he has prayed and goes about his duty, he must examine still, what influence God has on him by it. He must likewise, when he comes to hear, and especially to receive, try his own heart, that he may apply the Covenant, according to his estate, and when he has done, he must look over his soul still, what he has gained in waiting on God. Readers, I do here in the name of Christ, as you look for good at his ordinance, commend to you this duty, and if you shall dare to come with careless hearts, and secure spirits, may the terrors of eating and drinking your damnation seize upon you, and frighten you from the danger, into the arms of repentance, and bosom of Christ.  
For the good of coming, he objects p. 98, 99 The Sacrament must not be attended on as the word, in order to conversion, but edification, etc.  
Ans. We must not receive this doctrine without Scripture, which will wholly dis-people this Ordinance, though I think his own distinction may serve the truth, if ordered aright, seeing the word Edifying, as in our frequent use, so ordinarily in Scripture, is attributed in common to the visible Church, 1 Cor. 14.3, 4. There are therefore (though this might have been respited yet to its place) two ends, unto which the Word is instituted, To convert the Nations unto the faith, and to Edify such as are brought in to the profession of it. Now it is true, the Sacrament is instituted but for one of these ends; It is not to convert the Heathen, for the Word is no sealed Word unto them, but it is to edify the Church, wherein the most being such as are not yet effectually wrought upon, as it tends to Edify them, it must be a help or means to their regeneration. And thus shall his strong hold become as a forsaken bough, and uppermost branch, unto which, we may climb up by his own terms, and not leave on it, so much as the shaking of an Olive tree, or as the gleaning Gapes, when the Vintage is done.  
For the evil of Omission, p. 100 he distinguishes between a not receiving, and neglecting; which may be allowed, I think, on a just occasion, so long as we resolve on better preparation against the next Sacrament; But otherwise, it is a poor answer to my instance of the Passeover, where the bare omission of not bringing an offering in the appointed season, which in the forbearance, was allowed to none, but for a Month, Numb. 9.13. was such a sin as did endanger them to be cut off. His exceptions p. 101. against the Parable, Matt: 22. are vain things; Those that murdered the servants, were a part of them that were invited, and not to be opposed, for the contempt of the feast is the main business intended, as appears by Lu. 14. where nothing else is mentioned. But the main question (for so far the Parable may reach) is, whether they that refuse to come into God's Ordinances, (all which I allow it concerns, as well as this) are not unworthy, v. 8. and in danger to be destroyed? And then whether it be better for an unregenerate Christian to come to the Sacrament as preparedly as he can, or wholly to omit it? and I think we are sufficiently instructed by all other duties, which is the greater sin, to sail only in the manner, or to leave undone the matter also. Let the briers and thorns be set together in battle, the fire shall pass through them.  
P. 102. In opposition to Mr. H. it is neither a certain duty on the Ministers part to admit all, nor on the people's part, for all to receive, etc.  
Answ. Let Mr. D. take heed how he is carried through opposition, lest in opposing Mr. Humphrey, he directly opposes the command of Christ. He grants, p. 47. That where there is no government settled, the Minister by a due forewarning may clear his soul, but how sadly does he reverse this here, and wrap him again in a fatal cloud? for if it be not his duty, it must be his sin, there is no medium for his excuse. Let us therefore here steel ourselves, that in doing both, we do as we ought, without making his conscience (as to the particulars, de facto) a rule of ours. For his distinction of mediately, and immediately, he should have forborn the wound, and saved his salve; for there is none that denies, but that every man is to examine himself, and prepare, as well as come. But whereas he holds, that though a man should examine and prepare himself (suppose as well as he can) yet if they judge him not visibly worthy, he must not be admitted, and if he judges not himself really worthy, for his own part yet, he must not eat, he has stretched a line: of division over the Church, a plummet of lead on weak consciences, and wiped the Sacrament, as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down in wiping.  
In the same page he tells us, They do not keep away any for fear of accidental scandal, though others do, he patrons not; and yet in the next, he says, I charge them with doing evil, that good may come of it, whose damnation (that is, I take it, disallowance) is just, Rom. 3.8. And here, that the words may seem harsh, he produces them without the Text, and will have it in a Rhetorical way, when I barely take them as they are; and because this is not enough, he frames an interpretation (by suspending, etc.) of his own; So that I must needs be made guilty of censuring them, when he confesses, it does not concern them. And now, for all this false accusation, shall I, instead of returning any evil to him, humbly satisfy him, that as for any bitter spirit in quoting that text, God knows I am innocent, and may even pathetically say with Paul, 2. Cor. 12.13. he may well forgive me this wrong, for I never intended any in it. But as for his own censoriousness, it is such, as makes his very mercies to be wounds, and his forgivenesses themselves, need to be forgiven.  
He is pleased here to write a book against me, which is nothing almost but revile, and when he has done me all the injuries he can, that never offended him, he proceeds to forgive me, and desires God to free Mr. H from all that guilt, and mischief, he would bring on me. This is his kindness to me a stranger, I thank him; And truly met hinks my soul is so troubled for fear I should offend any of God's people, I do even accept of it▪ Ah Lord I Can spite go to prayer? Let me be spited, if I be forgiven. While he seems to hold up his hands to pray for me, it is to strike me with them, and having already laid me in the dust, he does but herein, as it were, kneel upon me to keep me down. Yet will I hearty join with him, in beseeching the Lord to pardon my failings, to pity my weaknesses, and to keep his Church, if I do err, from any hurt by it. Let the righteous smite me, and it shall be a balm; yea, let him reprove me where I do amiss, and it shall be an Oil; but Let not the foot of pride come at me. Behold I am vile, I will lay my hand on my mouth, Once have I spoken, and I will not answer, twice have I spoken, but will proceed no farther. Nevertheless if truth shall be found with me, let not any disdain it, though I am nothing, for I do even wholly herein look so upon myself, and depend on God for it, with as much fear and trembling as my heart can hold; and I find those impressions I sometimes receive in my addresses unto him, does carry me on, to hope for good, and venture the issue upon him. Look on me, O Lord, and forgive all my sins. Who can understand his own errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults. Thou that hast shown me troubles, quicken me again, and raise me up from the depths of the earth:  
Page 103. He comes to the end of my first Sermon, and as he would have the Reader observe me, p. 99 to leave some scruple about the unregenerates receiving as a pledge, but observes not himself what is added, Which nevertheless on the Minister's part, as offered on condition, is not hard. So likewise here he quotes these words, I give you not my reasons by the heap, but by the weight, but leaves out what follows, I humbly commit them to you, which takes off the aspersion. One may easily make the best face seem unhandsome, if without the good features, he shows only the freckles, with a piece of a nose, and the gap of a tooth.  
But whereas hereupon he concludes so victoriously, That my Eight arguments are not worth one, (you may conceive he thinks it one of his own) and then having well railed at them, leaves them discomfited with the edge of his mouth; Methinks we have gotten here another Adino the Tachmonite, who has lift up his spear against Eight arguments, and slew them at one time. This is the Worthy, that thinks himself fit to be picked out, for the Champion in this Dispute, against all comers, and all essays. This is the man, adapted, and officed, Both for the Shewbread, and for the fine slower, and for the unleavened Cakes, and for that which is baked in the pan, and for that which is fried, and for all manner of measures and size.    

THE Second Sermon vindicated.  

Sect. 1 HAving vindicated my first Sermon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in my ground, state of my question, proofs, and reasons, I come to the second, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for answering objections.  
The first Objection was about Excommunication, which being a point to be combated by antiquity, I shall willingly submit to be instructed by others. There are three false surmises here, I only endeavoured to remove (according to my main end herein) as apt to trouble tender Consciences; the first was, That Excommunication is merely in reference to the Sacrament, whereas it is a censure, or punishment of binding the sins of men on earth, by casting them out from the Church, and Christ externally, until they repent. It is true indeed, when men are cast out from Church-fellowship in general, that they are debarred from the Sacrament, which is a token or pledge thereof, (when other Ordinances are more disputable) yet is it the state and relation men have to the Church outwardly, and Christ, as visible Members, that Excommunication respects, from which while they are excluded, their sins are accordingly (and no otherwise) bound and retained, (because there is no remission out of the Church, or without Christ: the visible herein (Clave non errante) presenting the invisible) as they are loosed by being received in again through repentance. And hence, I take it, was the Apostles shaking off the dust of their feet against those that received not their Doctrine of that dreadful importance, as signifying their non-admission into this relation.  
Concerning this, Mr. Drake first gives us an account of his practice, and then lays down three particulars for the bill of his account, p. 105, 106. I shall say nothing, but it may be fair, yet will not be taken, unless we could find the Scripture had set her hand unto it; we cannot receive Master Drakes Genesis, as we do Moses, without probation. For his particulars:  
1. He tells us; Master H. omits the main end of Church censure, which is the amendment of the party, etc. Ans. I wonder at this, seeing but just over the leaf, as soon as it is to my purpose, I do expressly tell him, the end is to bring the offenders to repentance. It is reported of St. Alban Executioner, that as soon as he had struck the blow, his eyes dropped out (as tears) at the fact he had done; the same fate is befallen Mr. Drake, while he is so cruel, many times, in his censure to me, he cannot see a leaf before him.  
2 He would persuade us, That Church Censures are extendible to ignorant persons, and every wilful sinner. Ans. The Scripture extends them I think to none but the more notorious obstinate offenders; for my part, I dare not bind such a heavy burden on the Consciences of others, which I durst not touch with my little finger. It is a thing indeed to be wished, that the ignorant be brought to Catechism and Instruction, the scandalous to reproof and admonition, but not so slightly to be censured, or kept from the Sacrament. Were this Doctrine strictly followed, it would soon leave us without Church-Members, and while it would thus scatter our Flocks, either Master Drakes wits are going a wool gathering, or else ours must all be set a gathering Congregations.  
3 He challenges all the World to show him proof, that persons excommunicate may not be present at any public Ordinance, etc. Ans. If Mr. D. think so learnedly of himself, let him send his Challenge to Doctor Hammond, who confutes this opinion as the foundation of Erastianisme; and tells us, Excommunication is also from hearing and prayer, as well as the Sacrament (viz. in public) when that is thought expedient to reform any; brings Tertullian, and answers Master Drakes text, 1 Cor. 14.24. and reason (quoting it from Erastus) at large (Power of Keys, chap. 4. Sect. 43, 44, etc.) Si vis cursu gloriari, tigrim vince, vel leonem, nulla est gloria praeterire asellos; for my part, I shall propose him only that one text, Matth. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs; Excommunicate persons are generally interpreted to be Dogs, and Swine; the Word and Prayer are holy things as well as the Sacrament (which yet was not instituted when this precept was first given, and so cannot be primarily intended here) ergo.  
Master Perkins upon this text tells us over and over, that Blasphemers, Heretics, obstinate enemies, etc. Are to be barred from the Word till they repent. The meaning of Christ is, says he, If any be openly convicted, etc. to such publish not my word; and especially concerning the point, how fare the censure of the Church does extend, It extends (he tells us) to the debarring such in the use of the Ministry in the Word, Prayer, and Sacraments; indeed if the party be Excommunicate for some particular Crime, etc. then, although he be excluded from communion with him, in the Sacraments, and Prayer (mark that) yet may he be admitted to hearing the Word, to help him to repent, which is the end of all Church Censures. So that it is strange Mr. D. should fasten here a new Light on me, when himself is so singularly opposite to the practice of the Church.  
Upon this account I must confess, it hath been my opinion, that the Excommunicate being excluded Church society in general, it is by way of mitigation (as I expressed in those few words I let fall about it, p. 13.) that they are permitted at one Ordinance, when kept from others; but I desire not here to be assertive, for though I doubt not but Excommunication does refer to Church-Communion in general, or Church-membership, yet do I conceive Mr. Drakes (or Erast us) reason is not so easily to be waved, that Heathens may be present at the Word, if not other Ordinances, 1 Cor. 14. I could be willing therefore to compound this matter with one distinction. Exclusion is either real, or relative; I shall leave it to him that will to dispute with Mr. D. how the Church can exclude the excommunicate really from being presentat the Word, and Prayer; and it shall suffice me that they are excluded relatively however, from all privileges, so that though they may be present as Heathen, yet are they cut off from all their interest in them, still as members.  
That which we admit Heathen to in receiving them into the Church, I think we cast them out from, in excommunicating them; now we admit men directly into Church-Society in general, or Membership, whereby they are put in a state or relation unto Christ, and consequently to all his Ordinances, with a difference of privilege from the world, (and as they were at them before) that they belong now to them, as externally in Covenant with him, redeemed, sanctified; in a word, as in communion with the Head and Body, whereof the Sacrament is a pledge, unto which they cannot therefore be admitted; until they are in, nor Juridically debarred, until they are put out of that relation. The difference then between Mr. D. and me lies not about the other Ordinances, for I will suppose (not grant) that Excommunication does debar a man really (by necessary consequence) only actual receiving, yet is his error still the same; that whereas I hold a man is to be debarred this actual receiving by Excommunication, he will have him to be debarred without it. I hold, it is Church-membership gives a man admission, and suitably Excommunication excludes him. He holds, it is visible worthiness upon trial can only admit him, and consequently sets up a censure suitable to his rule (neither of which are in Scripture) to exclude him without Excommunication; so that a man is still a Church-member, and in communion in general, yet must not be allowed the token of that Communion; he is still externally in Covenant, and yet must be debarred the external Seal thereof in the body, and must not partake of the body; this is a Riddle.  
Where the Sins of men are not bound, or retained, there is no Church-censure, Matth. 16.19. Jo. 20.23. but it is not excluding men from the Sacrament that does bind or retain their sins, but the excluding them from the Church, and so relatively from all its benefits; and therefore suspension without Excommunication, or Dismembership, is no Church-censure, and ought not to wrong that solemn institution.  
We shall clear this by the manifest phrases of Excommunication, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matth. 16.19. That is, of the Church, to admit in, and shut out of it; there is no censure of the Keys, without exclusion from the Church, whatsoever degrees you make after; Let him be to thee as a heathen, Matth. 18.17. that is apparently, as no Church-member, this Mr. D. grants; from whence that interpretation is pertinent, when thou hast used all these Christian means, thou mayest implead him at the Law, which else was not fit for a fellow member, 1 Cor. 6.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 9.22. putting out of the Synagogue does manifestly import the same; that is, from being a member of the Synagogue. One may think this censure excluded from all Ordinances, but the Learned reduce it to Nidui, which kept them off only four paces, though they might be present, yet this distance still noted their separation, as Church-members, To deliver such a one to Satan, 1 Cor. 5.5. 1 Tim. 1.20. This is paralleled with Cherem, Qui nec docet nec docetur, says Dr. Hammond (which in the way may put Mr. D. to shame, that so blindly asserts the Parallel, p. 21. and yet every where denies the matter) some think the phrase was peculiar to the Apostles, that could give men up to be bodily afflicted by Satan; I judge it apt for the whole Church, and take the meaning is, to cast men out from the Church, where Christ is head, into the World, where Satan is Prince, not to be acted and ruled by him; for what can be more contrary than this, to repentance, the end hereof? But in regard of this state of Membership, or relative condition, Purge out the leaven, that is, from being a part or member of the lump, ver. 7. and put away from among yourselves such a person, ver. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers. 2. This seems to plead hard for a real sublation from all Ordinances, and it must necessarily be a casting out from Church-Society in general, and so at least relatively from all privilege in them, as a Church-member, though as tasks, and duties, and burdens, yet it may seem just to Mr. D. they should not be exempted. I will not spare, 2 Cor. 13.2. is explained, ver, 10. to use sharpness; the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ascission, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sublation, taking away, or turning out of the Church, and so you see the point is clear. Neither may any object here, that then those that are once censured must be again admitted by a new Baptism, for all Excommunication we know is but conditional, only until repentance.  
It is therefore a very fond conceit of Mr. D. to make two degrees of Excommunication beneath Dismembership; that is, two degrees of purting men out of the Church, before they are put out of the Church; two degrees of hanging, before execution. As for the three texts quoted by him for his three degrees, p. 105. I know other that are more Learned, applying them to the Excommunicate, make them all the same, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to explain the extent thereof, whether in sacris only, or in common converse too, they question. I must confess, though I am moved herewith, yet have I rather interpreted these two texts, 1 Cor. 5.11. & 2 Thess. 3.14. (the same expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in both) of our ordinary duty of avoiding evil company, as Mr. Prinne does; my reasons are these: 1. Because this no not to eat is explained by the Apostle himself, keep not company, no not to eate. 2. That eating is permitted in this place to a Heathen fornicator, which is not to such a one, called a brother. But Sacramental eating was not permitted to an Heathen; therefore it is not Sacramental eating of which the place speaks. 3. I judge these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hunc notum facite per epistolam, signify that man by an epistle, to wit, that he may be censured if the case requires, so that he cannot be understood already under censure. 4 There is a manifest difference between a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as it is one thing esse cum Christo, 1 Phil. 23. and another, Christum esse cum nobis, Matth. 28.20. so is it one thing to withdraw ourselves from such a man, and another to remove such a man from us; the one phrase only (I think) respects Excommunication, not the other, which is in these two texts. If Mr. D. object, If we may not eat with them at our ordinary table, then much less at this sacred Table; 1 I return; If we may not keep company with them at our own table, than we may not keep company with them at this Table; but this he will say will not hold, for they may all be present; no more, I say, will the other. 2 Communion is either necessary, or arbitrary, we are to avoid such in arbitrary familiarity, but not in the necessary service of God. The reason is plain, because one is our duty, and not the other.  
I pray see Page 107. I grant that by Excommunication they are made as Heathen and Publicans, and are in statu quo no members. Now how strange is this, That while he cannot deny the excommunicate be dismembred, he should keep such a do, to set up a censure which is no dismembership, and make it a degree too of Excommunication, which he confesses it is not. Thus while men will set up a rule of their own for admission, they are forced to make a censure of their own for exclusion. And as the Partridge gathereth the young she hath not brought forth, that is, by her calling gathereth others which forsake her, when they see she is not their dam; so must this suspension not gotten by right, leave them in the end, when it can find no covert under the wings of Excommunication.  
The only Argument that they here have, is from the greater to the less; which while they urge thus, If the Church may exclude from all Ordinances, she may from the Sacrament, hath seemed something, but is a mistake in the very foundation; for Excommunication refers directly to Church-membership, and consequentially only to the Ordinances; so that a man must be put out of the Church, or else he is not legally put from the communion. Even as the Leper was not kept from the Camp, that he might be kept from public worship; but he was kept from communion in worship, because he was kept from the Camp, this being a necessary consequent thereof. So is a man kept from the Sacrament, because he is excluded Church-membership, being out of the body, he is not to have the communion of it. It were a wrong to have forbid the Leper at divine Service, when his right was good to abide in the Congregation; So is it a wrong to turn away a man from the Sacrament, while his right is good, as a member.  
Look on our gathered Churches, they are herein uniform (If I mistake them not) and deny not fellowship with a member, till they put him out of their Church; or to maintain a consonancy, me thinks should do so; and shall we that have the Scriptures to uphold our visible Church against separation, as it were yield our cause, when we dare not own our members in communion? This is a breach that will not be made up, by his reason a majori, because the Magistrate may inflict a punishment, which is the greater, according to Law; therefore he may inflict a punishment, which is the less, not according to Law, or set up a new one to inflict by it; because the Elders may execute a censure which is allowed in the Scripture, therefore they may make a less, which is not in Scripture. The Judge himself, that instead of death, inflicts burning, must yet do it according to Law, or his act is not good. I will not dispute here of the kinds or degrees of Excommunication; those three among the Jews, and four among the Greeks are common; Nor what are the marks of distinction of such degrees, whether exclusion really from the Sacrament, and prayer, may make a minor, and suspension from them, and the word also, a major Excommunication; (for I do think, when a man is Relatively deprived fellowship in general, the Church may use mitigation, or severity to a real permission of him at some Ordinances (and so perhaps for civil converse) according to prudence for his edification, not destruction) or whether, as Mr. D. holds, Acts of Discipline, are no bars at all to acts of worship, unless actual receiving; and why that only? but because the Sacrament is the pledge of our Church-fellowship, which one being cast out from, the other must follow: It shall suffice me that Church-censure is putting out of the Church, and that suspension is null, without dismembership; Insomuch, that if a Jew were under Nidui, which was their lowest degree, if unabsolved, Godwin observes, his children might not be circumcised: and why not? but that they reckoned him no Church-member; Church-membership being an undoubted ground of their circumcision. I will conclude: seeing then Excommunication by the Scripture is referred still unto Church-membership, and not to the Sacrament, it is not visible unworthiness, or unfitness thereunto, is the formal ground of censure, and consequently, not ignorance, and every sin lived in. This is the point I desire may be marked as the scope of this discourse, that I say upon this, it is not to be visibly unfit for receiving (as some hold) but to be visibly unworthy all Church-society that infers an excommunication. God forbidden, but we should put adistinction between sins, that stand not with sincerity, and that stand not with public profession; I do not think the detection of a man living in any known sin that contradicts the one, aught to excommunicate him; but the open conviction of such sins, which are notoriously scandalous, and obstinate, bringing discredit on the Church, and contradicting the other. And as for the Antiquerist he quotes here of his side, so magnificently, and so often, Mr. Prin tells us, it is himself. Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth, a stranger, and not thine own lips.  
The second surmise I would remove was this, That Church-censures are only to keep the Ordinances pure, especially the Sacrament, lest it should be defiled otherwise to the receivers. There are many precious Christians herein made weak, which yet are not to be slighted with Mr. D. but tenderly to be satisfied; It is true, The Ordinances may be said to be profaned or defiled to a man's self, and therefore when a man is censured for a Swine or Dog, Mr. Perkins says, he must be kept from them. But let not any pious soul think, the unworthiness of another can pollute him in doing his duty. This it seems was the old error of the Novatians.  
