The bar, against free admission to the Lords Supper, fixed. Or, An answer to Mr. Humphrey his Rejoynder, or, reply.: By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap, London.

Sect. III.

Mr. Humphrey comes to the stating of his Question; In which for explication, pag. 20. He premiseth, That between these two, a covenant-relation visible, and truth of grace which is invi∣sible, there is no middle thing injoyned in the Scripture for the rule of our Admission.

Answ. If this Rule be true, then Mr. Hum∣phrey doth very ill to coyn divers middle things for the rule of Admission, as that persons to re∣ceive,

first must have some maturity of under∣standing: Secondly, must be in their right wits: Thirdly, must not be jure excommunicate. If it be objected, that these he excepts afterwards by way of Explication. Ans. 1. His Explication must never contradict his Rule. Secondly, By the same reason he can find three middle things, we shall find more, as I hope to make evident when we come to particulars.

Mr. Humphrey. Some are uncapable of the Or∣dinances by Nature; namely, such as can discern no meaning thereof: As infants, the distracted, natural fooles, in opposition to the ignorant that are of age: And that first, Because discerning the Lords Body cannot be a duty in the former, &c. Secondly, Because signes cannot work upon the unintelligent, as to any reall effect.

Ans. 1. Here you see one middle thing be∣tween Church-membership and truth of grace. Infants, &c. are Church-members, and divers of them have truth of grace; Yet are uncapable of ad∣mittance to the Lords Supper in M. Humphrey his judgement for lack of understanding, which therefore must be added to Church-membership as a Qualification for admittance. Secondly, Why may not unintelligent persons be admitted as well to the Lords Supper as to Baptism, since they understand and discern the Body of Christ as much in that, as the Water of the Spirit in this; and if Bread and Wine cannot work upon the unintelligent, no more can Water, both be∣ing Sacramentall signes. If therefore Mr. Hum∣phrey will keep to his rule, he must deny Infants Baptism as well as the Lords Supper. If he urge••, That discerning the Lords Body is required in

all receivers of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 29.

Ans. 1 If discerning the Lords Supper be ne∣cessary, as to admittance; This strongly justifies our way of trying persons before we admit. If it be not necessary, as to admittance, then how dares he exclude any Church-member from the Sacrament, and punish Infants, &c. by suspending them who are only naturally uncapable, when at the same time he wittingly admits those who are morally uncapable. We grant Elder persons ought to get understanding, which we endeavour to work in them, by offering to instruct them whom we find ignorant against the next Sacrament; and divers we doubt not will blesse God to Eternity, that by a temporary suspension, they were brought out of the Darknesse of Ignorance and sin into the Light of Knowledge and Grace. But doth it follow that because they ought to get understanding, therfore they must be admitted before they have it. Is not their privative Ignorance a greater Bar then Childrens negative Ignorance? We further grant they may be wrought upon by many parts of the Sacrament, and therefore suspend them not from presence, but onely from actuall receiving, it, till Mr. Humphrey can prove the ultimate act of receiving to be a converting Ordinance. But till then, these two great reasons of his, may well prove gravell-stones in his own bowels, but not in our teeth, what ever he may please to fancy of them.

Mr. Humphrey allowes, that persons excom∣municate, ipso jure, should be suspended, namely, persons guilty of notorious and evident crimes, &c. Yet, this he minces again, saying, I do not

hold the Minister or Church is alwaies bound to take cognizance hereof, for what hath been shown already so plainly in the pattern of Christ. See more of this kinde, page 26. where he makes the keeping away, or suspending of persons, jure excommunicate, but a prudentiall.

Ans. 1. Is not here another middle thing to be a rule of admission, besides Church-member∣ship? Persons jure excommunicate, are Church∣members, till actually excommunicated, and therefore either must be admitted, or Mr. Hum∣phrey his former rule is false. 2. Note further, and tremble, Mr. Humphrey holds, the Minister and Church are not alwaies bound to take cogni∣sance of a Zimri and Cosbi, a person stark sta∣ring drunk, incestuous marriages, those who come newly reaking out of open enormities, such as publickly renounce Christ, or say, they won't be∣lieve on him; such as being in notorious malice, will not forgive, but professe their obstinacy: but may admit these comming to the Sacra∣ment, though convicted by evidence of the fact; so they be not juridically sentenced, and de facto excommunicated. Let the Reader compare page 21. and 22. and see if I wrong him. If this lati∣tude of Admission turne not Gods House into a den of Theeves, I know not what will. Well may persons excommunicable (as he calls them) be admitted, if the former rabble of hell may passe. 3. Note further the good use he makes of Judas his admittance, (supposing he was ad∣mitted by our Saviour) by making it a presi∣dent for the admittance of the vilest convicted miscreants, that ever the earth groaned under, so they be not actually excommunicated. Let me

