in some known sin)
with
page 73. of my said
Bar (That truth of grace in the heart, is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper)
there being a sweet harmony, but no disso∣nancy between those two assertions; The former holding forth, that we judge of men by what is visible, of the Root by the Fruit, according to our Saviour's rule,
Matth. 7. 16. The latter shewing, that we judge not of persons by what is invisible; but, as sin, or grace appear visibly in any, so we judge. Were I sure
Judas had no grace, yet, if he were knowing, and walked or∣derly, I could not suspend him. Again were I sure
Peter had grace, yet, if he walk disorderly, he ought to be suspended, till his repentance be evident as well as his fall, 2
Thess 3.
verse 6. 14, 15. Further, let the Reader take notice, that, however Mr.
Humphrey, page 102. is pleased to favour me with a jest, for denying, that Profession in his sense, is the rule of Admis∣sion; yet, he only saies, but proves not,
That such profession is the ordinary road of Christians; a Tenet contrary to Scripture, to Antiquity, and the late, as well as present practice of our Church. (Here let the Reader know, that Mr.
Humphrey takes a piece of Profession, namely, Baptisme, and comming to Church, for a suffi∣cient ground of Admission to the Lords Supper.) We deny not, that compleat Profession is enough for Admission; but, such Professors must have 1. Competent knowledge. 2
ly. Suitable conver∣sation, besides initiation by Baptisme, and at∣tendance upon the publick Ordinances; other∣wise, like
Agrippa, they will be but halfe Pro∣fessors. As knowledge and pious carriage will