For M. D. his exception here (Page 109.) where he yet agrees with me, they might have been spared; 1 We think (says he) the Ordinances are defiled only to those who use them sinfully. 2 That persons are defiled not by presence with unworthy receivers, but by partaking in their sins. 3 They partake in their sins that do not their duty to reform them, or keep them from receiving otherwise.  
Answ. The first of these, is good and instructive. The second likewise, if for presence, he had put in receiving, else it is but superstitious. The third is much amiss, and equivocal; They partake of those sins they should have reproved, and do not, but not of any sin in their receiving, any more than in their hearing and praying. Such words as these are subject to do hurt, as if it were a duty simply to keep one another from God's service; and that this were the only eminent piece of piety, when it is certainly our duty to excite, call, provoke them to, as counsel, fit, and prepare them for the attending all Ordinances.  
His next exceptions are at me for saying, that censures concern not the admitted, but to reform the offenders censured, etc. For first, says he, It concerns all Church members in their places to look to it. Secondly, To keep them in awe, etc. And, who doubts it? But then he says, I contradict myself (which I must be sure to do, when he pleases) in that my own ends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concern the whole Congregation. Answ. One may here see how easy it is to carp, and be fallacious; It is but taking a man's words simpliciter, when they are spoke secundum quid, and it may be done; who cannot say as Mr. Drake, Admonition concerns the Admonisher; Satisfaction the Satisfied; Example the warned; But how do any of these ends concern them as to the Sacrament, as to their own act of receiving thereof? There is none of them, I hope, intimate any farther guilt or pollution would accrue to them, if the party (I say in this act of receiving) were not excluded. Indeed this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he picks out, may infer a man guilty of those sins (in a sense) he does not reprove and hinder; if he can, but as for the Ordinance, that is a man's duty, if that prove a sin, it is not propter fieri, but accidentally; so that Church-members are not herein bound to be hinderers, but by their best counsels to be furtherers one of another in their coming; and if in prudence they sometimes may advise them to forbear, it can be lawful only but upon that account which may proportionably reach unto all affirmative precepts. It is indeed the great fallacy here that mis-leads many, when they plead our duty of watching over others, not partaking their sins, to get the scandalous censured, and the like, they wind it all in still, in order to the Sacrament, as if they were to be done merely in reference to it, when as they are each of them distinct duties, and the neglect or doing one, is no ground, or hindrance of the other. They concern us as Church-members, not quatenus Receivers.  
The third surmise was, That there is some near essential relation, between Excommunication, and the communion, as if it were a part of it: so gross are some conceirs, at least such a necessary antecedent, that they think they may not come to our Sacraments without it; which is all one, as if because we have here no Justices, or Assize, they should think it unlawful to follow their Vocations.  
To remove this, Mr. Drake joins with me (Page 110, 111.112, 113.) and shows the vanity, contradiction, absurdity hereof, in terms suiting the thing and himself. Truly me thinks a man may be very merry, to see how featly he would amaze people here, as if he did confute me, when he only speaks my part for me, and shows the grossness of the same thing I do. Such is the man's dexterity, excellency of Art, acuteness of Logic, depth in Divinity; so that the whole learning of the great Esdras in his seventy Books of Abstruse Mysteries hidden to the world, is all enucleated and rifled in two leaves of him. Here is the Candle of Discipline lighted, for the Scribes and Elders to take copy of. Here are some things to be declared to the perfect, and some things to be shown secretly to the wise. For in him is a vain of understanding, and a River of knowledge.   

Sect. 2 THe second Objection is from men's unfitness; unto which I answered 1. On the Church's part. 2. On the Receivers. For the Church in admission, I say, here is no validity, and he acknowledges it, p. 113, 114. For Absolute unfitness, he says, is not the rule of his suspension. But 1. Visible unfitness. 2. That unfitness, he tells us, they are to discern. 3. That trial is to be by the Elders. 4. Then discovered, they must be kept back. 5. And if intrude, censured. So likewise p. 115. If look, say he, than judge; if judge, then inquire; (for else he cannot be like to discern who are infants) if inquire, then execute, etc.  
Answ. Here is a pile of Buildings, fair, and costly, yet all is lost by mistaking the ground whereon he hath set it; for it is not visible Real worthiness upon trial, but visible Relative worthiness (if I may so express it) or external Covenant Relation, gives a man right, and is the ground of admission; so long as he hath his evidence of Baptism, and Membership, you must disprove his right if you exclude him, and not he prove any other.  
2 I require nothing be intruded on us without Scripture; Here is a catalogue of Magisterial Doctrine, but I pray, where are his proofs? what Scripture hath he for it? It's true, the Apostle admonishes 1 Pet. 3.15. Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you, of the reason of the Hope that is in you: But 1. What is that in order to the Sacrament? 2. The place there does clearly speak, as to the defence of our Faith in case of persecution, and Mr. Drakes trial is no Inquisition. 3. Hope is taken objectiuè, for Christian Doctrine; not subjectiuè, for the Truth of Grace he would inquire into. But suppose he urge it, as an office of common charity; doth all this follow upon it straight? will he presently up and ride? Is there no more to be proved? This is right as ready, as the Scholar for his Journey, he wanted only Boots, and Spurs, a Cloak, a Horse, Bridle and Saddle, for he had gotten a Switches.  
He objects, When God says, let a man so eat, how dare any say, let him eat, though not so?  
Answ. Who knows not to return, when God says, let a man so hear, so pray, the case is the same? I say still a man must do both, there is no escape (without sin) otherwise. But when Christ says, Do this, how dare Mr. D. say, Do it not, while instead of Examine, and so eat, he commands, let a man examine, and so not eat; Let the unregenerate abstain. His Argument is this, The Scripture says, let a man so eat, so pray, so hear, therefore he must not pray, hear, or receive, unless so. The weakness whereof is apparent, 1. Because Affirmatives are not exclusive. 2. Man's impotency cannot annihilate Christ's Authority.  
If the visibly unfit will thrust in, it is the Church's duty not to let them murder the Lord of Glory, unless Mr. H. be of cain's Religion, etc.  
Answ. 1. One good proof were better than many such untoward speeches. 2. Our Saviour Christ I hope was of no such Religion, yet did not he keep away Judas. 3. Though we are to watch over, admonish, and be keepers of our Brethren, it is within the compass of divine Precepts: But this precept, Keep thy neighbour from the Sacrament, is to my best remembrance, none of the ten Commandments. 4. The case is still the same here as in other Ordinances, unless you can show me any difference put in Scripture. 5. Those the Church ought not to admit, say others upon this, we ought not to join with, and if the Minister neglects his duty, yet must we do ours, and so they separate from us. And therefore lastly. I would have such know how to distinguish between an action sub genere entis, and sub genere morum; we admit or allow none to receive unworthily, nor hear, or pray unworthily; but we admit them to hear, to pray, and to receive, and exhort them to do it worthily. We partake with others in actu physico, but not in actu morali, neither in our admission, or communication.  
For the Receivers part, I laid down three things.  
1 A natural man cannot do any thing as he ought, yet doth not that nullify his duty; Invocation is a duty of the first Commandment. The unregenerate man doth but take Gods Name in vain when he prays, which is expressly against the third; yet doth not the third Command make void the first. Mr. Drake excepts the Supper is not converting is Prayer; I say otherwise, they are a like; But with all, the rule we are to walk by in all duties is not the Event, but the precept, which alone considered evacuates his plea; for as we must not do any evil, that good may come of it; so must we do our duty, God's Precept must be done still, though evil come of it.  
page 116. A natural man must hear, pray, though he cannot rightly, because they are converting, not so receive.  
Answ. But first, Is it not a sin to hear not rightly? Secondly, Because hearing the word is a means of conversion, doth that dispense with the sin of hearing unworthily, and make it become no sin? Thirdly, If he sin in doing it, then is he bound to do that, in doing whereof he sinneth; and if he be, he must not omit the duty to avoid sin. And what do I say more concerning receiving the Sacrament?  
2 Every man must do what he can; he answers, true but this is morally impossible, because unlawful; I reply, what Christ bids Do, cannot be unlawful because it is done, but for the defect only of the Doer, and therefore that failing it to be amended, but the duty still to be done. The doing of a thing not rightly, is but partial, but the not doing at all, total disobedience.  
3 There may be a difference between a worthy Receiver, and Receiving worthily; The distinction, as Mr. Pembles, he acknowledgeth good; In the use and meaning we differ. It cannot be said of any that are legally unworthy, that they can legally eat worthily; and if I construe it only, a man may be legally unworthy, yet Evangelically receive worthily; it is not ad idem, and the comfort is lost; but if it stand thus, that a man may be Evangelically unworthy, yet receive worthily in his kind (to wit, as opposed to receiving unworthily in the Apostles sense) so that it may please God to work upon him by it; It is as full of sweetness as ever it can hold, that will have you examine your estates, and be sensible of them, and so come as condemning yourselves, both legally unworthy, & Evangelically unworthy, yet waiting on Christ to make you worthy, as knowing you can never be saved on other terms, and being ready to say with the Lepers, 2 King. 7. Why sit we here until we die? If we enter into the City, the famine is in the City, and we shall die there, and if we sit still here, we die also. If we forsake Gods Ordinances, or remain in our condition, we are sure of death; Now therefore let us fall into the hands of Jesus Christ, Convert thou us, and we shall be converted, if he saves us alive, we shall live, and if he kills us, we shall but die.  
If any approve not the distinction, which yet I hope no man will grudge me, Docendi gratia, it will be all one to hold without it, that a man is to be accounted to receive worthily, that makes an effectual use thereof, according to his condition, whether regenerate, or not; and consequently that all within the Church, may be reckoned visibly worthy, as well as visibly in Covenant, or visible Saints, although as he leads me the terms, in reference to trial, and evidence, I am forced to follow him, and oppose his sense thereof.  
Page 117, How many are there outwardly pious, who upon trial might easily be uncased to live in some known sin? Each of these fearing to be uncased before the Eldership, no wonder they are averse to trial, lest their sheeps-clothing should be pulled off, and themselves discovered to be ignorant, profane, or hypocritical. So page before 49. The denial hereof, must needs vex hypocrites, who by this means are pried into, and uncased. Consider this with such places, where he intimates that the Church is to require evidence, and try every professor as to his sincerity, page 17. and that otherwise, they shall be partakers of their sins, if they do not study, the discovery of persons unworthy, page 120. and the people likewise, if they do not endeavour to keep them from receiving, page 109.  
Answ. I pray read, ponder, and lay such expressions to heart, if it be not a sad thing, to have such grievous fears taught us by the precepts of men? Alas Sirs! Is not the Ministers calling heavy enough? Are not his contests, and hatred more than he can undergo already? Is not that serious duty of the receivers to examine themselves, work enough to take them up? And is there any Scripture that enjoins men to pry into others fitness and unsitnesse, or prevent sin in order to this Sacrament, more than other duties? What a burden will men bring on tender spirits, which if we should do cursorily, and negligently, and yet make conscience of it as necessary, it will but bring a curse on us, Jer. 48.10. and if we should go to do it seriously, what everlasting difficulties, and troubles will it create for us? This is such a terror cannot be borne, while as the Israelites sprinkled their door posts with blood in the Passeover, that they might escape death; here is the blood of the Sacrament as it were sprinkled upon every soul that none may escape the guilt of it, but must be made fellow-murderers of Christ (as he sadly terms it) if any visibly unworthy be admitted. For my part, if others will needs lay such strictness here on, I can but reverence them, the very shadow of holiness is to be feared, but I can never think that the door of the Sacrament (even to the Receivers own part) is to be held quite as narrow as the door to heaven, so long as the same men will maintain that necessary distinction of the Church visible, and invisible.  
Page 118. If Mr. H. object such persons ought to be excommunicated, than it seems, we offend rather in being too favourable then too rigid, that only suspend them, etc.  
Answ. This favour of his, which he so often speaks of in suspension, when yet he holds a man cannot be debarred any Ordinance, but actual receiving in the greatest censure, is methinks, just like the good woman, when the man fell off the house with an hatched by his side, and broke his neck; what a great mercy is it, says she, he had no more harm?   

Sect. 3 THE the third objection is Holy things to holy men: My answer was, by distinction of outward, and inward, holy things, and persons.  
Mr. Drake excepts page 119. 1 Infants, and the distracted are outwardly holy; this is thirteen times. 2 Some outwardly holy things, to wit, the word, Mat. 28, 29. may be administered to those that are not outwardly holy.  
Answ. What then? therefore may it not be administered to those that are outwardly holy? 3 Bare profession, if contradicted by profaneness, cannot secure a man from Excommunication, much less from suspension. Answ. But what is this to profession, not contradicted by profaneness, I mean such, as is not sufficient to excommunicate him? It is that, I say, gives him admission. 4 The Excommunicate do still profess, and are outwardly holy, therefore Mr. H. contradicts himself, etc. Answ. I pray Sir, excuse me, I say when a man is excommunicate, he is as a heathen, and not to be reckoned, outwardly holy, or as a Professor.  
Whereas therefore he concludes over-leafe, page 120. that Mr. H. his answer may vie with the objection in weakness. Be pleased to turn to page 139. In both Sacraments, says he there, Real interest is sealed to real Saints, as visible interest to visible Saints. Now I pray compare Mr. H. outward holy things to outward holy men, and inward holy things, to inward holy men; A visible Ordinance to the visible Church, and the invisible grace to the invisible members that have a saving interest in them by faith. This was my answer, and is it not misfortune think ye, that the same thing must be strength in M. Drake, and yet weakness in M. H. and that M. H. must be thought to contradict himself, when he, poor creature, is apt to think M. Drake doth; Besides, it is M. Drake says here, not Mr. H. that a man is still a Professor, when he contradicts his Profession, and is excommunicate from it. So that, by my consent he may set up the trade of a Contradiction-maker; for seeing the Last of his own invention will so well serve any body, if he cannot put off his Ware to others, it is but taking it to himself, and he may never need to be any loser by it.  
Page 121. He cannot deny that All in the Church are in some sense in Christ, and sanctified by him, as I quoted those Texts, Jo. 15.2. 2 Pet. 2.1. Heb, 10.29. etc. From whence I argue, that those who are in a Church-state, in Covenant, or visible communion, so that thereby they are said to be in Christ, redeemed, and sanctified, are to be admitted accordingly to the seal and badge thereof, unless such as the Scripture gives ground to except; But all Church-members are in Covenant, Deut. 29.1.10, 11. visible Saints, etc. and the Scripture allows no bar to any, unless unintelligent, or excommunicate; Ergo.  
Unto this seeing it concerns the main, Mr. D. gives us two answers; 1 Then Infants again may be admitted: this is fourteen times. 2 In short, He is confident against it. A very masterful argument! which confidence yet (without proof) whosoever trusts to, shall find but as a broken tooth, and foot out of joint. And here I desire the Reader to take notice, when he still comes to this point, which is the foundation, whether it be sufficient satisfaction, only to vilisie me, and slight it off. For as for this passage, with which he hath filled so many sheets, about children, it is good for nothing, unless they had happily been in parchment, and then it would have served well, to make them Drums, and sounded prettily by the emptiness.  
Page 122. How gross is that assertion that there is an historical visible faith that gives an out ward Church right unto the Elements? Answ. Nay rather how clear and firm a truth doth it appear, by the former Argument? That faith, which serves to enter a man in external Covenant, and engage him to the terms thereof, will serve to admit him to the Sacraments; but, a faith only accepting the true God, in opposition to all other Religions doth serve for that, appears by the Covenanting of the whole body of Israel, Deut, 29.10, 12. Ergo, All Professors or Church-members that have but a common, general, historical, or visible faith (for any of these terms serve me) I say are in Covenant, but the Covenant is the foundation of the Sacraments, Ergo, neither will the right understanding hereof do any hurt to the Church, I hope, so long as we press, nevertheless, a solid saving faith, to interest them in the effectual benefits of them both.  
His Exceptions are, 1 Then the Excommunicate have a right, for they have stilan historical faith. Answ. How vain is this? who knows not the state of the question supposes us within the Church? 2 Some excommunicate may also have a true saving faith. See how fairly, instead of opposing me, he checks himself. I pray mark his strength in both, because neither an historical, nor saving faith gives a man a right that is excommunicate, and thereby made no Church-member, therefore they cannot give him a right when he is not excommunicate, and is a Church-member. 3 As historical faith, gives not a right to Christ, but faith of adhesion; so a visible faith of adhesion, gives right to Christ sacramental. Answ. 1 I might return to him, Why may not some excommunicate persons, have such a visible faith of adhesion, as an historical saving one: But. 2 An historical faith is suo genere, a true faith, as the Eunuches, I believe that Christ is the Son of God. Act. 8.37.3 An historical saith which was barely so, and not saving gave Simon Magus admission unto Baptism, Act. 8.13. and here Adultis eadem ratio holds firm. 4 Faith of adhesion I take to be an assent with application, and that is special faith, which I question whether it may be termed visible, as distinguished from saving. 5 It is sufficient to me, that a faith which generally assents to the truth of the Covenant, and engages to it, and yet falls short of justifying, entitles to the Sacraments, for otherwise we shall quite confound the work of the Minister, and the Spirit, the symbolical, and effectual Seal, and then no man can be admitted at all without presumption. 6 When the Papists prove that historical faith justifies, because it sufficed unto Baptism, Act. 8.37. Some of our able Divines answer, It is true, Profession of faith gives interest to Baptism, yet it is not sufficient to Justification, Dr. Slater on Rom. 3.22.  
There is a manifest difference between a title to the Sacraments, and interest in the saving benefits; A general faith gives title to one, a special to the other. Regeneration is like David, that enjoys Michal; when Profession, like Phaltiel comes along behind weeping to Bahurim. A general faith hath some union with Christ, as a special, a saving union; Profession, like Orphah, may kiss Naomi, when a saving faith, like Ruth, cleaves unto her.   

Sect. 4 THe fourth Objection is, The Seal is set to a Blank, if all be admitted. My answer was, from consideration of what is sealed; It is generally said, the Sacrament is the seal of faith (wherein lies the difficulty;) I say only it is a Seal of the Covenant; The Gospel is the writing, the Sacrament as the seal to that writing; the Writing is true, and the Seal true, whosoever is admitted.  
I must confess there is so much confusion in this business, especially in Mr. D. who is usually most assertive when least advised, that it will be in vain to dispute Andabatarum more, with terms blindfolded. These terms then, sealing to a blank, sealing to our faith, and sealing the Covenant, I judge are ambiguous; when we differ only in terms, we may reconcile in our meaning; but where we differ in our matter, one of us must be reform.  
First then, Sealing to a blank may relate to the thing, or person; when I say there is no sealing to a blank, I mean as the thing sealed; for it is not the unbelief of man can make the Covenant of God of no effect. Now when here he takes a blank as relating to persons, he says nothing, and is presently answered, we hold none are visible blanks within the Church: but when he refers it to the thing, as I do, here arises our difference.  
Secondly, Sealing of faith, or to faith, we either mean as the thing sealed, or the condition required, to the exhibition thereof; When I say the Sacrament is not a seal of faith, I mean it still as the thing sealed (to wit, on God's part.) A Seal is an Appendix to writing, the Sacrament is not an Appendix to faith, but to the Gospel. Now again, If he mean here, by this expression, It is a seal to our faith, only, that faith is the condition, upon which alone, Christ and his benefits are conveyed, it is, what none doubteth, and for words we contend not. But when he says, It is the seal of Faith, referring it as I do to the thing sealed, our controversy here must continue, and there is but one thing to look into, to wit, the sense wherein, or grounds whereon, he thus holds it; which I shall satisfy, after I have laid down these other distinctions likewise, about sealing the Covenant, as necessary to it.  
Thirdly then, There are 3 things I humbly think are to be distinguished, concerning the Covenant; 1 The condition thereof, on man's part; 2 The benefits, on God's part. 3 The tenor, which consists, or results our of both. The word Sealing accordingly is used (I think) sometimes, for to bind, or engage; sometimes to confirm or ratify, and sometimes to convey or exhibit, which are offices of a Seal (with others) and do not a little puzzle our conceptions. Now when we say the Sacrament seals the Covenant, as sealing is taken for confirming, assuring, or ratifying (which is the properest sense thereof) it is most genuinely applied to the tenor of it; As it is understood for conveying or exhibiting, it is proper to the benefits; As it is used to engage or oblige, it is most large, and may be applied to the condition with the distinction (if we allow it) as man's seal, and not otherwise; for as it is God's Seal, in none of these senses, it seals the condition, God engages not hereby, to give man Faith; if he did, every Receiver should have it; what he seals to, he performs.  
Now then to come to our difference, the ground on which the Sacrament is held a Seal of Faith, or to our Faith (which terms I shall not distinguish for him) is usually this, because it confirms our Faith, that which confirms or ratifies (say they) is metaphorically a Seal, so is the Sacrament to our Faith.  
For satisfaction; 1 I distinguish, A thing may be confirmed or ratisied, either Formalitèr, properly and formally, or Consecutiuè, by consequence only, and improperly in the event. It is not enough to make a thing a Seal, that it confirms any way in the event, but that it formally confirms and ratifies. Now the Sacrament confirms and ratifies the Covenant properly and formally, as a seal set to a writing, ratifies the tenor and purport of it, but it confirms faith improperly, and consequently only, to wit, it increases it, as other Ordinances do, in the exercise thereof, all habits being strengthened by their acts, which you see is improper and eventual to sealing. Whatsoever God doth properly ratify by way of Seal, he attests the truth thereof, but he doth not attest the truth of our faith by the Sacrament, Ergo, the Sacrament is not the seal of Faith. Mr. Drakes answer to this (in Marg. p. 128.) that he doth it by consequence, will not serve; for I argue, That which is common to the hypocrite with the believer cannot attest the truth of a man's faith (signify or ascertain him that he hath grace) by any consequence that is good; But the Sacrament, is common to both; Ergo.  