(to evidence the absurdity of this instance of his) inlarge it a little: As Christ did not suspend, so he did not excommunicate Juaas, nor send to the High Priests or Officers for evidence against him, though he were jure excommunicate for the foulest treason that ever the Sun beheld, Ergo, the Church must not excommunicate actually the vilest mon∣sters of men, though never so clearly convicted by evidence of the fact; or at least, they do not sin in not excommunicating them, because Christ did not think fit to excommunicate Judas actu∣ally, who was jure excommunicate. See whither an ingagement in loose principles will not drive men! But I hope Mr. Humphrey, upon a review, will be of another minde, how ever prejudice and preingagement may cloud his judgment for the present.

Mr. Hum. And here I must complain of my Oppo∣ser. Were not these words (Unlesse excommunicate, ipso jure, or, de facto) page 24. in all three Edi∣tions; and why then doth he so overly and contemp∣tibly bring an odium on me, by being willing not to see or understand them, &c. Ans. Herein I am sure I have cause to complain of my Opposer Let the Reader peruse his Vindication, page 24. and finde (if he can) one word of excommunicate, jure or facto there. Indeed in that page he chal∣lengeth both Independents and Presbyterians, but in the Edition of his Vindication, printed 1642. I finde not one word about excommunication, much lesse that distinction of excommunicate, jure and facto; nor do I remember it is in any part of his Vindication; so far was I from shut∣ting mine eies against it, that had I found it there, I should probably have improved it then,

as I do now, in order to his conviction.

Mr. H. As to the Church or Minister, I held, & do hold, that all Church-members, that are nei∣ther unintelligent, nor excommunicate, ought freely to be admitted to this Ordinance: some ca∣ses in Spirituall and Temporall prudence being considered.

Ans. 1. Doth it not hence cleerly follow, that the suspension of persons, jure excommuni∣cate, is but a case of prudence: and if so, then we should plead for the suspension of others (who are visibly unworthy) only as a case of prudence too. Nay, 2ly. will it not follow hence, that the excommunication of persons, jure excommuni∣cate, is but a case of prudence too, the admit∣ting of women to the Sacrament, &c. is but a case of prudence too. I believe Mr. Humphrey will finde at last, that such cases of prudence, are good cases of conscience, it being the most prudentiall (as well as conscientious) way, to submit to all the commands of Christ, whether they be in expresse termes, or by good consequence laid upon us in the Scripture. In the same page he comes to my Exceptions: the first, that Infants and the di∣stracted (as deaf persons) are to come to the Word, therefore they are not uncapable of the Ordinances.

Mr. Humphrey. For the deaf, he speaks mi∣raculously well; for Infants, they were better keep at home, but only for the sake of them that tend them: His Text, Deut. 29. &c. is good to prove their Covenanting by their Parents in Baptisme, where there is only a passive reception, and the benefits relative; but as to the Ordinance of Hea∣ring, it must be actuall, and they are uncapable of

any reall work by it. Ans. 1. Saving the jest, which Mr. Humphrey can break miraculously well, my discourse, page 13. and 14. speaks no∣thing of any miraculous working, farther then every work of conversion is miraculous, & indeed a far greater miracle then all miraculous cures upon the body, John 14. 12. The working upon Infants and deaf persons at the Word (I do not say by the Word) upon blind and paralytick per∣sons at the Lords Supper, may be extraordinary; but no more miraculous, then is the working upon persons at age, and who have their senses perfect. No Ordinance is a naturall, but only a mo∣rall instrument of conversion, which God useth arbitrarily, and can, when he pleaseth, work without them. That, God requires of his crea∣ture, is either active or passive presence; that I should either present my selfe, or be presented before the Lord, according to my capacity. The Ordinances have an aptitude to re∣present, offer, or seal, and (when specially elevated by divine benediction) to apply Christ, & grace either initiall or progressive (all of them, the latter; some of them, the former also) to any Church-member, whether he have an active, or only a passive capacity. Thus Infants sanctified from their mothers womb, may, at the Ordi∣nance of Baptisme, at least have further degrees of grace infused; and that God, who infuses grace into some of them before any Ordinance used, can infuse more grace upon the use of any Ordinance, though the Infant be no more sen∣sible of progressive, then of initiall grace, or of the Ordinance, by, or at which, it is wrought. Gods operation upon Infants & others, naturally