2 I humbly judge, The Sacraments are not Seals because they confirm our faith (which is the error) but they confirm our faith, because they are Seals. As to use Mr. Drakes instance, When a bond sealed unto me confirms my belief, that the particulars sealed shall be performed: The Seal to the Bond is not a Seal, because it confirms me, but I am confirmed by it, because it is a seal; and this is only an effect it hath on me; for the Seal would be the same, and writing too, though I were incredulous. It is derogatory, I think, to say the Sacrament is only a metaphorical seal, or tropically a seal, which they are forced to say, that make it a seal of Faith, from the consequent effect, of confirming faith inherent in the worthy receiver; whereas indeed it is a very proper formal seal to the Covenant; and thus the text Rom. 4.11. speaks plain for us; circumcision is not said to be a seal of faith (or that a man hath faith) for righteousness; but the Seal of the righteousness of faith, which in Genesis is phrased, The token of the Covenant. If confirming or strengthening a man's faith were enough to denominate it a seal; 1 Then Acts of grace should be the best seals. 2 Then should all other Ordinances be feals too. 3 Then Baptism should be no seal to infants. 4 And then shall both the Sacraments cease to be Seals, when any are admitted that have not true Faith.  
3 Let us consider what faith is confirmed. Every act supposes its object, such as is the object, such must be the act; the object the Sacrament seals is no other, but what is in the word (for Mr. D. and I, here still agree, that these go together.) The word speaks only in general, whosoever believes shall be saved; this general, necessarily includes its particular, so that the faith which is directly and immediately confirmed, is my assent to his truth, that if I believe I shall have Christ, or be justified and saved; Only whereas a true historical assent; and particular faith of evidence, are not divided, though distinguished in the regenerate, but are one habit, men may not much scruple to say, the one is confirmed instead of the other. Yet as to this Point, where the whole stress is laid upon it, it is to be considered, and we are to know, that if a man would come to be assured of his faith (that it is saving) it must arise from his own examination, and experience, and it cannot be confirmed to him any otherwise. And as for those further degrees of assurance (if grounded) he attains at the Sacrament, they are not conveyed to him by obsignation (there is some danger and weakness to think so) but are acquired through God's Spirit; by exercise of his heart at that time in the sight of his experiences and meditation (the great business he hath to do here) no otherwise then at other Ordinances, which do all agere only, virtute suoe significationis, or by moral operation.  
I shall end this with a plain consideration; a Seal so confirms a Bond, as it was not confirmed before: but there is no Faith of particular evidence (that Christ is mine) can be confirmed by the Sacrament (I say, ratione obsignationis) but what is confirmed to me already by my experience, and therefore it is a mean thing, to count it only tropically a seal to confirm faith, when it is a seal formally to confirm the Covenant.  
Another reason Mr. D. hath, more peculiar, and affected. Faith is a part of the Covenant, and the Covenant being sealed, Faith is sealed. For the discussing this, we all know there is man's part of the Covenant, and Gods; man's part is the Condition, which God does not seal to; if he did, my business were at an end, for then all were to come hither for it; God's part is the Promise, wherein he engages to give us the benefits upon this Condition. Now as Faith is our Condition, it is manifest it cannot be part of the Covenant which God seal, whereof only we speak: And Mr. D. is at such a loss p. 134. For how shall faith be promised in the Covenant, when men cannot be in Covenant (effectually) without Faith? that is, how can Faith be promised upon condition we do believe? Let us distinguish then.  
1 There is the absolute, or conditional Covenant; or there is the Covenant made with us, and the Covenant made with Christ; Faith is not given by virtue of the Covenant made with man, but it flows from the Promise God hath made to Christ, that upon doing his work, this shall be his wages, To have a seed, a people, Isa. 53.10. Isa. 55.4, 5. Psal. 2.8. that is, many shall believe in him. Now the Sacrament seals not the absolute Covenant, or the everlasting engagements between God and Christ; but it seals the conditional Covenant, or the Covenant made with man, and so not Faith.  
2 To proceed more strictly, There is the first Grace, and second Grace. Faith as the first condition, and the further degrees of it. If it be pleaded, these further degrees comes under the conditional Promise: I Answer, For my part, I judge from whence comes the first Grace, from thence flows Perseverance, by the former Texts, with Joh. 10.29. Jo. 17.9, 10. Jer. 32.40.1 Pet. 1.5. etc. that is from the absolute Promise, and this makes it incorruptible seed, in the Doctrine whereof we are loath to lose so good a stay at our backs; and if Perseverance belongs to the absolute Promise, the confirmation of the first Grace does likewise. In Progressive Grace then, there is the work itself, or an accessary consideration of it, as a reward to initial; though there is not the least degree of Grace, but what is wrought by the Holy Spirit, yet he does so sweetly attemper his work to our Wills, that he proposes it as the reward and fruits of our endeavours in the right use of the first stock he hath given us; and so declares, or promises, To him that hath it shall be given; Upon which promise there arises a right of the second Grace to him that hath the first; and this Right only as to Real Grace (to wit, that God will crown his own effectual workings with more) is all can be sealed in the Sacraments. To clear this a little more, Whereas we speak here of the Grace the Covenant promises, that is the benefits, let us know, 1. The word Sealing, we are to take for conveying or exhibiting. 2. That the grace of the promise is either Relative, that makes a change only as to our state and relation towards God (as Justification, Adoption) and this is conveyed every Sacrament (suo modo) to the Believer; or Real, as these further degrees of Faith Love, etc. and Glory, which change the heart and person; and this being a physical thing, cannot be conveyed by obsignation. A moral Instrument acts not physically. To speak freely in this sense of obsignation, the Sacrament does no more Sanctify us, then Glorify us; It is then a right to further Sanctification, as to glory, which is sealed, that is, exhibited, or conveyed to us by the Sacrament; and as for the effectual work itself of the first or second: Grace alike, it is the free gift of God, insinuated in all Ordinances, through the proposition of the object, by moral action.  
To sum up the whole Mr. D. can have here, it comes to this; whereas the Sacrament as a seal, conveys and exhibits the benefits of the Covenant (to wit Relative Grace, and a right to Real) to true Believers, and not else, the seal must be set to a blank (he may count) where there is no saving Faith, and if any are visibly such, they ought not to be admitted.  
To this I answer 1. By way of concession, as to the antecedent, which is true, and the sense is only, that the Sacrament seals the benefits of the Covenant upon condition, or those only that have the condition, have a right to the benefits of it. The man could nor be so censorious, if he had not some good meaning. To express this in Austin's words, there is Sacramentum, and Res Sacramenti; panis Dominus, and Panis Domini; It is true, though all receive the Sacrament, and Panem Domini, yet none receive rem Sacramenti, and panem Dominum, but such as have true saving faith.  
But 2. By way of negation to the consequence, It does not follow where the benefits are not exhibited, that the seal is set to a blank. For 1. The Covenant is sealed either in regard of the tenor of it, or the benefits; though the benefits (in this sense) are not sealed (that is conveyed) yet is the tenor of the Covenant sealed (that is, confirmed and ratified, the chief sense we contend for) to all the receivers; and there can be no seal to a blank, so long as there is truth and writing in the Gospel2. As the general truth of the Covenant is sealed to all, so is every man's particular interest sealed according to his condition, and he is seriously to make his use thereof.  
3 By way of further satisfaction, if Mr. D. will call it sealing to a blank, when the benefits are not, exhibited, the man may use what unhandsome terms he will, but I will say if that be all, there is no absurdity in it. For 1. God hath commanded to baptise all Infants of Believers, and to admit all visible Saints, (as himself says, p. 123.) which yet have not all the benefits exhibited, and we must not think the eternal Wisdom puts us upon an absurdity. 2. The Lord Jesus submitted to the Sacraments, yet could not the benefits of remission of sins, or regeneration, be sealed to him that never sinned. 3. Nevertheless, as he was to do this, to fulfil all righteousness; so are we bound still to do our duty. 4. As there is Relative Grace, as remission of sin, and a right to life, exhibited to the sound Believer; so there is Relative Judgement (if I may so say) as retention of sin, and debitum supplicii, a due, or desert of death, exhibited to the unsound, which he is to apply for his Conviction and Reformation. 5. If he does not, yet is the Ordinance hereby made a sweet savour of Christ unto God, though a savour of death to him.  
4 By way of inquity, I question. 1. How Gods establishing his Covenant by way of seal, does import this exhibition of the effectual benefits, to those he seals? There may indeed be outward privileges of the Church, necessarily made over hereby? but the inward benefits of the Covenant, are engaged for, or stipulated on God's part to be given only upon condition, which man may be bound to before the performance. I pray compare tha● place, from whence alone we derive this notion of seal. Ro. 4.11. with Gen. 17.11. One Text calls that a token, which the other calls a seal, and wha● one calls the righteousness of Faith, the oath calls the Covenant; The token of the Covenant, and seal of the righteousness of faith, the same. Now see vers. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their Generations, for an everlasting Covenant, This shall be the token or seal thereof; But the effectual benefits were not exhibited to the whole seed in their generations that were circumcised, and therefore Mr. D. must affirm here, that God seals to a blank (which he most desperately does) or that this objection comes to nothing.  
2 I question, Whether a man that scruples at the Sacrament, as having not evidence to receive it as a seal, may, and must not yet receive it as a sign; My reason is, all men within the Church, are bound to remember the death of Christ, and be thankful, if it were but only for that he hath brought them under a possibility, probability, and the means of salvation; But the whole institution is ordained for a thankful remembrance in the showing forth his death, and benefits of it, wherein the whole Church is visibly interessed, Ergo. If any reply, There is more than this to be done, I say, true, let not anythink that is all; but I ask, is not this yet his duty? This one particular cannot be denied, and if it be his duty, his failings and impotence otherwise, cannot evacuate it; they must be amended, and this must be done. Wemust not do evil that good may come of it, therefore, we must do our duty, though evil comes of it.  
And now I come to his book, p. 123. He gins with approbation of the objection; All men (says he) are naturally Rasae tabulae, destitute of the new Covenant in their hearts, 2 Cor. 3.3. Heb. 8.10. and so blanks, etc.  
Answ. Here is Mr. Drakes great error, to confound the outward and inward Covenant, the external and internal sealing; If the seal be set to a blank, until God's Law is written in the heart, than no mortal can apply the seal to any, seeing that cannot be discerned by any. Compare this therefore with p. 72. Let the world know (says he) that truth of Grace in the heart is not the rule of our admission. Now I pray note it, if he applies these Texts, Heb. 8.10.2 Cor. 3.3. (which speaks only of this inward writing) to confirm the objection, that the seal is set to a blank if all be admitted; then the world must know that the truth of grace is his rule, or else the new Covenant written in the heart, is not truth of grace with Mr. Drake. Here you see the left legset first forward, and the man's rule had need be better than his reason.  
He proceeds, This blank is either visible, or invisible; to God all blanks are visible, and he may use his liberty to set his seal where he pleases.  
Ans. In what a sad case has he here brought himself self through his former error, when he must lay this for his foundation, that the God of Israel may set his seal to a visible blank, that styles himself by this title, who cannot lie? If the Minister, who is God's Ambassador, seals to a visible blank, it is such an heinous sin, he says, as murdering Christ: and yet does he affirm, that God sets his seal to a visible blank without scruple. It is no wonder that the man deals so coursely with me, that uses such rude and uncivil language towards God.  
He goes on, and tells how (p. 124) by commanding Baptism of Infants, and to admit to the Lords Supper all visible Saints that are, Church-members; The question is then whether man may apply the seals to visible blanks, etc. Ans. I pray mark this over again, God may use his liberty to set his seal to a visible blank (he says) by commanding all visible Saints to be admitted; but his question is, Whether man may apply it? that is, the question is, Whether man may do as God hath commanded him? Visible Saints are all one with visible members, 1 Cor. 1, 2. Heb. 10.29. with Deut. 7.6. etc. so that it seems by that time the man came to this place, he was never converted. But he falls off again, It is clear he may not, for then heathen may be admitted, and their Infants baptised, but there are visible blanks in the Church as in the world, etc. Answ. 1. This is as good as the rest, because the heathen are not admitted, who are not commanded to be admitted, therefore visible Saints may not, who are commanded; As a jewel in a Swine's snout, so is a fair face upon a matter without discretion. 2 It is Mr. Drakes error to say there are any visible blanks within the Church, for how then, can we baptise all children? A visible blank, is one visibly out of Covenant, but to be in a Church-state, is to be externally, or visibly in Covenant, Deut. 29.1.10.11. & 26.17, 18. visibly holy, Deut. 14.2.1 Pet. 29, 10.1 Cor. 1, 2. And so the Jews owned of God as his Covenant-people, even when they know not, nor consider him. Isa. 1.3. Isa. 5.13. there is ignorance; and when they harken not to him, and will have none of him, Psal. 81.8.11. Amos 3.2.1 Cor. 10.5. there is scandal. As the legs of the lame are not equal, so is Church-membership without communion.  
Page 125. Sacramental seals relate either to parties, or to things, etc. Answ. For the parties, A man may be in Covenant either quoad jus foederis, or quoad foederis beneficia; Though none but the regenerate, are partakers of the effectual benefits, yet are all Church-members in Covenant, according to an external right or title. But in case any make a forfeiture, which he says, the Church ought to take; It is manifest than he must be excommunicate, that is, put out of Church-state, or external Covenant; for while he stands De jure entitled as a member, it is a manifest wrong to suspend him the symbol thereof: And here our distinction of Ipso jure dismembred, and so De presenti dis-tituled must do its service, in some scruples, which will be even forced to say, I have need of thee.  
For the things to which these Seals relate, Page 126. he says, 1 They confirm the Covenant; which is most true, and therefore all may be present to see, not eat. Answ. The bare Elements do not confirm the Covenant, but the Elements as instituted to that use, but they were instituted to be eaten and drunken, and therefore those that are present must receive too, to wit, if they be intelligent members. 2 They confirm the faith of the worthy receiver, therefore none but Evangelically worthy may partake. Ans. He may as well argue thus, Baptism confirms the faith only of those that understand it, therefore Infants may not partake of it. The word and prayer confirm faith, therefore none but the regenerate may hear and pray. This is no consequence, for whatsoever Ordinance can confirm faith, may beget it. 3 They confirm judgement to the unworthy receiver. Answ. And I pray now what is become of the blank? By this it appears the whole Covenant is sealed, Mar. 16, 16. and so there is no sealing to a blank possible. He that believes not shall be damned, is sealed, as well as he that believes shall be saved; so that I humbly judge the right use hereof is but to be taught the people, and our controversy may be done.  
There is a vast difference between a physical, and moral instrument; and likewise between what is Really and Relatively conveyed; If real judgement were physically conveyed by the Covenant and Sacrament, it were death but once to touch it, or but once to hear the word without faith. But it is not so, God forbidden, we should have such merciless thoughts of him; It is final unbelief only that shall be really damned. The truth is, both the Covenant and Seal, do still hold forth life potentially to a sinner, if he will repent, when it actually sets death before his present condition; He is now then to despair of sin, he is never to despiar of mercy upon conversion unto Christ.  
For his next things, I speak to other where; There is one passage only here, must yet be limited, it is this, The Sacrament will confirm the unworthy receivers unbelief. Answ. You must take heed of this, by your serious application. Indeed I think the Sacrament seals judgement to every unregenerate man, according to the terms of the major Proposition in this syllogism, (He that believes not, shall be damned, I believe not, therefore I shall be damned) but not, in any hand, according to the terms of the conclusion, Let every soul assure himself thereof. But for the confirming his unbelief, that follows here only, as at the word, and prayer; A man may be unworthy, yet by God's grace, pray, hear, and receive worthily; for while he rightly applies the word, or seal, according to his condition, it will be the very means, I hope, to remove his unbelief, and quicken him to repentance, which the Lord grant to poor sinners.  
Page 127. The Sacrament doth confirm faith, and ratify the Covenant to faith, Ergo, it is a seal of faith, and to faith. Answ. 1 The Sacrament confirms not faith formalitèr, as I have said, but only consecutiuè, as other Ordinances do, and that is not enough to make it a seal. 2 The Sacrament ratifies the Covenant to all, whether they have saving faith or no, but exhibits the benefits only upon that condition; so that to seal to faith is nothing else, but that it seals conditionally, which answers the whole objection. Econtra: where there is no faith to confirm, it seals to a blank, as sealing a paper without writing, etc. Answ. Here is his constant error, for the writing the Sacrament seals to, is not the inward Covenant in the heart, but the outwart in the Gospel. For his Argument from the institution, How can the Minister say, this is the blood of Christ, for the remission of sin to the unworthy? Every one can resolve, as Christ said the same to Judas, whereof before.  
Page 128. He hath four things; 1 He confesses, God doth not attest our faith. I return, But Seals are testimonies, and if he does not give testimony to our faith, he does not seal to it. 2 He says, Some reject the Covenant; This he repeats page 131 where I shall answer it. 3 There is the old business of Infants, and the distracted, which is fifteen times. 4 The Seals may be applied before all, not to them, etc. Answ. Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in this thing you are too superstitious. I pray see the sixth Chapter of John, vers. 53.56. Verily except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood you have no life in you; but whosoever eateth, etc. hath eternal life. These words cannot be meant of the Sacrament; 1 Because that was not then instituted; And 2. Men may never eat him in the Sacrament, yet be saved. Now take this sixth of John out of the Supper, that which remains only must be the seal, and what becomes of all this dreadfulness then, that is laid upon our consciences with a bare Touch not, taste not, handle not? Let a man only look on, he shall be sure to be damned nevertheless, if he eats not the flesh, and drinks not the blood of the Son of man by a true faith; and as sure to be saved if he does, according to this text of St. John, alike, whether he receives, or receives not. This actual receiving then, serves but to affect us the more solemnly with our condition, and be a more serious obligation by the outward, to that inward eating, whereby alone we look to be saved.  
Page 129. He is notable, The Sacrament he counts it not a seal properly, but figuratively, to the Covenant itself; I pray mark it. So in the former leaf he concludes it tropically a seal. Well, now read but a few lines further, in the very same page, and he tells us, As it confirms the Covenant, it confirms Faith; and if this be not to seal in a proper formal sense theologically, I know not what is. Is not this pretty? The Sacrament is not a proper, formal seal, but figurative, and metaphorical; and yet if it does not seal in a proper, formal sense, he knows not what does. Mr. Drake does often tell you of my contradictions, when he only goes about to make them, but I need not tell you, he has any. To his substance I have spoken already.  
Page 130. Nor will his instance of circumcision help him, which was applied to none but visible Saints, etc.  
Answ. That is the whole Jewish Nation, I pray see Josh. 5.3, 6, 8. and that instance alone, of the whole Body of Israel at once, when of age, without any examination, or profession, but virtually only, being circumcised, does declare, both that all Church-Members are visible Saints, and that that alone gives a right to be admitted.  
For the simile that follows, I have spoken; and I refer you to Mr. Calvin, who pleases himself with it, in showing this same point, to wit, Sacramenta non definere esse testimonia gratiae Dei, licet impiis quoque porrigantur. Inst. l. 4. c. 14. sect. 7.  
Page 131. How dare a Minister by word and seal apply the Covenant of Grace to those that visibly reject it?  
Answ. Unto this Mr. D. shall first answer. Mr. D. speaking of Infant baptism, he tells us, Be their parents never so unworthy p. 81. Yet 1. Though they transgress, they do not renounce the Covenant, as Turks do. 2. They are Members of the visible Church till ex communicated, p. 84. Well, now let him come to speak about the Sacrament, p. 131. All who are visibly in the state of nature (says he) are visibly out of Covenant. I pray mark it, if natural men be members of the visible Church, how are they visibly out of Covenant? If they are visibly in Christ, how do they visibly reject Christ? And now then, upon this I will answer him. 1. There is a difference between disobedience and renouncing; between a not resolving, and resolving not to accept of Christ. 2. How can Mr. D. say any visibly reject the Covenant of Grace, when they visibly come to engage themselves unto it? 3. So long as the Lord owns a people in Covenant, the Minister may apply the outward seals of it; But while men are Church-members, the Lord does own them outwardly as his people, even when they will not hearken, and will none of him, Psal. 81.8, 11. that is plainly reject the Covenant, as to obedience, when they are ignorant, Isa. 1.3. Hos. 4.6. and scandalous, Psa. 106.39. with ver. 45. They went a whoring after their own inventions, yet remembered he for them his Covenant. 4. So long as men are not excommunicate, I see no reason why Christ may not be offered Sacramentally, as free as verbally, to work them to repentance; for the offering a sealed pardon in general (the general always including the particulars) and the particulars applying the same to single persons conditionally, whatsoever this mansurmises, is but the same. If he can say to all, whosoever believes shall be saved, he can say so to me; unless all, does not include me; and absolutely the Sacrament seals no man's interest, as alike vainly he imagines. 5. If men do not walk conformable to the Covenant, the denouncing the judgement of God, and the sealing of it, seriously applied, is the means to reform them. 6. When other means will not work upon them, there remains Excommunication, and let that content him.  
Page 132. He does but repeat the same.  
Page 133. He hath three things, 1. The Sacraments are Gods seals, as relating to God's Covenant, and as instituted to ratify the Covenant. Ans. A good confession, Then they are not Gods seals as relating to Faith, and as instituted formally to ratify Faith: They are not seals of Faith for Righteousness, but they are seals of the righteousness of Faith, in opposition to Works. 2. Is not Faith, and every saving Grace promised in the New Covenant, unless Mr. H. will turn Pelagian? Ans. I believe here Mr. Drakes other studies has beguiled his Divinity; for he may be pleased to know, we neither make Faith the birth of man's Free Will, nor yet to be given by virtue of the Covenant made with man, which the Sacrament seals, but to be Gods most free gift, that proceeds from election, and discovers the mystery thereof. 3. If the Covenant be Gods, if the Seal be Gods, and Faith promised in it be Gods also; is it not apparent, that God's seal, must needs be Faiths seal also? Answ. If he count this apparent, which is a very Chaos, you may guess what light to expect from him. The truth is, As faith is our condition, it is not a branch of the Covenant that God seals, which puzzles this man; for if it were, every man should unquestionably come, and engage the Lord by his own seal to undertake for his condition (as I have already intimated) and consequently if God perform what he engages, every one should be saved.  
This he sees p. 134, 135. and is quite lost in his very first particular; for while he supposes, the Covenant promises initial grace to the Elect, and the Sacrament seals that Covenant, and the seal secures what is in the writing (which are all his own terms) he must necessarily take upon him to judge who are reprobates, which is sinful to do; or all must be admitted: for though men are visibly yet in the state of nature, they may be elect. Had not the man so much contemned me, he might have found how to distinguish between what comes from Gods undertaking with man, or the conditional bosom of the Covenant; and what comes from his undertaking with Christ, or the free, absolute bosom of Election. I pray compare his third particular with this first, The Sacrament, he says there, is for nourishment (and that I hope to the Elect) So p, 147. It seals not initial, but progressive Graece; and yet here, the Covenant (he counts) promises initial grace to the Elect, and the seal secures what is in the Covenant. So that ☜ what need I here to dispute with Mr. D. when his own particulars have an opponent and defendant among themselves, and do rise up methinks but like the heads and horns still in the Visions, to revile, and fight with one another. I will here therefore pose these two pages of Mr. Drakes with these Questions. 1. Whether it be one and the same Covenant he speaks of there? 2. How the Covenant being conditional doth promise absolutely? 3. How it can promise initial Grace? for Faith and Repentance are the condition of the Covenant, and how can faith be promised upon condition we have faith, or the first grace be given upon condition we have grace? 4. What difference is there between the Covenants offer of grace, and promise of grace conditionally? 5. How can the offer of Grace be said to be sealed, as Offer is distinguished from Promise? 6. Whether the Minister can seal which he please, either the Offer or Promise, and why he should not content himself to seal the offer, which is sure to all present, rather than to seal the Promise where he may err, seeing his visible Legatees really may not be such? By these Questions happily it may appear Mr. D. does not see all things.  
Page 136. Christ may be given to all, or held forth in the Sacrament, though they do not receive.  
Answ. What an unworthy shift is this, to be made use of so often! As Christ is held forth to all Sacramentally, he is held forth to this end, to be Sacramentally eaten and drunken; Take, eat, this is my body; that is, thus taken, and eaten, it is his body, not otherwise: The Sacrament than gives not out Christ, or holds him forth Sacramentally, but to those that receive it. And they all drank of the rock, which was Christ.  
In the same page, he hath up Infants, and the distracted again, which is sixteen times, and argues from the word, As the Minister may not lose by the Key of doctrine, such as are to be bound, no more may be seal comfort, etc. Answ. As the Minister doth not only lose, but bind in the word, so does he in the Sacrament; and as he neither binds nor loses, but conditionally in the one; no more does he seal comforts, or judgement (and so terrors) in the other. As for that only Objection against this conditional sealing he hath over the lease, that then heathen, and the excommunicate may be admitted; I have answered, The word is a sealed word only to the Church; It is apparent, the seal is delivered only for her use, Gen. 17. and therefore to be applied (by express Text, Exod. 12.28.) only to her members.  
Page 137, 138. He contends without cause that the Sacraments are man's seals, which in his sense that they are appointed to his use (in a propriety of the final cause) who doubts? but in that sense which regards him that sets the seal, as if Mr. D. should make Articles with me, the setting his seal is not mine; so do I think some wiser than Mr. D. may not judge it any thing ridiculous, to make the seal Gods only, and our mutual restipulation, (I mean the performance of it) to arise as the good use we are to make thereof. If any contend for words▪ give place.  
Pag. 139. Whereas I say the tenor of the Gospel is absolutely sealed but not our interest in it absolutely; which distinction I desire to have marked, because our interest relates to the benefits, and they are sealed (that is exhibited) only on condition; and our assurance can be no otherwise: He answers, This is true in the first branch, but false in the second, since not only the tenor of the Covenant is sealed absolutely to the worthy receiver, but also his interest in it. Answ. A very shrewd Argument; It is not, why? because it is not. My reason I give here is, because the word speaks not absolutely of any man's single interest; He answers, It does by signs, and if any find those signs in himself it is as good, as if he were mentioned by name. Answ. If a man's particular interest depends upon these signs and marks, then is his interest only conditional, and must be sealed as it is, which is the thing I prove. I pray consider this plainly, when the word tells me, Faith is the condition of the Covenanant, it sets forth what faith it is, or the true signs, marks, and description thereof, and it is all one to say, If thou dost believe, or if thou hast these signs or marks. Now the Sacrament seals my interest in the benefits of the Covenant only upon the condition, that I have these signs wherein consists this true faith, and not otherwise; But the word doth no where tell me I have these marks, or signs, and therefore the Sacrament cannot seal to me my interest but conditionally; which is so clear that all the clouds in Mr. D. head can never obseure it.  
And whereas in the same Page he speaks fortunately, that a visible interest is sealed to visible Saints. I assume; But Church-members are outwardly holy, or visible Saints, therefore consideratis considerandis must be admitted.  
Page 140 to 149. He brings in the syllogism I quoted from Mr. Baxter (in Aphor. Ap.) where by the way, let me admonish Mr. D. to take heed of this self-conceit, prejudice, and bitter spirit, he shows in those By-expressions of his upon a man so precious in the hearts of most pious  Christians, and of so eminent a worth, where he wishes that godly person, if so; (If so, such is his censure upon my naming him under that title) by entertainment of this opinion, be not like that of the Galatians. Such conversion, is perversion, etc. and calls for repentance, which I wish to that godly man, etc. It is most malevolently spoken, he should have proceeded to suspension.  
The syllogism is this, whosoever believes, shall be saved; But I believe; Ergo, I shall be saved; The minor, and conclusion, Master Baxter, and I, say, are not sealed; but the major Mr. D. opposes.  
And first he says, the conclusion is sealed, p. 141, 142. His reason is, because the Sacrament seals I shall be saved in particular, which he proves at large▪ Answ. I deny his argument; for, That I shall be saved in particular, is either conditionally or absolutely; That I shall be saved conditionally, is in the major Proposition, by his own ground, The general includes the particulars, and his own instances; As omnis homo est animal, includes tu es animal; So whosoever believes, shall be saved, includes, If I believe, I shall be saved, and that I shall be saved only conditionally, is all the Sacrament seals, his own texts likewise prove, Rom. 10.9. John 3.16. If thou confess, If thou believe; so strong is he against himself: But that I shall be saved absolutely, comes into the conclusion, and that the word says not, nor can it be sealed. The conclusion, I say, is absolute, and thereupon he pleads. Now if that be sealed, than not only whosoever once receives with faith, must needs be certainly saved, which you may say, you see no hurt in, but likewise, he that once receives without faith, must needs be certainly damned, which God forbidden.  
As for his distinction, between the offer of grace, and the promise of grace; he weakly troubles himself, for if the offer be of no other grace, but what is in the promise (to wit, pardon and salvation as he means) I say that is promised conditionally to all, and me in particular as well as offered.  
And whereas he argues, Where the condition is performed, there the promise is absolute I deny it, what is but upon supposition, is not absolute. You may say, it is as good to me, as if it were absolute, that is, it is certain; (there lies the equivocation) but how is it certain? not absolutely certain, (as Election is) but conditionally certain, for the promise is still the same, and no new promise. He proceeds, But when I believe, the condition is performed; Ergo, the promise that I shall be saved is absolute. Answ. That which assures me of a benefit only upon condition, and does not assure me the condition, doth not assure me absolutely of the benefit; But the Sacrament assures me of salvation only on condition I believe, but doth not assure me I believe (as by and by shall be cleared) therefore it does not assure me absolutely of salvation.  
Again, That Proposition, that contains the Covenant is sealed, but the major contains the Covenant, not the conclusion, therefore the major, not the conclusion is sealed.  
Let this suffice, Thy particular interest conditionally is contained in the major proposition, promise, or Covenant, which is sealed absolutely; So I remember pleads Mr. Baxter; If others contend it is sealed conditionally, they yet reconcile in a word; As the word Sealing signifies ratifying and confirming, and relates to the tenor of the Covenant; It is sealed absolutely, that is, as an undoubted verity. As sealing signifies exhibiting, conveying, and relates to the benefits of the Covenant, It is sealed conditionally in this sense, that the benefits are conferred only upon condition.  
Page 143. He undertakes the minor, Although before, page 128. he tells us, he knows none so simple as to assert that God doth attest our faith; Yet here, he is grown so wise to assert that God doth seal to this proposition, I believe. And thus he argues; What the Covenant ensures the Sacrament seals, but the Covenant assures him, I believe. His reason, because it gives him evidence in affording the infallible signs of faith. Answ. You may see here how much prejudice will blind a man. The mistake is manifest, in reckoning that to the minor, which belongs to the major; for when the word says, If I believe I shall be saved, it is all one with, If I receive Christ for righteousness, and have these and these marks, whereby it describes this faith to me, all which go to the major; now the minor, or assumption is, But I have these marks, signs, or that true faith thus described; And this is no where affirmed to me in the word, and consequently not sealed. I will therefore return his Argument; If the Word or Covenant doth not assure me I believe, than this minor cannot be sealed; but this it doth not, for it no where says, I have these marks and signs; Ergo. Again, If it were in the Word, it were an object of faith; but it is no object of faith. Probo. That which is seen, is no object of faith, for sense takes away faith, 2 Cor. 5.7. and Faith is an evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11.1. But this minor, I believe, is an object of sense, spiritual experience, or thing seen: Ergo. To illustrate this, suppose there are Articles granted and sealed to a Town upon such and such qualifications; If I come to plead my benefit in them as a person so qualified, I must bring witnesses that will attest such things I have done, that do so qualify me, and this is to be made out by me no otherwise. Now as the Articles and Seal assure me of such advantages upon the qualification; but it is my proof and testimony, evidence those qualifications; so doth the Covenant and Sacrament assure me of salvation upon faith, but it is my own conscience, and spiritual experience that must assure my faith; and therefore the Sacrament is not a seal of faith (to ratify and assure that) but of the Covenant.  
Page 144, 145, 146. He persists by way of explication to this purpose. The marks and signs which the conscience makes use of, to evidence the minor, is in Scripture, therefore the minor is consequently in Scripture. Answ. 1. That is, Because the medius terminus is both in the major and the minor, therefore whatsoever proves the major, must prove the minor. 2. In his own terms, Though the evidence in actu signato be in Scripture, this is nothing, seeing that goes in the major Proposition; But his Evidence in actu exercito is the business of the minor, and that is no where, I hope, in Scripture, by his own confession. 3. Whereas, in that Page (128.) before quoted, as here he puts this off with not interminis, but by consequence; Let us see his consequence. All are sinners, therefore thou Roger art a sinner; all must rise again, therefore thou must rise again. This is true, because the one includes the other; So, whosoever believes shall be saved, includes this de fide. If thou Roger believest, thou shalt be saved; but it can never include de fide, therefore thou Roger believest. He says, yes, Because the minor here is the conclusion in the Prosyllogisme, to wit, He that hath these signs, believes; But I have these signs, Ergo, I believe: I answer contrà, Seeing the conclusion in the Prosyllogisme is the same with the minor in the principal Syllogism, it cannot be in Scripture, or de fide, by the same consequence he proves it can; for, that he hath these and these signs is not in Scripture; but to have these and these signs is all one with to believe; Ergo, that he believes is not in Scripture, or de fide, by consequence. He that hath these signs, I say, is all one with, he that believes; and so his Prosyllogisme then, comes effectually but to this, He that believes, believes; But he believes, ergo, he believes.  
And whereas to illustrate this, he so elaborately demonstrates he is a man, partly by sense, partly by faith; first by a direct nct; and then by a reflect act on the signs of his humanity, and properties of a man, and therefore shall rise again in the resurrection; Spectatum admissi: When I am a man, and I believe, are propositions of equal evidence, Mr. Drakes argument shall carry it. He that is a man, is a man; He that believes, believes; He that is in the right, is in the right; but Mr. D. is in the right, Ergo, he is in the right.  
Page 146. He raises an objection, The Sacrament supposes assurance: It supposes I believe, but does not evidence that I believe; Ergo, it is not a seal of Faith. Unto this he can make no solution. For my part, I do neither think the Sacrament supposes assurance, or effectual faith, that we must needs forbear to come without it. There is a general faith and acknowledgement of the Gospel, or Covenant of Jesus Christ, as the only means to be saved, (I judge) pre-requisite to adult Church-Membership, and so to the Sacraments, which is not to the word that begets it; But as for that Saving Faith, which consists in the prevailing interest of the heart for Christ, which is the condition of the Covenant (wrought not always by the Word alone, but by other means with it) It may be engaged to, I suppose, before it is performed; (and those engagements conduce thereunto) even as in Bonds, a man seals to the payment which is to be made, and he is bound before he makes it good.  
There is a manifest difference I conceive between what is pre-requisite to the enjoyment of the benefits of the Covenant, and what is pre-requisite to an engagement to the condition; the condition is pre-requisite to enjoy the benefits, but the condition is not absolutely pre-requisite to engage to the condition; for nothing can be absolutely pre-requisite to its self. A justifying faith then, I say, is required of every receiver, as pre-requisite to enjoy the benefits, but not absolutely pre-required to his coming and engaging to the Covenant, unless the whole Congregation of Israel, Deut. 29. man, woman, and child, had a saving Faith.  
I have therefore chose (in my former book, Ed. 3.) to tender this thus, with humble submission; The condition of the Covenant may be considered in esse, as already wrought in us, or in fieri, as to be done or performed of us. The receiver seals not to his condition necessarily in esse, for children seal to the same in baptism, and the Ordinance is to strengthen the weak that have not assurance, and doubt of their Faith. But he seals to it in fieri, agreeing to the terms of Christ proposed, expecting salvation, if ever he have grace to perform his engagements (which he is presently to go about) and yields to be damned (as looking for no other,) if he continue finally in an unsound or impenitent condition, which whether he seals or no, is sure however. God forbidden but we should endeavour to remove such scruples at the very core, if it may be; which for aught I see, do but a little serve to reform the bad, but do very much help to deject many tender serious Christians, in their more free and enlarged approaches unto Christ.  
As for his discourse that follows, p, 147 (which yet quite waves the strength in hand) he is much plunged; As the Sacrament (says he) is a means of grace, so it is a means of assurance; now the Sacrament is not a means of initial Grace, but of progressive, etc. I pray mark it, and the conclusion that arises from these two prem ses must needs be this, Ergo. the Sacrament is not a means of initial, but progressive assurance. Yet be pleased to look but a few lines lower, and he tells us, The Sacrament is sometimes the means of initial assurance, though ordinarily of progressive. This is the logic, whereto the man still so highly pretends. I will therefore now return upon him; As the Sacrament is a means of assurance, so is it a means of grace: But the Sacrament is sometimes a means of initial assurance; Ergo, the Sacrament, is sometimes (if not ordinarily) a means of initial Grace, or effectual conversion. The major converse is his own; the minor also is expressly his own. If these be true, How will he deny my conclusion? And whereas he speaks some things well, as to the manner how the Sacrament increases grace, and assurance; Let the judicious consider, what hurt there can be upon some of his pleas, to hold that initial Faith, Love, Repentance, Assurance, may be wrought by it, through the Spirit of God, as well as progressive? If further degrees in the same kind, why not the same kind itself? Seeing we attribute nothing here operi operato, to the work done, but gratiae operanti, and neither the one nor the other (the first seed or increase) is exhibited per modum obsignationis, but excited, or wrought, proponendo objectum, morali actione, & mediante significatione, that is, no otherwise then real Grace is both begotten and confirmed by other Ordinances.  
Page 148. He is pious and healing; and it calls to my remembrance that suitable, and sweet distinction he makes use of, p. 99 Want of grace, is either sensible, or insensible. Let me beseech the tender Christian not to forget this, and be discouraged utterly in the fight of his wants to come unto Christ, but rather know, the sense of thy unworthiness, which thou makest a bolt to shut out Christ, should be a latch to open to him; for both thy need is the greater, and his pity the more. Thou mayst come to the Sacrament (he tells thee here) with the Prophet's fear, I am undone, yet mayest go away with this assurance, Thy iniquity is taken away, and sin purged. For this, we thank him, and if a man may come as loft, Luk 19.10. and undone, then may he come while he judges and humbles himself, though he is in doubt of his regeneration.  
To conclude this point of sealing; If any are willing to contend about terms, I shall not contend with them. For 1. If you will say, the Sacrament is a seal of faith metaphorically, as it does consecutiuè, in the effect confirm (that is increase) Faith, so as all other graces are sealed, and all other Ordinances may be said seals, You may. 2. If you will say, it is a seal of Faith objectiuè, because the main object of the Covenant is sealed, as we usually hold faith justifies; In this sense, I should like it, and would argue, If it be thus a seal of Faith, then is it not a seal of Experience, nor Reason. But the minor and conclusion aforesaid is one of Experience, the other of Reason, and the major only of Faith. 3. If you say it is a seal to Faith, as the condition required to the benefits; This is true, no man's interest is sealed but conditionally. 4. If you call it a seal to Faith, as a man is said to seal to his own part (that is, engages to it) In all this you may use your liberty. But if you say it is a seal of Faith subjective, properly to confirm and ratify Faith; or any way so to assure, or evidence Faith, that God shall be made to set his seal to a lie, if any come without a Saving Faith: This must be denied, and rejected, and answered, that the Sacrament is not thus a seal of Faith (to wit formally, directly, properly) but of the Covenant, unto which it is set, as to an undoubted and immutable truth, and as a standing seal for the Church, as firm and irrefiagable, as if it were in adamant; Against which, Mr. Drakes arguments become but as earthen ware, or the vessels of a potter, wherewith, while he strikes at me, they break themselves in pieces, so that here is scarce to be found in the bursting of them, so much as a shared to take fire from the hearth, or to take water withal, out of the pit.   

Sect. 5 THE fifth Objection is, The Covenant belongs not to all, therefore the seals neither. To this I answered, There is the Absolute Covenant, which is secret, and belongs only to the election; or the conditional, which is revealed, and belongs to all, as the tenor of the Gospel. Hereof we must distinguish; There are those to whom it belongs only in regard to the publication, tender, and a kind of potential interest if they come in, and thus it belongs to all even without the Church: And there are those to whom it belongs by way of actual interest, and privilege in it as Covenanters, Rom. 9.4. and thus it belongs to all within the Church and them only. Now this privilege is either outward, or according to title; or inward, and according to the effectual benefits thereof. The state of my Answer then lies plainly, that all those to whom the Covenant belongs by way of interest in it, though but according to title, are in Covenant so far as the external seal belongs to them, without some known bar otherwise.  
As for the prejudice here Mr. D. would raise upon me, it will not gain his cause so much with the many, as it will lose it with the wise. All he has to answer, is this, Page 149. The Sacrament indeed belongs conditionally to all, but only to the worthy Receivers absolutely: Answ. 1 If there be any sense and validity in this, he must argue thus, The Sacrament is nor to be delivered to all it belongs conditionally, but to those only to whom it belongs absolutely; but it belongs only to the worthy Receiver absolutely; therefore it must be delivered only to the worthy Receiver. Now this you see is apparently false, seeing he admits some only visibly worthy, to whom he himself counts it belongs not absolutely. 2 The interest of every man in the benefits of the Covenant, and so in the Sacrament (as we now speak) I have proved already is conditional, and not absolute. 3 The distinction then, that might best serve our turns, or accommodate us here, as I imagine, were of an actual and potential (inward) interest, both conditional; for the absolute Covenant is secret, and belongs only to God.  
Page 150. Whereas I suppose a man now resolves to engage with Christ on his own terms, yet not effectually in Covenant with him, and say the Sacrament belongs to him (as the likeliest means, I judge, to root and establish him) he fills his mouth with these terms, Come you Drunkards, Whoremasters, Muderers, and all you Rabble of hell, here is doctrine for you, etc. Answ. Truly I think here were rather fit language for them; It is pity, but the Doctor, before he had left his profession of Physic, had taken a vomit to rid his stomach of this bitter humour, and ill language which little becomes a Minister of Christ. As for the contradiction herein, he would fasten upon me, I pray look page 191. and he distinguishes for me; A good resolution (to wit to submit to the government of Christ) is either Legal, or Evagelical; a Legal is antecedent to faith, etc. I pray note it, and if a man may have a good resolution (to wit Legal) before saith, why must this be an absurdity in me, to say he may have the same, before he is in Covenant? why doth the man so forget himself? The truth is, he is too narrow in the speaking of these things. A man may be so under the previous operations of the Spirit of grace, as not only to resolve, but enter Covenant, Deut. 29.12. return, remember God, and inquire early (to wit, in good earnest for the time) after him, Psal. 78.34, 35. and yet his heart be not right and steadfast in it, v. 37. Thus the Scriptures speak often, Jer. 42.3.5.20, etc. and thus are they interpreted by the Orthodox Reynolds on Psal. 110. p. 316.  