uncapable, are secret; the creatures worke is to get in the way and road of grace, that the very shadow of mercy passing by, may overshadow some of them. Acts 5. 15. If I be in the way of mercy, who knowes but it may spread a skirt over me, and make it a time of love, Ezek. 16. 8. A beggar bringing his babe to a rich mans gate, may obtain, not only strong meat for himselfe, but milk for his babe, though it be not sensible of the benefit, or how it comes by it.

The places I quoted are not so slight, to prove Infants must be present at the Word, Read, or Preached &c. as he would make them. True, Deut. 29. 11, 12. they were before God to enter into Covenant: But Deut. 31. verse 11, 12. they were to be presented before God in ordinary, at the great anniversary feasts; that they might hear, &c. and while Infants are but present, God can teach them, though man cannot, Jesh 8. 35. eve∣ry word was read before the little ones, as well as others, 2 Chron. 20. 13. In a day of humiliation, their little ones were presented before the Lord as well as others: And, Ioel 2. 16. the very same thing is commanded; and to take away all cavill about their age, they are expresly noted to be such little ones, as suck the breasts. What though they understand nothing? cannot that God, who bids us present them before him, lay his hands upon their hearts, and blesse them at his Ordi∣nance. As God teacheth many elder persons con∣vincingly, whom he doth not teach savingly; so he can teach infants savingly, whom he doth not teach convincingly, namely, by infusing saving knowledge and grace, Esay 54. 13. May not they be comprehended by Christ at the Ordinan∣ces,

who cannot at all comprehend him, Ioh. 1. 5. Phil. 3. 12. Before I passe, I shall only note that, about Infant-Baptisme. Mr. Humphrey speaks ambiguously, yet seemes to hint, as if the bene∣fits of Baptisme to infants were only relative and not absolute; which if I were certain of, I had more to say to him, but till then, I forbear. I shall only add this, that however Infants may be uncapable of any reall work [by] hearing, yet, they are not uncapable of a reall work [at] hea∣ring. Had Christ bid an Infant stretch out his withered hand, his Almighty power at the same time might both have cured him, and also acted him to stretch forth the same hand, being cured, although the Babe understood not one word Christ spake. And cannot Christ cure an Infants withered soul, as well as his withered body, though the Babe understand nothing of the word of command in either.

He tells the Reader, my second Exception is,

That Infants and the Distracted, are as capa∣ble of the Sacrament, as the Ignorant are, though of age.

Ans. Herein Mr. Humphrey wrests both my words and meaning. Are these two Propositions equipollent, Infants are capable as well as Elder persons that are grosly ignorant; and, Infants are as capable as Elder Persons that are grosly igno∣rant? Or more clearly, The Creature is good as well as God; and, The Creature is as good as God: The former Proposition is a truth, the lat∣ter, an horrid lie and blasphemy: The former notes the truth of Predication in both: the latter, afferts a parity of the Predicate in both.

I grant, afterwards he laies downe my own

tearmes; but by Mr. Humphrey his leave, the Reader might easily have been abused to be∣lieve the second exception above mentioned to be either my own termes, or at least my sense: My words are these,

I ask Mr. Humphrey, why are Infants capable of Baptisme, and not of the Lords Supper? If he say, because they cannot ex∣amine themselves nor discern the Lords Body, &c.

then I answer, no more can grosly igno∣rant persons, &c. To this, Mr. Humphrey, Sir, you must excuse me, I shall not answer you alto∣gether so; but, because Infants are really unca∣pable, in Baptisme, there is required only a pas∣sive, but in the Lords Supper, an actuall recep∣tion. 2ly. Because it is not their duty to examine themselves, and discern the Lords Body.