Page 157. He likewise puzzles himself about my meaning, how the Covenant belongs to all, and yet not the benefits, then concludes (as even now, and as he still uses) it must be a contradiction, because he does not conceive it. Ans. The Covenant is taken either for the condition (that is the duty) Thus it belongs to all; or for the benefits (the reward, by grace through Christ, of the duty) Thus it belongs to those only that have the condition, or are in Christ; or for the tenor, consisting, or rather resulting out of both from the sanction of such a reward to the duty; That which results out of both, and is neither the one alone, nor the other, must be a third; And this is no other than the grace of the Gospel, which brings salvation unto all men, and so belongs to all, even the whole world, so far, that they have potentially, as the Church hath actually, a conditional (outward and inward) concernment in it. Mr. D. I perceive is forced to take a great deal of pains to make my expressions disagree, where there is no quarrel; but I need only now and the bring the several passages of his book in sight of one another, and they fall together by the ears of their own accord.  
Page 152, 153. He hath four things to oppose me in affirming a universal right of obligation (I mean it orderly) to every Ordinance, Isa. 66.23. Yet if you look back but in the leaf before, he acknowledges, As for the duty of the Covenant it is indeed Epidemical.  
The first is, Children, and the distracted again, which is seventeen times. The second is, a misapplied distinction of a mediate and immediate right, which yet is vain, seeing there is none denies but we must prepare, as well as come; and I say still, we must do both. As for his instance of purification to the Passe-over, that one text, 2 Chron. 30.18, 19, 20. may convince him. The third is spoken to otherwhere. Fourthly, He says Actual receiving is not an act of worship, no more than preaching, etc. He should say, they are no duties neither, for else it will not add a cubit to his strength.  
I remember I have read of a man that still believed he was as big as his shadow. I perceive Mr. D. hath measured himself only in the morning and evenings, whereas others happily, that look on him at noon day in the full light, how ever goodly and tall he may seem in his conceit, will see him shrink into a stature very sizeable with his fellows.   

Sect. 6 The sixth Objection is, The Sacrament is only for the Regenerate; it is no converting Ordinance; and this is made to serve upon all occasions.  
For my answer to this, Although I judge there is not such strength herein, as is supposed; for seeing this Ordinance is appointed for the Church, and every member of age is bound to frequent it, and prepare for it: It is not the consideration whether it will convert or not, can be brought in competition with the command of Christ. If God command an unregenerate man to give alms, he is not to question whether it be converting or not, but to do his duty, though during that estate, he is sure to sin in it; so is it in this case, and all others; It is not the event can be the rule of our obedience. It is true Mr. D. stillurges, An unregenerate man must hear and pray; though he sins in them, be cause it will convert him; but he must not receive, for that will not convert him. Now consider this, and if there be validity in it, here lies the point with him; A man must not do that wherein he shall sin, if it will do him no good; but he may do that wherein he sins, so long as it will be beneficial to him. Thus would mortal man, who is but dust, advance his benefit above divine authority; and as if he were his own rule and end, make void God's precept, through his tradition.  
Nevertheless, whereas I am persuaded that there is no man, but so far as he does his duty, it shall tend to his good, which as I know may otherways accrue to him, though it doth not convert him, so do I think, that ordinarily while men wait upon God in their duties of piety and charity, though they are no causes, yet are they the way, wherein God doth meet them with his effectual grace, not through any special promise, for there is no such (we hold) to any works before faith, but some general offers, and through the goodness of his nature, the cause, and ground of all those promises, which is therefore a firm rock to build upon (a point I think very fit to be considered) I have thought good to deliver my opinion, that I deny not through Jesus Christ, but a poor sinner, who examines himself, and so comes to him in the sight his condition, may find this Ordinance an effectual means to beget grace in him, as well as increase it.  
I must confess I am hearty sorry to see what prejudice (or it is my weakness so to think) hath gotten on the spirits of many godly men, merely upon the terms of a sealing Ordinance, an Ordinance for nourishment, confirmation, and the like, which terms do indeed respect the visible Church, or our incorporation in it, and so make for us. I shall therefore now return my answer in this manner; When Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, he left order to procure him a Church; To this end, he appointed a Ministry of the Apostles, and their successors; This Ministerial commission contained two things, the gathering together of the Saints, and edification of the body of Christ; This body or Church, is either visible or invisible; The invisible consists only of the regenerate and the Elect; The visible consists of all that are gathered together in profession of his name; and unto the Church in this capacity doth the office of the Ministry appertain, as I judge undoubtedly. Now according to this double work hereof, we distinguish of the Ordinances to effect it. There is the gathering Ordinance, for the vocation or calling of the Nations, or to convert the Heathen unto the Faith of Jesus Christ; and this is the Gospel, or Word, whereby men are made Disciples incompleatly, and completely by baptism. And there are ordinances for Edification of the body brought into the profession of him, and those are all the other Ordinances together with the Word. The Apostle speaks to this point, Rom. 10.14. How shall they call on him whom they have not believed, or believe without hearing, and a preacher? The converting Ordinance here, to bring men to the Christian faith, is preaching; being brought to this faith and knowledge of the true God they are to call upon him, and they shall be saved, v. 13 Now Prayer then is an edifying Ordinance, for if a Heathen pray before he comes to know the true God, it is flat idolatry, and Godwil not give his worship to another. And as prayer is an edifying Ordinance, so is the Sacrament, and no otherwise. My Answer then now, to the Objection falls directly thus; It is true, the Sacrament is not the gathering Ordinance, to bring in the Nations to the doctrine of Christ, or an Ordinance to convert the Heathen; It is not appointed to that end (which is the right notion of this distinction, I think, as sure as there ought to be any) but it is an Ordinance for Edification of the visible Church, wherein there being some members that are unregenerate (and that the most, I fear) as it serves to edify them, it must be a means of their regeneration. And as for my part, I am persuaded the serious exercise of common grace, the confirming and increasing thereof, and that hereby, is the way of Gods own working special grace also, yet most freely, as is suitable to the nature of it.  
There are two things seem to me clear in the Gospel. 1. That the same faith which served to admit men to be Church-members, served to admit them to the Communion. 2. That a Faith that falls short of saving (to wit, the very receiving of the Apostles doctrine) served to make men Disciple and add them to the Church. From which foundation, I appeal to the Judicious, for the solidity of that distinction of an outward and inward conversion; which under favour I will express thus, There is a conversion of assent, to believe in God and Jesus Christ, in opposition to all other Religions (which alone reaches so far as to engage one to the Covenant) and this I take it, is necessarily pray requisite to adult Church membership, and both the Sacraments. And there is a conversion of consent, in the embracing this God, as our chiefest good, and accepting of Jesus Christ, as our Lord and Saviour, so as to prefer his interest in our hearts above the flesh. World, and Devil; and this conversion, though it is required (as it is, to the right performance of every saving duty) yet is not necessarily pre-required to the Sacraments, or Church-communion. Indeed I think, as to the duty hereof a man may and is, to engage himself before it is performed; (yet so, or in such terms, as the tenderest spirits may not be brought in fear of a lie) but as to the Grace itself, as it is the Free Gift of God, the most of our members may not yet have attained, it is the first or chief part of their edification, wrought in them alone by the Holy Spirit, very secretly and variously, in some more suddenly, in others I believe with very many and long previous operations, whereunto he uses all his Ordinances as means, together with the Word, and this Sacrament especially, where is a more vigorous confluence of all of them.  
The same Faith the Scripture requires unto the Sacraments, it requires unto Prayer, Rom. 10.12, 13, 14. now though an effectual Faith be required, Jam. 1.6. to pray savingly, yet is it not pre-required, but a man that is but outwardly converted to the knowledge of Christ, may, and must wait upon God in prayer, and that as a means (I judge) in the exercise of his common grace, to obtain saving, through the grace of God. The same I say of the Sacrament, and do conclude, whereas our Divines do give it the denomination of a confirming or edifying Ordinance, it is to be taken in regard of the visible Church, and not in regard of the invisible, as if none could have effectual grace wrought by them, Vera adoptio (says Chemnitius in Har. Evan. in Lu. cap. 1.) ex mera gratia donaour, quando spiritu suo per verbum & Sacramenta, fidem in nobis efficit quâ Christum recipimus per quem regeneramur. It were not hard I think to quote good Divines very ordinarily prescribing the Sacrament with other Ordinances, as the means for obtaining the Spirit, Grace. Faith, etc. to those that want it; and I do not think their practice herein rowed against their Judgement.  
For the clearer knowledge whereof I have proposed this passage (in Edit. 3.) There is two things in the Sacrament, a signification, which they have certain from the Institution; and an Exhibition and Obsignation, which most Divines that they may not make them nuda signa, do more disputably attribute to them. There is likewise double grace; Relative Grace, which makes a change only in our state and relation, and Real Grace, which changes the heart; and it is either the infusion of the first grace in the habits or root, for conversion, or increase thereof in the acts or fruit for confirmation. Now the Sacraments are means of Grace two ways, Either by way of Conveyance, ratione hujus obsignationis; or by way of moral Operation vir●●●● 〈◊〉 significationis. In the first respect (which yet some hardly credit) they are instruments of Relative Grace, exhibiting the benefits of the Covenant upon its condition, as already performed (whensoever wrought) in the receivers, and convert not; but in the other respect, as they are (more undoubtedly ex instituto) instruments of signifying and holding forth the death of Christ (and also the Covenant sealed) by way of moral operation on the intelligent, they are means of Real Grace, that is, they are Ordinances in the hands of God's Spirit, to work on the hearts of whom he pleases, either in infusing the seed, or producing a growth of it in them.  
Now let me beseech the pious and wise to lay this to heart, and consider it; If I should hold the Sacraments confer grace physically, whether Real or Relative, it were gross, and belongs to the doctrine of opus operatum. If I should hold they convey regeneration, or any Real grace, morally, by way of obsignation, I judge it were as injudicious and unsound; for moral instruments cannot exhibit any thing real (but only a right to it) and the first grace belongs to the absolute Covenant, not the conditional, which is sealed. But whereas I hold only they beget grace (in the intelligent) no otherwise then they increase it, that is, by way of moral action per modum objecti, as grace is still both begotten, and confirmed in other Ordinances; It is manifest, there is no danger here of advancing this Ordinance above its nature, or condition; but there is very much danger, of being injurious to poor Christians; of disvaluing this means of Grace, the sweet Jesus has appointed us; of bringing in question, how it can beget any degrees of grace at all, if it cannot the first; and especially of being very presumptuous with the Spirit of God, to go to limit him in the very same way he ordinarily works the same effect, in his other Ordinances.  
To come now to Mr. Drakes opposition. p. 154. He first tells us, Some Divines indeed do hold Baptism to be a means of Regeneration, but they should not, and he does not.  
Answ. I agree with him, as for Infants; But for the Intelligent, John's Baptism may convince him, whom we find admitting all to it and then exhorting them to amendment, as the use (or end) of it; and therefore it is not said, they repent unto baptism, but they were baptised unto repentance. The end cannot precede what is in order to it, and the effect in esse, be before the cause in operari. And as for his instances in the Acts, That faith was presupposed, It is answered, That is an historical faith, only accepting the doctrine of Christ, and profession thereof, as is beyond dispute (to me) in Simon Magus.  
P. Ibid. In regeneration the Word is writ in our hearts, and can any man make the seal a cause of the writing?  
Answ. He may as well ask, can any writing be a cause of itself? But here is the man's error still, The seal of the inward writing in men's hearts is not the Sacraments, but the Spirit, and that seal I hope, is the cause of the writing, and that by the means of the outward writing and seal, the Word and Sacraments.  
Page 155. He produces my Argument, The Sacrament, is a visible Gospel; the showing forth the death of Christ is the means of conversion; But the Sacrameut is a showing forth of his death. Ergo. His Answer is, This proves only, that all may be present (which he pleads for) not actually receive. Answ. Methinks the heart of a godly man should at first scare serve him, thus to shift, and trifle with this holy Ordinanee, and the Consciences of people. And yet his granting this is enough, for so long as he maintains, that as the Sacrament holds forth Christ to the eyes, there is none may be debarred from the sight, no more than they may be debarred from hearing, where he is held forth to the ear. I argue, Then as Christ is held forth Sacramentally to the taste and touch, there is none can be debarred (to wit, if intelligent Church-members) from the tasting and feeling of him herein, than they can from the seeing of him, or hearing: Nay, our force for this is rather greater, because the words of institution expressly respects the touch and taste, while Christ says this is my body, not barely to see, and hear, but to take, and eat. As the Centurion by looking on Christ upon the cross, believed he was the Son of God, So did Thomas by feeling his wounds, believe his Resurrection; And I do not doubt but that all these senses do afford their grounds of suitable meditation, about the melting objects of Christ's Passion, Redemption, and tender mercies so represented, they may become means to work upon us through the Spirit of God, which we may piously hope for by virtue of an Ordinance. For if Mr. D. say (Page 147.) What the word applies by one sense, the Sacrament doth by all senses, and therefore is a more powerful means of assurance; I will not doubt to say by the same reason, as it applies the same thing with the word, it may have the same operation, and as faith comes into the heart at first in the one, by hearing alone, it may in the other, by hearing seeing, touching and tasting altogether.  
Page 156. He brings in my next Argument; In the institution there is a Take and Eat; a Take, for such as have not Christ, a word of grace to quicken those, as an Eat to nourish others. My substance is, Here is a free offer and command in this word Take, and we are not to hold it ineffectual. He excepts, Taking and Eating call for acts of faith, and presuppose the habit. Ans. When Christ and his Disciples preached, Believe and repent, The command did call for faith, and repentance, but I hope it did not presuppose the habit in those who were to be converted; so when Christ says here Take, that gracious word includes Believe, or receive me by faith; but faith I hope is required, where it is not pre-required, to wit, required that it may be wrought as well as acted. And herein indeed I place my strength; This Take requires Believe, but there is a virtue or power from Christ that goes along with his commands; The free tenders of himself, are the conveyances of the grace he requires to the receiving him; even as the Apostles words to the Jailor (Act. 16.31. which he well notes) Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, was the instrument to work that faith, and convert him; And as while Thomas, by feeling Christ's wounds, believed, why might it not be the virtue of Christ's gracious command, bidding him to put his fingers in his sides, and believe, that produced that powerful application, My Lord, and my God? Now we have Christ here likewise, presenting his broken body and blood; and bidding us feel his wounds, touch, and taste, Take, and eat, be not faithless but believing. Here we have a joint offer and command; and why then should we distrust the power of our Lord, when we have the word of our Lord? What if we had but that one word for us, were not one word from the mouth of our dear Saviour, which is a standing word to his Church, enough to rest upon? Truly Christians, Let me plead with you: Are the words of Christ Spirit and life, or are they not? Is there any power goes along with the tender offers, and precepts of the Gospel, or is there not? If there be not, why do poor dead souls wait on them for life? If there be, then why is there not the like power expected in this precept, and offer of grace? How dull and flow of heart are we to rely upon Christ, and expect virtue from his commands? Methinks I could wish, that all faithful Ministers would set themselves to believe in Christ for this effect, and while they should as it were stand round about this little word Take, by their acting faith in Christ, and expectations from him, as the Disciples did about Paul when they supposed him stoned dead, Act. 14. though they judge no otherwise of this word, though they suppose it, but a dead word to the unregenerate, they might find life in it, for the quickening of their flocks, (as some have) and comfort of their labours. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.  
Page 157, 158. He objects three or four things against this: I But we have neither promise, nor precedent of blessing the command of Taking in the Sacrament, as we have of blessing the word preached in order to conversion. Answ. 1. God hath promised in general to meet with those that wait on him in his ways; and where is there any text that denies this blessing here? If there be none, it is but a sad thing to distrust God. 2 Do we not know that Jesus Christ did consecrate this Ordinance with a blessing? Now is not Christ's own action herein as good as any promise, or all precedents, and who can limit that blessing to one member above another, or tie up the Spirit of God? 3 I pray see over leaf, and himself tells us well, This Take is a short exhortation, and virtual Sermon; Now what a thing is this, to demand a promise and precedent to prove that the Exhortation and Sermon of Christ is converting? Is not the Word converting? And is th●s word less converting, because it is Christ's? Alas Sirsl the case is even clear, and the grand Objection is unbeleef.  
2 But the word is both seed and food, not the Sacrament. Answ. 1 Who knows not that the very being and operation of the Sacrament consists through the word; and indeed the nourishment we have in it, well considered, is only by the implicit virtue thereof; By which same kind of working, may the first grace, as clearly, as any farther degrees, be wrought by it. 2 The Sacrament is both seed and food too, for here is a Take, and this is certainly seed, as a word of grace from Christ; and here is an Eat, including food. 3 Prayer is not where called the immortal seed, yet is it seed, I doubt not, in this sense, to beget grace in us. 4. Ex quibus nascimur, ex i is nutrimur, That which nourishes us, can beget us, is a principle so true, that out the same food that goes to the aliment of our own bodies, doth arise the matter, for our children's generations.  
3 But suppose a man stouts it out before, and after the word Take, if actual receiving can convert him, the Apostles rule is not universally true. He that eats unworthily eats judgement to himself. Answ. Suppose the Jailor had stouted it out against that word Believe; had he like to have been converted, if he had not been converted? what a question were this? The truth is, These dis-junctive supposals are but vain and evil: And therefore I shall only fore warn tender consciences to take heed of that Dilemma that lurks here; He that receives worthily is converted already; He that receives not worthily eats his damnation. Let us rather persuade ourselves; 1 That a man may be in a state of unregeneracy, & in that sense unworthy, yet may hear, pray, or receive worthily in his kind (in suo genere) when he is so wrought on by it, as to make a saving use thereof; for it seems not to me so tolerable to say, a man heard unworthily when he was converted by it. 2 There is a general eating damnation, as the unregenerate in sensu composito during that estate, sins in hearing, praying, and in all he doth; and so this is clearly answered, with other duties; or there is a particular eating damnation, or judgement in the Apostles sense, and that judgement he speaks of; appears to be those temporal judgements which were brought upon the Corinth's, not for their coming to the Sacrament in an unregenerate estate, but for their not putting a difference between this sacred Table, and a common, (that is, used it not as a holy institution) which is the direct meaning of both those phrases, eating unworthily, and not discerning the Lords body, which expound one another, or not for an unworthiness of unregeneracy, but an unworthiness of profanation.  
4 But suppose a man may be converted by that short exhortation, and virtual Sermon, Take, That may be done by bare presence, etc. Ans. If all come to this still, you may see what he must have, A Sacrament without receiving, which yet himself decryes. When Christ says, Take, it is to this end, to eat, and who dare separate Christ's end from his action? Let this suffice, we have here both words, Take and Eat, for our encouragement; and we need not doubt, but all the Sacramental actions do as it were, in a kind of communication of proprieties, interweave their virtue in working upon each man according to his condition.  
When God commands us to make us new hearts, Ezek. 18.31. Eph. 4.23. he tells us otherwhere, Ez. 11.19. I will put a new heart in you; so Christ bids us Take. Yet faith is the gift of God; Now then Man is to wait on his duty, and to expect a power in Christ's precept. For my part, let others look on this word only as an empty liveless word; I shall endeavour to let it sink in my heart: And though I am a poor unworthy sinner, that am not sure I have faith enough to save my soul (the Lord increase it) yet methinks I do so pathetically believe the goodness and sweernesse of Christ, that I dare lay my life on it, he would never have so indeterminately commanded, Drinks you all of it, if so many thousands of unregenerate members that come thither, must but necessarily thereby eat their damnation. I must confess, I do ever suspect my own weakness, and am tenderly afraid left I should ewe, and hurt others; (and therefore I beseech every Soul to look well to the word, and his own conscience, and trust nothing on me) yet do I find amidst the doubts and fears of my spirit, a sweet melting, and repose of my thoughts, in this answer, which I must make unto my Saviour, when he calls me to account for what I have writ. Lord here is expressly thy command, and I durst not nullify it to any that are capable of it; Here is thy tender offer of grace, Take, and I durst not bring up any such hard thoughts on thy ways to fright men from thee. And now I am assured, Lord, thou wilt as freely forgive me if I place too much trust, or would raise too much confidence on thy bare word, as thou wilt forgive others, if they place too little in it. For though the Flesh profiteth nothing yet the Spirit quickeneth, and thy words are spirit and life.  
Page 159. He brings in this instance of mine; Suppose a moral Christian, who cannot be denied, prepares himself and so comes, shall the Sacrament be necessarily fruitless to him? He answers, not withstanding all his preparatory acts, he comes to the feast without the wedding garment. Answ. This himself satisfies; for the Feast he says is Christ, and I hope a man must come to Christ for conversion. As for my words, Doing his best; you must take them in his kind, as of the regenerate in his kind. And whereas he thinks I attribute too much to a few dead acts of a natural man, he mistakes; for I attribute all to the power of Christ's command, and the efficacy of his quickening grace in the use of the means.  
Page 160. Actual receiving is no act of God, but of the creature, and an outward act too, and therefore hath not a converting power in it. Answ. A very mature and digested Argument! Hearing is no act of God, but an outward act of the creature; and if you will too, hath no converting power in it; therefore it is not a means of conversion. Tertius E coelo cecidit Cato.  
As for his old close, that the fruit of the visible and audible word may be attained here by bare presence, it will not serve, seeing the fruit that is to be here attained, is not of the word only as visible and audible, but also as tactible, and gustible, while the Sacrament holds forth that word of life, which we have not only seen and heard, say: John, but also handled; and of whose flesh and blood we must eat and drink, saith Christ himself. And as for the custom of the ancient Church, Ite missa est, it is not to be vilified, because it is directly contrary to him, but to be weighed with the former grave judgement of our own Church, and the express text, Drink you all of it, and they All (that were present) drank of it.  
Page 161. For what he answers to my second instance, of an humbled soul, to wit, under the preparatory work of grace, yet no: fully fashioned for the receiving the habits which are ordinarily infused per modum acquisitorum, I shall say nothing, but only ask this great Doctor, How was his soul infused in his body after it had its due time of disposition for it? It is true, as for all preparatory works, nostris viribus, as the mere issues of , we disprove them, but as they are the previous operations of the Spirit (which through our fault it is, they often prove abortions) it is no more derogatory to attribute them to him in our Conversion, than it was to God, to take six days to the Creation. I say then, Can he tell me this? How was his soul produced at first in his natural birth? Can he tell me the way of the wind? Joh. 3.8. If he cannot, how will he define me the way of the heavenly Spirit? If he cannot tell me the things that are with him, How shall his vessel comprehend the ways of the most High?  
As for my instance of Luke 24.30.31. (though I only alluded to it) Calvin hath these words upon it, Augustinus & plerique alii senserunt, panem hunc po●rectum fuisse ●n sacrum corporis sui symbolum, & hoc dictu plausibile est, Dominum in spirituali demum caenae speculo agnitum fuisse, nam discipuli corporalibus eum oculis intuiti non cognoverunt. Now what Saint Augustine, and most others think true; and what Calvin judges plausible (though he adds for his own part, simplicius accipio) Master Drake answers, It is a dictate so absurd, that the very naming it, is a sufficient confutation.  
Page 162. By presence, benefit may be gained, but the danger of eating and drinking unworthily, cannot be incurred without receiving, etc. Ans. Methinks the man here speaks very carnally. His Doctrine is this, If you swear by the Altar it is nothing, but if you swear by the gift upon it, you are guilty; If you partake of the Lords Table without Faith, you are without danger, but if you actually touch the bread upon the Table, and ease, you become a debtor; I pray which is greater, the bare Bread and Wine, eating, and drinking of the Institution itself, and consecration, which sanctifies the Elements? For my part I never imagined, but the words eating and drinking, 1 Cor. 11.27.29. are spoken Synecdochically, for the whole duty of the Receiver, who can never be guiltless when Christ is offered to him (and that he says is to all present, though they only look on) if he does not receive him by Faith; So that, if I may speak as I think, It is not the bare eating and drinking we are to stand upon, in comparison of his serious address unto Jesus Christ, according to his condition.  
Page 163, to 167. Whereas I say the Sacrament and all the Ordinances are primatily and directly means of grace, and remotely means of conversion and confirmation; He pretends as if I went about to blind my Reader, with a conversion of ourselves, instead of Gods converting us, and so pursues his trace. Ans. I must confess to you here he is mistaken, for this never came into my thoughts, as my words following plainly declare, which are, This grace which he distributes as a most wise God, works in every one as his state and need requires (where he does ill, p. 166. to substitute others, and cry absurd) in the regenerate for their strength and establishment, in the unregenerate, for their conversion, Mr. Drakes weakness, here then, is apparent, that cannot distinguish between gratia operans, and operata; I say the Ordinances are means, whereby God works, or the Spirit moves; and though gratia operata is Regeneration, or confirmation it felse; yet gratia operans, I hope, lies indifferent between the regenerate and unregenerate, (as men come to seek to God for it, in his means) and is indeterminate to either effect. So that this business is so clear, I take it, to any unprejudiced understanding, that I am glad to be put to no more trouble by so many pages.  
Page 168. As for his exceptions against our distinction of an outward and effectual conversion, the right conceiving the terms only may satisfy, and I will explain myself thus: In the soul there is two faculties, the Understanding, and the Will; There is accordingly a double conversion, either unto the things which before we did not know, or to the right improvement of the things we do know; or there is a conversion to a sincere Religion, or to be sincere in our Religion. The first of these must necessarily be wrought by teaching only, and persuasive Arguments, unless by miracle; but when we once are informed by the word, then do all the other Ordinances conduce to bring that knowledge into the heart and life; So that here does likewise arise that other distinction of mine, of the principal converting Ordinance, and subordinate, which work by virtue thereof. Now if you will suppose a heathen sufficiently knowing, in the mysteries of our Religion, I do not doubt but this solemnity were apta vata to convert him, because it shows or holds forth that which is a means of Conversion. But these two things we must know as sure; 1 That it cannot beget any assent, or reverential apprehensions, but upon supposition of the virtue of the principal Ordinance; to wit, that he is informed (before, or at present) in the meaning hereof; For this bare knowledge alone, is that which is neither increased nor begotten by the Sacrament, but the Word only, that instructs us about it. 2 That God hath not appointed it for this use, but contrarily commanded, that every man shall be first initiated in the Church by Baptism before he communicates, No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. And here is answered those two Objections, page 163. which show you how low Mr. D. is brought, If the Sacrament can convert, how dare Mr. H. exclude Infants (which is eighteen times) and heathens? I answer, because it converts by a joint virtue of the word, and discernment, which children have not; and because the unbaptised (which is the case of heathen) are forbid to eat thereof, Exod. 12.48. 1 Cor. 14.40.  
And now at last, if you will bring the point even with the same in Baptism of Infants, and do nothing but urge upon me for an express text where this Sacrament is ordained to this end to convert any; I will demand of you first, an express Text, where it is instituted for Edification (which yet by clear argument you may show) and when you have produced that, I will manifestly show you; 1 That this Edification refers to the visible body, Saints by calling, or the whole Church. 2 That there are many unregenerate members among them; and then I demand how it can be appointed to edify members, if it be not a means of begetting grace in some, as increasing it in others? As for the term (this word) Edification it is clearly common to the visible Church, 1 Cor. 14. Insomuch that when an unbeliever comes in amongst them, vers. 23. All things are said yet to be done unto edifying, vers. 27. What Minister doth not pray ordinarily for his whole people that they may be edified? Church-censures are for Edification (2 Cor. 13.10.) but I hope it is not the regenerate only are censured. We need look no further then Rom. 14.19. and 15.2. the word is so ordinary, that what is done for our neighbours good, is said to be for his edification.  
Page 169. In that word (fancy) he wrongs me; For his sense it is answered, A vital Ordinance can beget life.  
Page 170. Mr. H. makes confirmation of the Covenant a primary end, confirmation of our faith a secondary end of the Lords Supper; I wish he did not show himself, as little skilled in morality, as in Logic etc. Answ. One would verily think here, that Mr. H. sure, was in some great absurdity, by this man's language; but will you be pleased to turn to Mr. D. himself, page 126. The Sacrament (says he there) relates to things, and thus as seals, first they confirm the Covenant; Secondly, they confirm faith. I pray mark it; And is it not worth your notice; how much he is skilled in Logic, Morality, Physic, and what not? that can find you out a distinction between my Primary, and Secondary, and his First and Second? It is even pity so famous a man should forget all his learning here, and exclaim thus at me, for saying the same thing he doth; nay the same thing, the truth, and others do with us: For let me help him out here, There is the end of the Ordainer, and the end of the Ordinance; It may be true, that the Church's Edification, is primarily in the intention of the Ordainer, but the primary end of the Ordinance, must be that which goes into the Institution, and the secondary that which flows from it: Now the end that is thus express in the Institution is, for to be a memorial of Christ's death, or the Covenant by his death, and so outwardly to seal, solemnize, or confirm the Covenant, and then the confirming a man's faith (as begetting it in others) is plainly a consequent effect, result, or concomitant thereof. By this one passage well considered, you may have a guess at the man.  
As for his following exceptions from page 171. to the end of the Objection, where he carps at me, for putting in the whole duty of the receiver, both before, and after, as well as In receiving (and what practical Divine doth not tell us of awakening the virtue of the Sacrament by after-meditations) page 172, 173. And for that phrase, Baptised into the Church, which I take to be a good explanation of being baptised into Christ, page 174. And for those terms of a general faith, Doing a man's beft, &c, they are not worth any farther notice: So likewise where he snarls at my allusion, page 175. in that word, (belongs) The harvest belongs not to the Reapers, but to Boaz himself: And that other (penitently inclined) which yet I purposely picked out instead of penitent, etc. what pitiful poor things are they, as if he envied me barely an expression? even as Leah cast a blear eye upon Rachet, only because she was beloved and accepted.  
Waving therefore these lets, I shall proceed to gather together my Arguments to prove the Sacrament, and actual receiving (which is the thing only he opposes) a means of the unregenerates edification, and consequently his effectual conversion. And they amount to twelve, besides the chief of my last book, as it is verbum visibile, with others, the Reader may find out himself.  
1 It is the duty of every intelligent member to frequent the Sacrament; but officium, est propter beneficium; Ergo, Mr. D. here indeed doth most sadly, and without ground argue, that the Sacrament cannot do an unregenerate man good, but certain hurt, therefore it is not his duty. The weakness whereof is manifest, because 1 It is not man's benefit, but God's precept, is the ground of duty. 2 A thing is not good, and our duty, and therefore God wills it, but God wills it, and therefore it is good, and our duty. But we argue (I take it) firmly against him; It is his duty (the duty I have proved good in my fifth Reason, and eighth Objection) and therefore it can do him good, for all the Commands of God are good; and it is but an heavy thing to bring up such an evil report upon the good land of the Sacrament. This is the case: If the Sacrament can do an unregenerate member no good, then must such be either bound necessarily to eat and drink their own damnation, or else the Sacrament is not their duty. The former Mr. D. must renounce; and for the latter, if he can give me but one Text, I will yield to h●m, if he cannot, let the pious consider whither they must come to deny this point (for therefore have I set this Reason foremost) and that is, through man's impotency to make void God's Authority.  
2 All Gods Ordinances within the Church are means of grace, whether first or second, to be get or increase it; as God hath declared, that he will meet with those that wait on him in his ways that come to his house. that seek his face, and th● like; Ergo: You must produce some Text where converting grace is denied peculiarly to this means or you wrong it. If any say this is a negative which ought not to be proved; I answer, though it be so formally in the words, yet materially in the thing i● is an affirmative, for he that excepts out of a general affirms a limitation, and must prove it. I have before (in 3. Edit.) expressed this thus. If there be a previous operation of the Spirit on some, preparatory to conversion, & God hath appointed his Ordinances in general, as the means for obtaining grace, both first and subsequent, commanding them as duties and promising a blessing, which affords a Peradventure, to the unregenerate, in the use of them; why should we bereave the Sacrament of this effect, which the Scripture gives it in genere, as an Ordinance, whilst in specie, it no where denies it, and Reason likewise by the first Rule of the Ante-predicaments. For the Antecedent preparations to bring men to Conversion (saith Pemble) they are either outward, namely the observation of the external part of God worship, as frequenting the word preached, prayers, Sacraments, keeping the Sabbath, or inward, etc. Our Divines press upon men ever whiles they are unconverted, the necessity (to wit, from the strict Commandment of God) and profitableness (to wit, from God's promise, and ordinary proceed) of all those forementioned preparations (pag. 81, 82.) and it may be those two pages may establish you.  
3 There is but an It may be, A peradventure, A who knows what God may do? For the conversion of any in the use of all means besides, because there is no special promise of grace in the best use of mere naturals: But there is An It may be, granted by our opposites to the Sacrament, for conversion, At, though not By, occasionally, though not intentionally, as some speak; Ergo. If Mr. D. grudge thus much, than he must bring it to a Cannot, Actual receiving cannot convert any; and if he doth so, he takes upon him to limit the Spirit of God in the very way he usually works the same thing in other. Ordinances. If he say he can, but will not; How knows he the mind of the Lord, who hath made him his Counsellor? That what he hath done to some, he may not do to others? It were a miserable thing for some poor sinners, if the gracious Spirit in many respects should do no more good upon them, than men would let him.  
There is here (I judge) a point carefully to be considered, to distinguish between a general, and special promise, or as some express it between Half promises, and full promises, or as I would say it, A Peradventure promise, and an Assured Promise; We hold that God hath made no promise of ●race (that is no special, whole, or assured promise) to natural works before faith (to wit, as any condition of the first grace) which is his most free gift; for than Facienti quod in se est, so much decried, must prove a sound principle. But we are yet to press these kind of general tenders, half, or peradventure promises, together with God's good nature; that none may want encouragement to duty.  
4 If the Sacrament be converting, as it is a Visible word, or holds forth Christ unto the eye, then must it be converting, as it is a Gustable, Tactible Word, and holds him forth to the other senses, and the rather, because the touch and taste comes within the Veirge of the Institution. But the former is granted; Ergo.  
5 The Precepts of God are lively, and operative, and the offers of grace are the means and conveyances of that power we have not in our selve● to receive it; But here is this most sweet and gracious offer and command, Take and Eat Ergo.  
6 The reclaiming a man from some particular vice, or vices, is a good step forward towards Repentance and Conversion; But the Sacrament is a constant experiment hereof, so that those passage● of some men; (be their esteem never so great) who dare say, that the Sacrament can do no good to the poor unregenerate Christian, but certain hurt are sadly to be dis-owned, and expunged eve● with their tears. This case (in Edit. 3.) I have proposed thus. Suppose you have a Son, 〈◊〉 good natured, yet unregenerate youth, addicted to some vice, as drunkenness, he seeks to Go● for pardon and grace, so comes, and takes th● Sacrament upon it, he will never by the Lord help be overtaken more; Well, this engagement now lies so solemnly upon him, he is ever after a sober man, and this no doubt, is not likely only but very frequent to natural conscience, working on most such particular, and temporary conversions. Now I pray Sir, what think you of such a fruit as this? Would you dislike your Sums coming to the Sacrament, or bless God for it?  
7 The acting, or exercise of common grace, and endeavouring to do what a man can, is another good step forwards towards Conversion; But the Sacrament, which is for the exercise of Faith, Love, Repentance, Thankfulness, as special graces in the Regenerate, is the means to exercise the like common grace in the Unregenerate. Ergo. For my part I judge it good still for a Christian to be doing, and whether he be effectually converted or no, yet hath he cause, and ground sufficient to love Christ, and be thankful, to mourn for sin, and to do well; He hath besides a knowledge, affections, and some ability to do it in some manner, though not as sincerely as he ought. And as I said of the Promises, I will say of Gods, acceptance; there is a kind of half acceptance, or rather a comparative acceptance, so I will choose to express it, God accepts comparatively of such actings of the heart toward him, and waiting in his ways though a man be unregenerate, to wit, in comparison of a total omission, or neglect thereof.  
8 The solemn engagement of the soul unto Christ upon his terms, to rely upon him as a Saviour, and submit to his government (as the former were steps) is a means of a full, and effectual closing with him, if God's Spirit shall be pleased to act with it. But actual receiving is a means for engagement of the soul to the conditions of the Covenant, or the terms of Christ, which a man may bind himself to, before he hath performed, even, as Soldiers, servants, and all relations, do list, agree, and oblige themselves to their services and duties, and stand to them after. Ergo. Here I think most Christians know by their own spirits, that they have very good resolutions at some times (that make them fit for the present against all doubt) and yet find often they come to nothing. Now what can more conduce (under the word) when we have some purposes of leaving sin, and assent to the terms of Christ, to beget a full consent of heart, and make them serious, than the obligation of this Ordinance? A penny in earnest, binds some men more, than twenty promises.  
9 That which can beget more degrees of the same grace, can beget the first grace, unless these degrees are begotten some other way then that is; But all grace (first and second) is begotten alike, as the Ordinances, propose the object, and then the Spirit of God by enlightening the mind, and a touch upon the will, brings the heart to embrace that object; which object is showed forth in the Sacrament, as in the word; and it is a mistake, to think that the second grace (though it be within the promise which is sealed,) is exhibited by way of obsignation (for there is only a fight to it this way conveyed) but it is wrought (I say) through the Spirit of God by the way of moral operation only, as the first and second grace both, are begotten in reading and hearing, etc. Ergo.  
10 The sad consequence of this Tenent, that the Sacrament belongs only to the effectually converted is sorely against it, and that both for the giver and receiver. For the Receiver, this will cut off every poor doubtful Christian from the Sacrament, For 1. If I am bound to receive when I am regenerate, and bound to forbear if I am unregenerate; then must I be persuaded in my conscience that I am regenerate, or else I cannot eat in faith; and he that eateth and doubteth is damned if he eat. I desire this may be tenderly weighed. 2. Upon this account every one that comes, professes himself converted, and if any man be but doubtful that he is not yet converted, he cannot come but he acts a lie, and is a public hypocrite; which is a thing so hateful to him, that rather than he would profess of himself, what he does not know, he would confess his unworthiness, and never come there: and thus shall every humble tender Christian only keep away, and the selfe-justiciary-harden to death. For the giver, first, The case will be near the same, for the Sacrament cannot be administered according to rule, nor he act in faith, unless both the receiver is regenerate, and he assured of it (which he cannot be) if regeneration were a qualification commanded as necessary to receiving. Secondly, Men will be ready to think themselves converted, when they are admitted, and the formal Christian rest in his estate, when he should come hither to repent of it. Thirdly, The best Minister must fall infinitely short in the discharge of his trial, were any at all required upon this ground. The Lord Bacon observes of Philosophy, the first and lighter tastes thereof inclines the mind towards Atheism; but a more fixed and deeper contemplation brings it about again unto Religion: So do I judge here, the first touches of Conscience in the pious, have inclined them to a trial of others fitness and unfitness to the Sacrament, but a more serious and digested consideration of the issues of it, will bring them about to the Apostle, Let a man examine himself, and the Minister only do his best for their Instruction.  
11. The confirming of a Christians Faith in general, or his assent unto the truth of the Covenant in Jesus Christ to him in particular, is a means of bringing up his heart to a special Faith; for I am persuaded here lies often the root of unregeneracy, that men do not firmly believe the Gospel; and where the holy Spirit works believing impressions, he ordinarily brings in the soul to him. But the Sacrament is a means of confirming Faith, and that directly in this act of assent, (which is common in its degree to the unregenerate with the regenerate) that if I will believe, repent, or accept of Christ, I shall be saved; Ergo. Unto this purpose Mr. Calvin hath a clear passage, Primum verbo suo nos docet Deus, & instituit Dominus; deinde Sacramentis confirmat; postremo sancti sui spirit us lumine, mentibus nostris illucet, & aditum in sorda nostra, verbo & Sacramentis, aperit. So that whereas Calvin with others, ordinarily calls the Sacraments confirming Ordinances; I shall take their meaning only thus, that they are not appointed to convert the Heathen to the Church, but to incorporate the members thereof, Who being instructed by the word, and confirmed by the Sacraments, the Spirit of God in the use of both (both Words and Sacraments, so he speaks) opens a passage into their hearts, to wit, for their effectual conversion, Calv. Inst. lib. 4. cap. 14. sect. 8.  
12. The solemn application of the Covenant to a man's self according to his estate, to wit, of salvation through Christ if he will believe and repent, and of judgement from Christ if he continues in his sins, and does not turn effectually unto him, is the very only way whereby the Spirit usually worketh conviction, and sincere conversion; but actual receiving of the Sacrament, is a solemn means of such an application: Ergo. The Apostle, Ro. 10.4. tells us Christ is the end of the Law; in this Law Gal. 3.10. it is written, Cursed be every one that continueth not in all things which are written therein to do them: Unto this curse Deut. 27.26. All the people were to say Amen. It is nor possible all the people should be guiltless; yet this Amen is a particular application, so that the malediction itself, as well as the precept, is to be particularly applied, for a Schoolmaster to Christ, who is in that respect said to be the end thereof. Now then, must a Christian that does not as he should, unfeignedly repent, but harbour his sins in his heart, apply the Covenant in the right part, to wit, that judgement which is due for them, and is both denounced and sealed, to make him turn sincerely from them, unto the mercy that is together offered him, if he does. And while his heart melts, and he humbles himself before Christ as worthy thereof, he lies under the very strokes of God's Spirit, to drive him in effectually to him.  
When the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. bids us examine ourselves, lest we eat unworthily, and drink our damnation, he sweetly adds, for if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. There are Scriptures I find, that will support a Christian in his duty, yet happily will not hold the disputes of men, that go to take the comfort of them from us: In this case the pious soul is not to hearken to them, but to strengthen itself in attendance upon God. There is a sweet promise therefore comes often in my mind with this Text, I will not say a promise to dispute withal, but to rest upon for our encouragement. It is in Zach. 10.12. I will pour out the spirit of grace and supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn. Poor souls! you have in the Sacrament, as in the Word, Jesus Christ represented to you as pierced; you are to apply it, and say, Here Lord thou hast promised to pour out the Spirit of grace on those that look on thee for to mourn over the wounds which they have made in thee, by their sins; Let the sight of thy broken body, break my hard heart; Let the sight of thy pierced sides, pierce mine eyes; and of thy bleeding heart make my heart to bleed, in an unfeigned repentance, and conversion towards thee. Let this Word of the Lord be good unto me, which he hath spoken.  
It is no wonder there are so few Christians converted at the Sacrament, when we do not use it for conversion, when the Ministers have no expectations from Christ, nor instruct their people for it. And if any of them shall have some good impressions wrought upon their hearts by this blessed Ordinance; while they are taught it cannot convert them, they shall but distrust the work to be ineffectual, and so derogate from the good Spirit, be injurious to their poor souls, and if possible, lose, quench, and not improve it.  
For my part therefore I will exhort every one to a self-examination, and if he does not find himself regenerate, but willing to go on in his sins, and refuse Jesus Christ, I will not gratify him so far, to say he must stay away; as if he were now to lay by the thoughts of him; This were doctrine after the Flesh's own heart, but I judge rather, his duty still lies upon him for to come; He is to be remembered of the death of Christ, unto which he contribute by his sins; he is by his actual receiving, both to assure his soul of a just condemnation, unless he reputes, and to bind on his conscience his certain duty of Faith and Conversion, if ever he be saved.  