Ans. To omit the absurd opposition of actu∣all to passive (which haply was an errour only of the Presse) are not Infants naturally uncapable of Baptisme as well as of the Lords Supper? Do they, or can they apprehend any more, either of the Signe, or thing fignified, in Baptisme, then the Lords Supper? Or, in Baptisme, is there only a passive reception required? True, in Infants, God requires only a passive reception, because they have no active capacity at present: But in Elder persons Baptized, God expects an active, and not only a passive reception; namely, the acting of faith, to receive the blood of sprinkling, and an active indeavour (especially at the time of Baptisme) to mortifie sin, and rise up to newnesse of life, besides the profession of their faith in their own persons; none of which, either God or man, expects of Infants, whom yet the efficacy of Baptisme may reach, as well as Elder

persons, though it be not limited to this or that time; nor doth the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost, alwaies accompany the Baptisme of Water, either in Infants or in Elder persons. In Elder persons then Baptized, there is not only a passive, but an active reception, as at the Lords Supper there is not only an active, but a passive reception. For his second Reason, Because it is not the duty of Infants to examine themselves, and discern the Lords Body. Ans. No more is it the duty of In∣fants to examine themselves, at, or before Bap∣tisme, or to discern the blood of Christ, and the water of the Spirit represented thereby. &c. which Elder persons baptized are bound to, and sin if they do not; yet, I hope this naturall uncapa∣bleness of Infants, in order to examination & dis∣cretion is no bar to their baptizing; therefore up∣on the same account (I argue now ad hominem) they are no just bar to Infants receiving the Lords Supper. If therefore I should say, God requires selfe-examination, and discerning the Lords Bo∣die of Elder persons, but not of Infants, would it not follow, that Infants might better be ad∣mitted to the Lords Supper, then Elder persons that are grosly ignorant, since there is not that danger of unworthy receiving, in Infants, as in Elder persons, and that because the absence of examination and discretion in them, makes them, co nomine, unworthy; not so in Infants, because God requires not those acts of them as condi∣tions, to make them evangelically worthy. Might I not here retort Mr. Humphrey his own argu∣ment upon himselfe, The Apostle saies, Let a man examine himselfe, and so eat. He doth not say, Let him not eat, unlesse he can and do examine

himselfe: should I add, that the Jewish Children ate the Passover, yet were naturally uncapable of it, as ours are of the Lords Supper. And further, that Children are Disciples as well as Elder per∣sons, and that the Disciples assembled together to break bread, Acts 20 7. (by which argument principally, we prove, women may, and ought, to receive) I might thereby not only discover the weakness of his two forementioned Reasons, but haply also might make him a Proselyte to Infant-receiving. And its a Question, whether a Minister might not with more comfort admini∣ster either Sacrament to an Infant, than to a gros∣ly ignorant or scandalous person, who either pro∣fessedly or really rejects the Covenant sealed and exhibited by those signes. Mr. Humphrey might very well therefore have spared those words, page 25. If the man had not been too slighting of me, he would never have run himselfe into the contempt of so many repetitions of this Infant pas∣sage: I will reckon them as I go, here is one.

Ans. I hope the Lord hath learned me to slight no man, much lesse a Minister: But its an hard matter, that I cannot presse an argument, which to me seemes solid (I have now demon∣strated there is more weight in it, then Mr. Humphrey was aware of) but I must presently be judged as slighting the person of my Opponent. I wish Mr. Humphrey would lay his hand upon his heart, and sadly consider, whether his bitter scoffs do not smell rather of slighting, then my frequent pressing of this, or any other argument. If the argument be valid, it cannot be too often pressed, and I am confident, I presse it no where, but where Mr. Humphrey puts me

upon it. Let me be good at Weight, and I shall not envy his being good at Number. I hope his reckonings will bring me in a good shot in the issue. His reckonings with me shall learn me I trust to make the more frequent and strict recko∣nings with my self.

Mr. Humphrey having granted that persons jure excommunicate, may be suspended, addes these words. If you shall demand of me a subflan∣tiall 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.