And now whereas the Devil usually doth beat off poor sinners from acceptance of Christ, by affrighting them with the strictness of his terms, as if they should but increase their hypocrisy, unless they could be immediately perfect; I will advise thee if thou canst not sincerely leave all thy sins at once, yet do not give up thy soul quite as lost, but rather; first bewailing and condemning thyself wherein thou failest, engage against some one corruption or other, and so wear them off, if thou canst not otherwise, by little and little. Truly Christians, it were some good use of this Sacrament, if the blood of Christ may every time wash away one stain: It were much better sure, then to trample on that blood, and reject it. I would have thee likewise, if thou canst not at once bring up thy heart to that full obedience as thou oughtest, humbling thy soul still for thy infirmity, resolve at least this time upon one duty, and next upon another, and be reforming according to thy strength; It will be something if a poor sinner can but every Sacrament get one step forward nearer God; for I am persuaded we may safely say, that such a person, if he be not yet converted, is more in the may of effectual grace, he is nearer to the Kingdom of Heaven, (Mark. 12.34.) then before, and Christ is better pleased with him, to make some good use of his Ordinances, then wholly to neglect them, Mar. 10.21. Jon. 3.9.10.1 King. 21.29. etc. What if thou shouldest not yet have any saving grace, this will not ex●●se thee from thy duty; Thou hast, I hope, some kind of faith, love, and thanks to give unto Christ, and why shouldest not thou offer to him that poor mite that thou hast, and say, O my Saviour, Though I may not yet be permitted with John to lay my vile head in thy bosom, yet will I with Mary fall down, and catch hold of the feet of my Lord; I will condemn myself, wait on thy Freegrace, and do my duty.  
The Scripture in some places tells us, we have no sufficiency of ourselves, Of him we have the will and the deed; yet in others, it lays the whole stress on man's self, Why will you die, O house of Israel? etc. The best reconciliation I think of such Texts, will be by practice; A Christian is to labour and set himself to his duty, as if he could gain life by it, and yet is he wholly to depend upon the Freegrace of God in the doing, as that alone which can make it effectual. And with submission, I judge that all those actings and tendencies of men's hearts towards Conversion, in the use of means, if they end in Conversion, shall be reckoned upon a regenerate account, as if they prove but abortions, they shall be reckoned upon a natural account, at the great day.  
There is indeed some distinction the Scripture seems to put between unregenerate men as to God's worship, in such places, as Prov. 28.9. Psal. 50.16, 16, 17. with Psal. 106, 79. and 44. 1 King. 21.19. etc. I shall not venture hore upon any exact use of it, but only beseech my Readers, that as I have been tender, you should not bring a guilt on yourselves, by a neglect of your duty, you will not so ill requite my Labours, to bring a guilt on me, by any careless, secure, presumptuous performance of it. I must profess against you, I do not teach you this, I do not teach any to come, and come unworthily; but to come worthily, yet to come. I tell you, you must examine yourselves, humble yourselves, resolve against your sins, set upon duties, Come then, and let us reason together; If you think worthily of yourselves, you stand on your own justification, look well to your condition, But if you will judge yourselves, you shall not be judged.  
We read of Elisha when he had got the Mantle of Elijah, he smote with it on the waters, saying, Where is the Lord God of Elijah? Our Saviour Christ hath ascended to his Father, and left us this Sacrament, as the Mantle, or Symbol of his Body, Come thou now, smite on the waters of thy heart with it, and say, Where is the Lord God of Jesus? Where is the grace, life, power, virtue of his Ordinance, which thou, O Lord, canst make effectual to us when thou pleasest, for our conversion, as our confirmation.  
I shall therefore now close up this point with one precedent, from a neighbour Minister, a man godly, judicious, and truly worthy, whose testimony is without exception; and whereas Mr. D. is ready to cite me before the great Tribunal, I may appeal thither to those many Saints in Heaven, together with this party, that will rise up for me, and be my witnesses, by their own experience, for a converting power in this Ordinance.  
Being desired by Mr. Humphrey to testify under my hand what he hath heard me relate by word, I could not (though differing from his opinion about the Sacrament) but grant his request, and testify this truth.  
There was one Thomasin Bud, who lived from the time of her Conversion to her death an eminent Christian under my charge, who hath often affirmed to me, that my very delivering to her, and her receiving the Sacramental bread and wine, was the first thing which she sensibly perceived by the power of the Spirit brought over her will to the acceptance of our Lord Christ Jesus; the virtue of which Ordinance, remained forcibly with her, to her death, which was some five years after. A little before that time, she was extremely ignorant and obstinate, and only had some slight motions, and conviction wrought on her, before her admission to the Ordinance, by my discoursing with her.  
Richard Fairclough Pastor of Mells.   

Sect. 7 THe seventh Objection is, Judas received not the Sacrament because he went out, John 13.30. My answer was, it appears expressly, by ver. 1. and 29. that this Supper of John was before the Feast of the Passeover, and that very likely two nights, comparing Lu. 22.1— 4. Mat. 26.2.14.  
Unto this, all Mr. D. answers (p 176.) is, Mr. H. in two leaves takes some pains to small purpose. Answ. I pray note it, while I allege Scripture to prove that this Supper in John, and the Passeover were two different Suppers, and in two different places, Bethany, and Jerusalem, (which Mr. Light foot says is most clear hand. glean. on Exo. sect. 19) he tells us, this is to small purpose: as if the alleging Judas went out to agree with the High Priest from a Supper two nights before the Sacrament, was sufficient proof that therefore he went out, at the Sacrament.  
I must confess there are here many difficulties, if we compare Mat. 16.17. Mark. 14 12. with Joh. 18.28. Joh. 19.14. This one thing shall suffice me for an argument; The evening of the fourteenth, and morning of the fifteenth day of Nisan (as I judge) was the Feast of the Passeover; for the Scripture reckons the day from evening to evening, Gen. 1.5. and from the evening of the fourteenth day, to the evening of the twenty one, is just seven evenings and mornings, and so the feast complete of seven Scripture days according to the computation, Exod. 12.15, 16, 18. and this explains Num. 28.16, 17. where the fourteenth day is called the Passeover, and the fifteenth the Feast of the Passeover, and yet the Passeover and feast, not distinguished, as some think.  
Now than I argue, if this Supper of John was before the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, then was it not when Christ instituted the Sacrament; for he instituted that questionless at the Passeover; But this Supper was before that evening, Probo. The evening of the fourteenth day of Nisan, and the morning of the fifteenth (as appears) was the feast of the Passeover, (or the day of the feast called so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) But John's Supper he tells us expressly was before the feast of the Passeover; Ergo, it was before the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and the time Christ instituted his Supper.  
As for those other reasons Mr, D. repeats against Judas receiving, and are answered before, I count them only as so many cyphers joined to a figure, which may serve indeed to advance the number while that figure stands, but when this reason once (which is the figure) is taken away, the rest will come to signify nothing of their own accord. And yet there is one new passage he has here very remarkable, and not to be forgotten, that is, It seems probable (says he) that Christ excluded Judas in particular, in these words, Lu. 22, 21. But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, is at the table. Answ. A very probable argument indeed; Judas was excluded from the Sacrament, because Christ says expressly he was present at it. It is fictioned of a certain fellow, who to get a little money pretended he could go invisible, and nothing should be seen of him but his hand; the people assemble to the sight, he having gotten their pence, runs away, and leaves them a paper with this writing in it, Here is my hand but see me if you can. I perceive this fellow is nothing to Mr. D. for invention, who will make Judas absent at the Table, when the hand of him that betrayed Christ was there without equivocation.   

Sect. 8 THe eighth Objection is, Those that receive unworthily eat their damnation. Unto this I answered. 1. On the Church's part. 2. On the Receivers.  
For the Church (that is Minister and Joiner's) I judge this cannot be made to concern them he excepts p. 178. 1. Paul says Let a man so eat. Ans. This concerns the Receivers to which I speak anon. 2. But his words are not to be understood restrictively. Ans. Belike then by Mr. D. the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be thus interpreted, let a man examine himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so the Presbytery having examined him, let him eat. 3. Church-Officers had need to pray, Lord forgive me other men's sins. Ans. And therefore to take heed how they keep away men from God's Ordinance. 4. It is absurd in Reason and Divinity, by an affirmative to exclude a negative, to say, I must examine my self, therefore another must not examine me. Ans. 1. I shall hore then desire Mr. D. to see and acknowledge this same absurdity in himself (who goes wholly on this ground) for if affirmative propositions are not exclusive (which is his meaning) then how can he still argue and impose on us, that because the Apostle says, let a man so eat, therefore a man must not eat, unless so. 2. If this be absurd in Divinity and Logic, it may be demanded, how then will Mr. D. make good, therefore another must examine me: I will tell you how he may in Rhetoric, per Aposiopesin, for the Scripture says nothing of it.  
For his simile of poison p. 179. 180. he tells us, 1, Whosoever can, aught to hinder his brother from drinking poison. Answ. There is no doubt of it. 2. The Sacrament to some is poison, as one man's meat is another's poison. Ans. This instance may satisfy us, I must give a man his food, and so I give the Sacrament; if by his ill use of it, it turns to poison, this is accidental to the nature of the thing, and to me; I must do my duty, as in the word 2 Cor. 2.14, 15, 16. But 3. He says, he may know, and judge, when the Sacrament is poison to any. Ans. This were sinful to say, but that he adds, by the effects and, consequents, so that he must first belike, give them a little poison to try them. But I pray what arguing is here in the mean while? Because he sees some men after receiving worse than formerly, therefore, he knows the Sacrament is poison, and beforehand (like a Physician) will not give it. 4. The Sacrament may be applied before all, not to all; all may see, and be present, not eat, etc. Ans. This is but a kind of spice of secret Popery, with which Mr. D. would sweeten the bitterness of his book, that yet will not go down, he has strewed it so thick. Christ ordained the Supper to be a taking matter, an eating matter, a remembering matter (says Mr. Fox with Mr. Bradford) Contrary, our Masse-men make it a matter not of taking, but of gazing, peeping, I thank God I have seen my Maker to day, etc. Book of Martyr's vol. 3. p. 3.  
For the Receivers part, I say there is a double duty; A principle, Do this, and an Accessary, Let a man examine himself, both which, is to be performed; A man must come, and he must come worthily, the case is the same, as in all Ordinances, there is the substance of a duty, and the manner of performance; If the manner be evil, it must be amended, and the matter still must be done. He has three Objections, page 181, 182, 183.  
1. How assuredly doth Mr. H. make that the principle duty which is the carcase and form only? Answ. Methinks Mr. D. should not speak so lightly of Christ's own words, Do this? who dares not know, Do this, includes matter and manner, to wit, in faith, love, thankfulness, as we ought; and if this be not the principal duty, to which self-examination is subservient, let all judge▪ Even as the Feast though it lasts but an hour, is the principal; & the whole week of preparation, accessary to it. As for his words then that follow, they are but a pen full of ink spartled in my face, while his peevish spirit, like a troubled sea, is still casting up mire and dirt.  
2 True, He that is bound to come, is bound to come worthily, but he that is bound to come worthily, is not bound to come absolutely. Answ. I know not how he may strain the word absolutely, but I say, a Church-member is as absolutely bound to come hither, as so pray, and hear; as the Apostle says, Let a man so eat, Christ says, Take heed how you hear, so pray, and so give alms. But are they therefore ever the less absolute duties? There is no doubt but the manner, as well as the matter, comes under the same absolute command; so that a man is bound, I say still, to come, and come worthily, and both absolutely, though not, Ad semper, to either. And therefore, whereas he asks, p. 178. Every man is to examine himself, and so to eat, but where is it said absolutely. Let every man eat? It may suffice him, that Christ says expressly, and absolutely to all present. Let every one drink, Do this, Drink you all of it. But let me ask him again, Where doth the Scripture say any where, Let a man not eat, or not drink? where doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so, signify not? As for his instances then about Legal purifications, they are answered in their place; They may serve to be alluded to (if he will) for pressing preparation, but ought not to be made any ground to omit duty; because no legal uncleanness could have excused a man from God's service, but that it had an express law for it; which if Mr. D. can produce here, we shall yield to him.  
3 Sinful unpreparedness will not exouse a man from guilt, but it will excuse him from receiving: Answ. I judge this must be taken very warily, so far only as a man may in Christian prudence dispense with affirmative precepts for his souls better advantage: Provided his abstinence serves to humble him, and put him upon greater ear to prepare for the next Sacrament, (as he cautions well over the leaf) and if it will not otherwise, this may silence himself.  
Page 184. He comes to my three Queries; The first is, Whether the very receiving be a sin incurring damnation in him that is unworthy? and here I carefully distinguish between the very receiving, which is a man's duty, and the unworthiness, which makes the sin only: This unworthiness is either in the person, which will condemn him, nevertholesse for his staying away, and therefore I judge he should rather come, and condemn it. Or in the Act; herein is the matter, which is good, and the manner, which is amiss. Now the sailing in the manner of a duty (I must still inculcate) doth not abrogate the matter. If Mr. D. can keep an unregenerate man from the obliquity in the manner, and yet let him do the matter, I shall like him; but he may not cause him to neglect that which is his duty in the substance, to avoid evil in the performance; Our disobedience is total in not doing, but only partial in doing it otherwise then we ought.  
Indeed Mr. D. says here, these cannot be distinguished, There is no sinful act, but notionally you may abstract sinfulness from it, but really you cannot, when it comes to be acted. Answ. Let him remember, if he cannot distinguish Receiving, and unworthy Receiving, then can he not distinguish Hearing, and unworthy Hearing; Praying, and unworthy Praying; And if he cannot really (and not notionally only) sever these, how can he make them means of grace? Can sin be a means of grace? Can that which is a cause of death, be a means of life? If he say, it may be an accidental occasion; it is true, but it must be intentionally a means with him; seeing he tells us, A man may hear (and pray) unworthily (page 186.) (there is a sinful act, which cannot, he says, be abstracted really in the duty from the sin) yet be converted by it, (there it is a means of grace, and instituted for it.) I think this must be a plain conviction upon Mr. D. 1 Hearing and Praying, are means of conversion. 2 To hear and pray unworthily is a sin. 3 Yet must a man hear and pray nevertheless. 4 Sin cannot be a means of grace. 5 A man must not do evil for any good effect. Now if you can abstract really in no sinful act, the sinfumesse from it, when it comes to be acted; 1 Then must sin be a means of conversion. 2 Then must it be our duty to sin. 3 Then must we contradict St. Paul, and say, a man may do evil that good may come of it. As for what he farther adds, A man is not bound to receive till he be Evangelically worthy, but is prohibited in statu quo; I desire him to show me that prohibition, which is indeed Mr. Drakes eleventh Commandment, that makes all his strength being without the support of any Text, to become but as a bowing wall, and tottering fence.  
My second Query is, whether receiving unworthily is other ways damnable, then hearing and praying unworthily, and if it be not, why should not we receive still, as pray and hear; He answers, It is otherwise damnable, 1 Because not a universal duty, (where he brings in Infants the eighteenth time) 2 Not converting. Ans. 1 This is untrue, for as to every intelligent member it is an universal duty, and a means of conversion. 2 It is vain, and grossly inconsequent; for, There are some duties belong only to men in such and such relations; Is the neglect hereof, ever the less damnable, because they are not universal? Again, A natural man cannot convert himself by his moral works; are his sins therefore ever the less sinful? As the precept only is that which makes an action to be good, so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Transgression alone (not any thing else) makes it damnable.  
My third Query is, Whether an unregenerate man must never come to the Sacrament? Mr. D. holds, he must never, because in will not convert him; I hold the case is still the same with the word and prayer, which though they become the savour of death unto some, yet must not the duty be neglected, and the precept plucked up by the roots. I shall therefore here join issue with him.  
If there be any weight in the ground upon which he goes, that an unregerate man must not receive, because it will not convert him, than an unregenerate man must not do that which is not converting; If this be not good, his argument will be ex puris particularibus, and cannot be good: If it be good, then must Mr. D. prove to me that singing of Psalms, Alms-deeds, obedience to Parents, love to our neighbour, and all the duties of the ten Commandments are instituted of God as means of conversion, or otherwise an unregenerate man must not do them. If he say, they are means of conversion, I will distinguish hereof, either they proceed from a preparatory work of grace through God's Spirit upon the heart, and so I think indeed in a due sense they are converting; Or they proceed from a bare principle of reason, or natural conscience, and so they cannot be converting, for nature alone (the Scripture teaches us) can never begot grace. Now then, I ask him whether such bare moral actions (which yet as to the matter are good works, and every man's duty) do cease therefore to be duties, and ought not to be done, because not converting? If they do not, then is M. Drakes foundation, but as a bank of sand, which the more he stands upon, fails him, and sinks away.  
There are two things in God's Ordinances, an homage that is due to him, and a benefit accrueing to us, as they are means of his grace. Now let me demand of any mortal, how dare he bereave God of his homage (though outward only) because he cannot reap his own benefit? What if there were no benefit to man, must not the will of God stand? Again, Is it not the duty of every one within the Church to remember Christ, show forth his death, and be thankful, if it were only that he is brought into a Church-state, and relation to God, which Paul accounts so high a privilege to the Jews? And is not the Ordinance appointed to this end? how then can any totally neglect it without sin? and must he sin, to avoid sin? must he do evil, that he may not do evil? how can this be? Indeed it is true, there are other ends besides this, which an unregenerate man cannot do; but must this end itself therefore be abrogate? The Lord Jesus was not capable of remission of sins, must he therefore not be baptised? It is enough, that there was an homage herein, or duty due unto God from him as man, though he could receive no benefit by it. So long then as this homage stands good, and here are some ends every intelligent member is capable of; how can man's eating, or not eating his damnation, stand in balance with the will of God? The will of God must stand against all consequence.  
Indeed Mr. D. Page 186. still urges, He that hears unworthily may be converted, not so, he that receives unworthily, at that time. But I say, where did Mr. D. learn, a man must hear the word (or pray) though he hears unworthily upon this ground, because it is a means of conversion, as he still pleads p. 98. p. 116.185. etc. The truth is, this ground alone could not stand, for hearing unworthily is certainly a sin (which he says further cannot be really severed from the act) and the Apostle says, it is a dangerous thing to hold such a tenant that men may sin, or do evil (as to hear unworthily is) that any good (as conversion is) may come of it. But the ground then indeed, why a man must pray, hear, receive, though he does it unworthily, is because God has commanded it, and we must not omit our duty, to avoid sin; because we must not do evil (which that omission is) that good (which the avoiding sin is) may come of it.  
Page Ib. He distinguishes between Abstainers and Refusers. Ans. This distinction cannot be applied here, because a man cannot always forbear an Ordinance, though he may sometimes, but his omission makes him a Refuser and Neglecter; and my question is, Whether an unregenerate man must never receive, for fear of ear-ring his damnation?  
Page 187. Whereas I say, what is sealed is the same, he tells us, This is an apparent falsity, unless salvation and damnation is the same. Ans. It is an apparent truth, for I do expressly say, That which is sealed, is the Covenant, and that is the same I hope, though our estate altars, as to the threaten and promises in it. And this passage, I hope, shall do much good (which therefore I have recited before) when Mr. Drakes lose and malicious aspersions shall do him no good. He that beareth false witness against his Neighbour is a maul, and a Sword and a sharp Arrow.  
Page 188. What relief can the Sacrament bring to a doubtful soul that hath no grace? 1. It cannot convert him. 2. It cannot confirm him. Answ. This is amiss, It can confirm him in his common, general grace; and the exercise thereof, is the way, wherein we are to wait for effectual grace. So then, it can convert him, and confirm him; and convert him, because confirm him.  
Pag. Ib. The Receiver seals as necessarily to the condition (to wit of the Covenant) in Esse, or de presenti; as in fieri, or de futuro. Ans. This cannot be. For 1. Children seal to the same in Baptism. 2. The whole body of Israel engaged to the same, when they entered Covenant, (Deut. 29.) and did but what they were to do, and commanded to do, and yet had not all of them a saving Faith, for many of them were destroyed (Heb: 4.1, 2,) for their unbelief. Indeed where there is an engagement required, there ought to be also a sincere resolution to perform what we engaged. There is the matter of the engagement, and the manner of the engagement; the right manner consists in this serious and sincere resolution; If we fail in the manner it is to be amended, and the matter still to be done. It is not a Cannot what I will, but a Will not what I Can, and a Do not what I will and can, shall condemn a man at the last day.  
Page 189. By actual receiving of the Sacrament a man professes he receives Christ, signified and offered to him in particular, and therefore if he does not act Faith at the same instant, he plays the Hypocrite and mocks God, etc.  
Ans. I think this scruple as it is more closely urged by others, sinks deepest in this business of any, and therefore requires the larger consideration.  
1. First then, There is a real undissembled Faith (whether you call it general, historical, or visible) that falls short of Saving, Justifying Faith, that makes a man truly a Disciple, or Professor, though not a true Disciple, or sincere Professor; in Covenant, though not effectually in Covenant: Now that common Faith, as it makes a man a Professor, it makes him partaker of the Ordinances, and his waiting thereupon, or meeting at the Word and Sacraments, is his very profession signified; and his badge that he is one of the visible Church; so that you must either say that every unregenerate man must leave off his profession, and become no Christian, or the scruple is removed; for the truth is, that Faith he hath in the doctrine of Christ, so far as it is undissembled, and makes him a Christian in opposition to all other Religions, will bear him up in the profession, and make it his duty for to come, which in the manner ought to be done, and the matter not left undone.  
2 The case is the same in all Ordinances, while a Christian comes to the Word, that is a signified profession that he will obey the mind of God when it is revealed: now unless he hearty resolves to practise what he hears, it is a like mocking God, and playing the hypocrite (if I may use his words) Psa. 50.16, 17. Jer. 43.2, 5, 20. Likewise in Prayer, there is a virtual engagement of us to endeavour the grace we pray for; Nay, herein is the most express hypocrisy, for how can an unregenerate man say, Thy Kingdom of grace come, when he doth not sincerely desire grace (which yet he ought to pray, and sincerely desire too) if he did truly desire it, he were regenerate; for a desire of true grace (as Mr. D. says) is true grace. Yet do I think Mr. D. doth not exclude any of his unregenerate Members from the Word and Prayer.  
3 This argument than is strong to enforce men to the manner, when they do the matter; but not to leave off the matter, because they fail in the manner. It is of force to press men to bring up their hearts and lives to their engagements, but not to forbear those engagements they are bound to, as Professors.  
4 Though a professor be unregenerate, he does 0 truly believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, and the alone Saviour of the World, in opposition to all other Religions, and thereof this is a true profession; and that suffices to the Sacraments precisely considered, though not complexly, as to the entire benefits of the Covenant.  
5 So far as a man is in Christ, or a member of his Church, Christ is given to him, and received of him, with a true distinction of privilege from the world.  
6 He engages himself (or is engaged) hereby to submit to the terms of Jesus Christ, as he is bound to do, which if he do not perform, it is the issue makes it a lie, and him an hypocrite (Psa. 78.35. with 37.) but the obligation itself (and that sincerely) is his duty.  
7 There is the nature and substance of this Ordinance, and the divers uses to be made of it; The very nature and substance consists in a Commemoration of Christ; An unregenerate man is capable of this substance, and so it becomes his duty, which cannot be made void by the mal-performance; for no consequence can annihilate God's Precept. Neither doth my incapacity of satisfying all the ends and uses of an Ordinance (as before) exempt me from those I can; for then neither could children be capable of Baptism, not Christ of Circumcision.  
8 As the Minister doth tender and apply Jesus Christ conditionally to all according to the terms of the Covenant, so may he receive him, to wit, as looking for salvation from him upon performance of the condition, and condemnation if he continues in unbelief without repentance (as the case in penal obligations) this being the means both to persuade, and fright him to it. And then,  
9 The full and safest answer to this, will be by a serious practice; Let us examine ourselves, and humbling our souls in the sight of our unworthiness, acknowledge our deserts, and apply the due sense of our just condemnation according to our present estate, together with the offer of mercy, upon our amendment, and this takes off the hypocrisy; for if my actual receiving be a Lie (to wit, as it is a visible profession) it must be so, either before God, or before men; It is not a Lie before men, for I hold it a means of conversion, and profess not myself converted already, but come only as a Church-member; and It is not a Lie before God (I mean so far as any unregenerate man's service can be without it) for I condemn myself, and apply that part of the Covenant which is due to me (as I ought with the offer of grace) to bring me home to him.  
Page 190. I easily grant, assurance is not absolutely requisite, as a means to receiving. Answ. Upon this true concession, I argue against him in the main; If it be necessarily pre-required that a man be regenerate before he receives, then must assurance be absolutely requisite as a means; But seeing assurance is not necessary as a means, therefore it is not necessarily pre-required that a man be regenerate, and this becomes a means of conversion. The former I prove: That which a man cannot be persuaded in his conscience is lawful to do, it is sin if it be done, Rom. 4.23. But a man that holds it absolutely unlawful for an unregenerate man to eat, and is not certain, that he himself is regenerate, cannot be assured in his conscience that he ought to eat. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not with faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. This is the misery is brought upon us, while men deny the Sacrament to be a means of conversion.  
Page Ibid. and 191. Whereas I press upon the Receiver to resolve against every known sin for the present, and to accept of Christ, which is his duty, as well as to come. He excepts at me as not speaking consonantly to myself, and the nature of faith.  
For the former, I do believe, we know so little of the nature of spirits, our own souls & actings thereof, and so infinitely less the workings of God's Spirit, that I dare not confine myself herein. I do not doubt but there may be many good resolutions, and some supernatural motions on the hearts of men which prove abortions, when the like desires cherished in the use of the means, by God's grace become effectual. It is therefore my Doctrine, that a Christian should still endeavour to blow up every spark, desire, or good motion he finds in him. We do not know how the seeds (or first impressions) of grace differ in any, and discover them only, by the rooting and continuance; If common grace differ from special only gradually (which for aught we know may be the truth) than we have a certain promise, that in the use and exercise, those degrees shall be increased, which will make it saving; Habenti dabitur. If it d●ffers specifically, (which those terms of the immortal seed, the new birth, regeneration etc. do incline me to believe,) yet have we a Peradventure, in the use of the Ordinances, which we have not otherwise; And I conceive as the act of man brings in the wind and water in their Mills, and makes use of their natural motions, to do their work, and serve their occasions: So does the holy Spirit make use of God's voluntary actings, in his waiting on the means, for the effecting of his special work of grace in him, which is, as it were, acquired by infusion, yet so, as we can do nothing of ourselves, It is the free gift of God.  
For the latter, I do admire he should say, Mr. H. professeth he knows no other constituting parts of saving faith, than an Historical assent and good purpose, when I speak hereof only as what suffices to the Sacrament, not to justification; And whereas upon this he wishes Mr. H. would study fundamentals better, before he come to superstructures; I shall desire him, seeing he acknowledges our dispute to be but about a superstructure, that he would not be so hot, and froward that another differs from him. And as for my studies about this point of the nature of Faith, I shall submit myself to give him this small account of them.  
Faith is an assent to a testimony, and so it differs from Knowledge, Experience etc. That testimony, is either of Man, and then it is an humane; or of God, and then it is a divine Faith. Divine Faith then is an assent to divine Revelation, or the Word of God, and it is either general or special; General. Faith is this assent, without effectual application; Special is this assent with it; and this assent with application is Saving Faith. Now this Special Faith in the habit, hath two acts (according to its object in the word) the one, whereby it is carried out upon the precepts and threats for obedience; or the other, as it is carried out upon the promises, especially the great Promise of salvation through Christ, and this is the act we say justifies, whether in sensu proprio, or in sensu correlativo, in respect of its object, the point seems decided by those two Texts, Rom. 3.25. with Rom. 5.9. where to be justified by Faith in Christ's blood, is to be justified by his blood. Yet do I think that those men that do, as it were, compound these two acts into one, and call it acceptance of Christ as Lord and Saviour, and so say it justifies as the Covenant-condition, speak piously, solidly, and safely, as to these times.  
To close up this eighth Objection. Though it is certain, a Special Faith is required to every saving duty; yet whereas the duty (at least, as a task, service, tribute) must still be done; I will advise every Receiver to look mainly into this one thing, that there be not upon him the unworthiness of an evil conscience, which I account not in reference to his life past, though he has been an ignorant, obstinate, and grievous sinner, so long as for his life to come, he now resolves to go on no more in any of his known, wilful sins against Conscience, but to leave them, and if his heart upon examination can truly tell him this, though he be unregenerate, and this resolution but legal, and preparatory, yet seeing he can hearty for the present engage himself to the terms of Christ, as there is nothing in his Conscience can be opposed against his coming: So, I am entirely persuaded (without the least doubt as to such a one) that this Ordinance is a most fit means (subordinate to the Word) to make his good purposes serious, for his effectual conversion. And as for those harsh terms, and opinions of others, that a man if he be unregenerate, does but mock God, murder Christ, drink his poison, and eate necessarily his damnation; It would even pity a man to the heart to see how they make the holy Table of the Lord to become a snare, a very rack, terror, and torture to many consciences, while our grand Enemy makes use thereof to defraud our souls of then due sustentation by it. The fear of guilt and damnation, may be applied for the pressing men to preparation, but not to keep any from his duty.  
A person famous for wit, being condemned, had his life promised him, on condition he could make a fat Lamb become lean within such a time, and yet allow him his ordinary meat; This he undertakes; prepares two grates, in the one he puts the Lamb, and gives him the food required, in the other he puts a Wolf, and gives him no meat. As the Wolf grows hungry he baits at the Lamb, with his head and paws raving at him; the poor Lamb in the sight of so much terror though he cate his meat, pines suddenly away, and becomes as lean as if he had been quite famished for want of it. I am afraid it fares thus with many of the tender Lambs of Jesus Christ, who whiles they doubt of their regeneration, and men set damnation to rave at, and bark them away if unregenerate, not being sensible of the grates that protect them, they feed at the blessed Table of the Lord with so much fear and doubtfulness, that their spiritual meat hardly does them good, or their poor souls thrive by it. It is even as when an hungry man dreameth, and behold he eateth, but he awaketh, and his soul is empty; or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and he drinketh, but he awaketh, and behold he is faint.   

Sect. 9 THe ninth Objection is, The Ordinance is polluted if all be admitted. My answer was, Unto the unworthy Receivers it may be said defiled, as all things are to the unbelieving, Tit. 1.15. but not no others. If the heathen Husband be sanctified to the believing Wife, which is the nearest communion that can be, 1 Cor. 7.14 so that she must not separate from him in the duties of marriage, as it is God's Ordinance; I may resolutely say, it is not the unworthiness of another (which is external to him) should make a believer separate from the Sacrament. To the clean nothing is unclean, Mat. 5.11. Rom. 14.14.  
Unto this p. 192, 193. Mr. D. consents, and therefore he might have dealt more ingenuously to have joined with me in strengthening the weak, rather than to vilify the succours I brought them; but that like a troublesome briar there is nothing can pass him without catching, renting; and tearing, while he brings his nettles to possess our pleasant places, and thorns our tabernacles.  
Page 194. He accuses me again for excluding infants, (which is nineteen times) and because I do not exclude others also, as he would have me, he bids me take heed there be not the Pharisee and Hypocrite in my heart, etc. Answ. His advice may be good, (blessed is he that feareth always) for though, if I belie not my own temper, I think it is free and open, a lover of truth and reality; yet when I come to the closer inter-views between God and my soul, it makes my heart bleed to see what a deal of infidelity, and spiritual unsoundness there is in me; besides the guilt of my life, which others may not know of me, but thou Lord knowest; Thou tryest the reins, and my sin is ever before thee; Cleanse thou me, heal me, make me upright with thee; and then shall my answer be alone in thy mercy. Nevertheless I am persuaded (though I am nothing) there are many good and worthy Christians that are not altogether of Mr. Drakes opinion, and yet are no hypocrites. Who art thou that judgest thy Brother? who art thou that settest at naught thy Brother? we shall all stand before the Judgement seat of Christ. The humble dust will fly in the face of him that spurns it.  
The two next pages (p. 195, 196.) he might have spared. It he does not teach it to be simply a sin to receive with any visibly unworthy, nor is against all mixed Sacraments, he knows who does, and might have let that alone that does not concern him. Nevertheless, I cannot here wholly free Mr. D. for I think there is a deadly wound made upon tender Christians, while he involves every soul under the guilt of participation with the Receiver, in his sin of unworthy receiving, If they do not their best to hinder him from receiving, which yet is not simply a duty (where still lies this sad fallacy) but only seoundum quid, in reference to the party's amendment as the end, and excommunication as the means, whereby a man being cast out of Christian Communion in general, is consequently debarred the Sacrament: and otherwise to keep him from it, is amiss, as going upon this false ground, that unfitness to the Sacrament is the formal cause of Excommunication; and I fear sinful, because it is simply our duty to exhort (and in our places to prepare) all our fellow-members both to come, and come worthily to it. To clear this, suppose a regenerate man deserves to be excommunicate, and I do not complain of him, he comes and receives in faith; Now if I must partake of a man's receiving unworthily, when I should endeavour his excommunication, and do not, then must I partake in this man's receiving worthily; and so my not endeavouring their excommunication shall be good in the one, and sin in the other. It is apparent therefore that this sin is to be singled by its self, I am never the more or the less guilty, whether he come or not come, receives worthily or not worthily, that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but this is one only continued guilt on me, that I do not my duty in admonishing and telling the Church of him, supposing the cale so, that it is my duty.  
If it were my duty simply or absolutely to keep away the unworthy from the Sacrament, (besides that, no man then could keep himself from guilt;) it would be my duty also to keep them from the Word and Prayer. For 1. There is the same moral pollution in the one, as the other, Tit. 1.15.2. The sin is as abstractible in the one as the other. 3. The one is our duty as well as the other, unless Mr. D. can give us any text that forbids it. And here indeed will come the issue of all. When Christ says, Baptise all Nations, those that except Infants, must show Texts for it. When the Scripture says, all the Congregation, the whole people, every man was to eat the Passeover, Exod. 12. When Christ says, do this, drink ye all of it, and St. Paul applies the same to the whole Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 11.23. Those that will except the unregenerate (which is likely the greater part) out of these, do affirm a limitation, and must prove it. When you come together, ver. 33. does to me plainly include, both a supposal they would come together, and an allowance that they might. Their manner of coming is reproved, but their coming together, and that to eat, is what they ought.  
There may be here one case to be satisfied; Suppose I have not admonished my Brother, and complained of him, is not the neglect of my duty a sin? and how then shall I come to the Sacrament with this sin on my Conscience, but it shall be defiled to me? I Answer, if thy Conscience tells there it is a sin (for there is some prudence to go in to it) thou art to repent of it, by resolving to take the next opportunity to perform thy duty thou hast omitted; and upon this resolution of thine (as in the like neglects) there is no doubt but thou mayst come safely. 2. If thou hast neglected one duty, I dare not say that omission can excuse thee from doing another duty, the Apostle commands us Jam. 1.21. to lay apart all naughtiness and so to receive the word: and the Psalmist tells us, If we regard iniquity in our hearts, God will not hear us, Psal. 66.18. Yet dare I not say, If a man doth not sincerely lay aside all his sins (as he ought) that he may not hear, nor pray. The case is the same in all duties, the person is to be reform, but not the duty left undone.  
Page 198, 199. He hath nothing more considerable; only that new argument from Children which we have now had, no less than twenty times over; and therefore I shall be content, seeing he argues so strongly for them, that he should take them with the distracted into his company. It is a manifest testimony of the exceeding weakness of his own grounds, that he is forced through his whole Book so poorly to argue only from such a Concession, which yet the Primitive Church in St. Augustine's time, would not have granted him.   

Sect. 10 THe last Objection is, from those several Texts that ano alleged for separation from wicked persons. My Answer was, that all these Texts are to be reduced either to their wicked courses, Eph. 5.11. 1 Cor. 10.20, 31. 2 Cor. 6.14. and it may be, Jer. 15.19. 2 Thess. 3.6.11 Rev. 2.6. or their common samiliarity, and so I answer, 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. 2 Thess. 3.14. Rom. 16.17. 2 Tim, 3.5. 2 Jo. 10.11. Prov. 22.24, 25. and it may be 2 Thess. 3.6. Tit. 3.10. But I affirm there is no Scripture allows a separation from any one of God's public Ordinances, unless in case of Excommunication.  
As for what Mr. D. objects here, I have satisfied at once already. I shall only leave two notes; 1 Whereas Mr. D. accounts my opinion (that excommunication refers to Church-communion in geveral) to be 1 False; 2 Cruel, I am persuaded he will be of another mind when he comes to understand me better, how I take this, that is Relatively, wherein I think, I am near the truth. And hereupon it will follow that every slight occasion must not serve for Church-censure, but such notorious crimes as will bring a defamation on the Church, and our Christian profession, if suffered; whereas if we allow any censure less than casting out of the Church, it is no wonder, if bare ignorance, or any small matter be held enough for it; By which means, our Church censures are like to become ordinary, and soon contemned, which should indeed be ever administered for this very respect, with the greatest dreadfulness, rarity, and solemnity.  
2 Separation from wicked men (as to their persons) may be considered simplicitèr, or secundum quid, as it is considered simply (or absolutely) it is not a duty, for a man may go into the company of evil persons upon his necessary business, and as Christ himself did, to admonish, and do them good. But as it is taken secundum quid, or Relatively, in respect of such or such an end, so is it our duty. Now that end, either respects ourselves, or them; That which respects ourselves, is to avoid their sins, or not to partake thereof, by acting with them, infection, connivance, or the like; And This respect does always bind, so that in such case as we must needs partake of their sins, we are undoubtedly to avoid them: That which respects them, is to bring them to repentance, by shaming them, etc. Hereupon it will follow, that if any man goes to avoid his brother in God's Ordinances, unless it be to this end, his separation is evil, the reason being plain, because as I am bound to avoid the least partaking of another's sins so am I bound to the greatest partaking with him in duty, and though I must separate from him in civil familiarity (I mean common, and unnecessary) where I have my liberty (and not else, 1 Cor. 7. 13, 14.) unless it be to exhort, and edify him; Yet may I not, in sacred society, and the service of God (which is both his and my duty) unless he be excommunicate. I pray note this, Separation, I say, is either from civil society alone, or from Sacred, and Civil both; In the first, I am to withdraw from every one that walketh disorderly, (yet with prudence) and complain of him; But the second is proper to Church-censure, before which, my withdrawing from him in public duty, is not like to be any means of bringing the man to repentance, but rather to harden him; and therefore, to speak freely, I fear it is but a likely sin, to withdraw from others at the Sacrament, before Excommunication.  
P. 204. He comes to my wishes, which he is pleased to approve, & engage me to him before he parts, with two passages; The first is Page 205. where he tells me, he hath made me an object of fraternal correption, and hopes, I am in a fair way to be mended by his admonition.  
Answ. Had the man been longer a Divine, or a little more modest in the spirit of meekness, & words of sobriety, he could have managed his cause, with me, I think (so far as I know of my own spirit) that I am so conselous of my own weakness, and afraid to offend others, that I should have been more ready to a submission, than dissertation, could it have stood with any face of truth and ingenuity: but when I see how his whole book is carried with such a high conceit of himself, and interest, so much contempt of me, bitterness of language, passion, and incontinency, truly, it is a great argument to me (and inward support against his opinion) that the Lord doth not approve it, or at least intends not to succeed it. If it had been the mind of Christ, it is more likely he would have humbled his heart, and suited him a spirit fit to have declared that mind to us; But now hath his temper betrayed his cause, now are his Arguments little besides prejudice; now are his instructions but briers and thorns, with which he goes to teach me, only as Gideon taught the men of Succoth. Now are these admonitions which should come from him as a brother, but the bitter insultations of an adversary; which must make me answer him in the words of Micha, 7.8, 9 Rejoice not against me, Oh mine enemy, when I fall I shall rise, when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause for me, he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness.  
The second is, Page 206. How justly may be at last be looked at as a Weed by our great Husbandman, who will cherish Weeds, etc.  
Methinks it were enough for Mr. D. to have passed a suspension on me in the beginning of his Book, he needed not have prosecuted it to the end, and even to the last judgement. It is not for him to take the Tribunal, and condemn me for a Weed at the great day. I desire God, that this man's rashness may teach me to consider his righteous Judgement, that I may sanctify him in my heart, and make him my fear, and my dread; so shall I reap the benefit of his censure, without the guilt of it. I must humbly acknowledge, if the Lord should deal with me according to my deserts, he might indeed justly look at me as a Weed, and condemn me for ever; But enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord, but take occasion by this man's judgement to forgive me, and him; for thou seest how some men's piety outruns their charity, and their over-eager zeal, like Moses, breaks the Tables: And though he would have me suspended from the favour of thy people, do not thou suspend him, or me from a fellowship in thy mercies, and while he is ready to shut up the bosom of the Church against me, as if it could no: hold me, and him, let me be assured that Abrahamt bosom stands wide enough open to receive both me, and my opposer.  
I could have hearty wished Mr. D. had so carried his business, that I might rather have reverenced his judgement, and yielded to his piety, then be forced to show him his weakness, which yet may serve to abate his imperiousness, and some weariness in the Reader. For my part, I shall prepare myself to expect from him nothing but the dregs of his former bitterness, and that many godly men will speak evil of my Book, though they shall receive a relaxation, and support by it; I shall be contented to let them speak evil of me, so long as they receive good by me; only I shall desire them that they will be ready to propagate what they find in me may do good, as I shall be ready to retract what I am convinced is amiss: But let them not reject all, if they dislike some; Even as when the new wine is in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it.  
There is these four things, for which I must demand some Texts of Scripture (if any will answer me) by which the world may judge of their satisfaction? 1 Where visible worthiness upon trial, is the rule of admission to the Sacrament? 2 Where they find suspension as distinct from Excommunication? 3 Where the unregenerate are forbid to receive the Sacrament? 4 Where this difference is advanced between the Sacrament and other Ordinances, that herein it is better to omit the matter and manner both, then to do the matter, if the manner be not done as they ought, which is directly contrary to all other duty?  
And now if Master Drake shall have need to write again, as I believe nature will work, and his spirit cannot hold; I shall desire him, if he will go to vent that superfluity of maliciousness, which yet he ought to lay apart, to take along with him, that Text of Dent. 23.13. Thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon, and it shall be when thou shalt go to ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back, and cover that thing which cometh from thee; for this froward language, and bitter spirit, hath no good savour in the holy Camp, but is an unclean thing that ought not to be seen amongst God's people.  
He concludes, Page 207.209. with a Scruple to the Reader, and tells us he hath done with Mr. Humphrey.  
Ans. Thus Hiram hath finished the work he had to do, the Pots, and the Shovels, and the Basins, the Pillars, and the Pommels, and the Chapiters', and the wreaths to cover the Pommels of the Chapiters' on the top of the Pillars.  
FINIS.    

READER, The absence of the Author, must excuse the Errors of the Press, of which these are apart.  
Page 84. line 12. read Ministers, p. 115. l. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 179. l. 5. r. other, p. ibid. l. 7, r. are the same, p. 181. l. 18. for never, r. near, p. 191. l. 26. r. I give place, p. 217. l. 6. for out, r. of.