Ans. If Mr. Humphrey be reall in this his pro∣fession, hee cannot be an Enemy to Suspension, which (besides the warrant of Scripture) hath the Church for its Patron, whether by Church he understand the Greek and Latine Church be∣fore their Apostacy: Or generall and particular Councills, especially the Council of Ancyra. An. 308. or thereabouts, and the generall Coun∣cel of Nice gathered by Constantine the great, by whose Canons, Suspension from the Sacrament is ratified. Or if by Church he understand our own Church of England; Let him consult the Book of Common-Prayer, and particularly the Confirmation, where Ministers are ordered to Catechise in publick; and Governours of Fa∣milies are to send their Children and Servants to be Catechised. And the generall rule in the Close is, that none shall be admitted to the Holy Commu∣nion untill such time as he can say the Catechism. Here you have an evidence of Suspension for grosse ignorance. And for scandalous persons,

turn to the Communion in the Book of Com∣mon-Prayer: 1. They are dehorted from recei∣ving, in these words. Therefore if any of you be a Blasphemer, &c. or be in malice, envy, or in a∣ny other grievous crime; Bewaile your sins, and come not to this Holy Table, lest after the recei∣ving of that Sacrament, the Devill enter into you as he entred into Judas, and fill you ful of all in∣iquity, and bring you to destruction of Body and Soul. And in the Rubrick before the Communi∣on, persons, before receiving, were to give the Mi∣nister notice of their purpose therein; and if any of them were a notorious evill liver, or wronged his Neighbour by word or deed, or were in ma∣lice and hatred, hee was first to disswade them from the Sacrament, and if that would not prevail, he was to deny them the Sacrament, not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table untill he know them to be reconciled, &c. I might here adde the twenty sixth Canon, which expressly saith, No Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the Holy Communion, any of his Cure or Flock, which be openly known to live in sin ne∣torious, without repentance; Nor any who have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbours, untill they shall be reconciled. If by Church he mean, the Church of England as it now stands, and hath stood since the downfall of the Prelates; Hath not Suspension been revi∣ved and ratified by the Assembly of Divines sit∣ing at Westminster, an Assembly (I may say, I hope without flattery) as Learned and plous as ever the Christian World saw; And afterward confirmed by Civill Sanction of both Houses of Parliament in the Form of Church-Govern∣ment 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

that bare Church-membership (though never so much contradicted by practice) is sufficient for admittance to the Sacrament. Upon which ac∣count I might refer him to my former answers yet I shall adde a little.

Church-membership being a relation must needs have some foundation which foundation failing, the relation cannot hold: what is this foundation but consent (either implicite or explicite) to walk with the Church of God in all the waies of God for His glory, and their mutuall edification. This consent failing, the Foundation of Church∣relation ceases, and such a person unchurches himself, and that visibly too, where this consent failes visibly, as it doth in persons who wilfully refuse knowledge, and live against conviction in scandalous sins: And can the Church then bee blamed for denying the Sacrament (a speciall Church-priviledge) to those who renounce their Baptism, and unchurch themselves, who really deny the faith, and are worse then Infidels? 1 Tim. 5. 8. who are among us, but are not of us. 1 John 2. 19. And if such be in the visible Church, and ever will be, so long as it is Militant; can you blame Church-Officers for endeavouring to find out such by their fruits, Math. 7. 16. to uncase false Brethren, and deny them the Sign, who renounce the thing signified?

As for the seeming Contradiction, he would fasten on me, pag. 27, & 28. He that reads it ob∣servantly, may easily perceive the Cavill; since our undertaking to fit the people, is but condi∣tionall, provided they will be ruled by us; and therefore if ignorant persons will be ruled by us, we shall endeavour to fit them by instruction;

if scandalous persons would be ruled by us, wee shall teach them to live unblameably, whereby they may be visibly worthy: And to make all sorts really worthy (if they will be ruled by us) wee shall endeavour their conversion and actuall preparation though when we have done all we can, we dare not say, we endeavour our utmost de jure; we leave that to Mr. Humphrey.

The question about an unregenerate mans duty, to abstain from the Sacrament, which Mr. Humphrey touches upon, page 28, I shal pass here, as referring it to its proper place: And being right∣ly understood, I hope it will not appear so hetero∣dox.

Notes

• Pag. 19, 20, & 21.
• I here dis∣pute ad hominem.
• Pag. 23.
• Pag. 23.
• Page 23.
• I do not say this is all God re∣quires, but this is the least he re∣quires.
• Page 24.