An Anti-Diatribe, Reply

An Anti-Diatribe · Reply

p. 177AN ANSWER TO M^r. HƲMPHREYS FIRST SERMON.

I Shall make two ſtands upon the whole;

How this Doctrine is

1. Raiſed.

2. Managed.

I. How this Doctrine is raiſed. His Text is, Mark 14.23.

And they all drank of it.

Theſe [all] he ſaith, were the twelve Apoſtles, and Chriſts whole Congregation; p. 178whence he gathers his free admiſſion to this Ordinance.

Anſw. Two things are here ſuppoſed or affirmed.

1. That they were the twelve Apoſtles which did communicate with Chriſt.

2. That theſe twelve were his whole Congregation. This is the Baſis of the whole; ſo that if theſe communicants were rather leſſe then twelve, or not Chriſts whole Congregation, then all is loſt on his ſide.

1. That all then preſent, when this Ordinance was inſtituted by Chriſt, did partake thereof is to be granted, ſo far the univerſality holds right; but,

2. That theſe all which dranke, were the twelve Apoſtles, is more then is ſaid, and is (at leaſt) a diſputable point.

Now to ſuppoſe or begge that which a man knowes to be doubted, and denied by many eminent Divines, this is not Scholaſtical. They might ſit down all, (in his ſenſe) and yet might not all continue out all the ſeveral actions which were performed at that ſitting.

3. To gather hence, that all howſoever profeſſing Chriſt ſhould be admitted to this Ordinance, ſeems to me weake, and moſt unſound. My reaſons are,

p. 179(1.) Becauſe Chriſt did not then call all that did profeſſe him, and ſo belong to him; he had many more Diſciples beſides the twelve, as is well known, which were part of Chriſts followers, though not ſo nearly altogether related as theſe. To ſay that the twelve were Chriſts whole Congregation, is but a fancy, however ſerviceable to the deſigne in hand; Chriſts followers were his Congregation, at leaſt the ſeventy were ſurely part of it, and therefore the twelve were not his whole Church, as is boldly affirmed. Theſe then were but part of his Diſciples, the chiefeſt and moſt reall, as Elders or Officers in a Church may be, ſo that their general admiſſion is no plea for free admiſſion. If all named Diſciples had been called to this holy Inſtitution, there had then been ſome footing for ſuch a Collection; but not ſo, not all, but only the choiceſt are called.

Beſides, (2.) Chriſts words point not out only this generality, but rather by that reſtriction ye (Take ye, drink ye,) ſhew us that Chriſt did not intend that ſpiritual feaſt for all howſoever profeſſing; but that ſuch as were his true Diſciples ſhould partake.

All Diſciples (we ſay) ſhould drinke p. 180of Chriſts cup, and only Diſciples, not bare born profeſſors, whoſe prophaneneſſe plainly ſheweth them to want all true love and duty to Jeſus Chriſt. You ſee how ſandy the foundation is on which the whole Book and Diſcourſe is built, viz. on a forced and wreſted ſenſe of Scripture. Thus ſhortly of the firſt.

II. How his Doctrine is managed.

The management is in three things:

1. Apology.

2. The ſtate of the queſtion.

3. Proof by Scriptures and Reaſons.

1. His Apology, wherein he commends his own meaning to be honeſt; ſo it may be, and yet his plea evil; ſometimes the meaning is better then the matter.

2. In his ſtating of the point,

1. He diſtinguiſheth the people of a viſible Church into capable, and uncapable. The uncapable are of three ſorts, Infants, Mad men, and Excommunicate perſons: all beſides (he ſaith) are capable.

And why are theſe uncapable? The Church (he will ſay) hath cenſured one ſort; but the other (I hope) are uncapable, p. 181becauſe they cannot diſcerne the Lords body, or examine themſelves; and if ſo, then all that cannot performe thoſe duties are uncapable alſo. Now it is ſure that all groſſely ignorant of Chriſt, all impenitent ſinners are unable to do theſe; therefore his own reaſon will conſtraine him to allow the keeping back of others, (viz.) as well ſpiritual fools, and mad men as natural. Folly and madneſſe can never be denied to be, where-ever ſinne reignes.

1. He diſtinguiſhes of mens capacity.

(1.) In regard of themſelves, this he dares not affirme as to all in the Church; ſhould he, the very ſtones might cry out, and confute him.

(2.) In regard of the Church, or Miniſters, and thus all are capable that do, or may come.

But what Scripture hath this diſtinction footing on? Thoſe that are incapable in themſelves, (we knowing them to be ſo) we ſhould judge to be ſuch, and exclude them. Can neceſſary profaners of the Sacrament be capable in reſpect of the Church, whoſe duty it is to preſerve the dignity of all Chriſts appointments? The Church muſt take none but ſuch as ſhe ſees, and may ſuppoſe capable. p. 182The reaſon to colour this diſtinction, is this: Miniſters are to offer Chriſt freely, (which is more formally laid downe afterwards, here but in a Parentheſis) therefore an univerſall capacity for all men, [whoever comes.] It ſeemes by this that even Jewes, and Pagans may not be denied this Saerament, if they come, and aske it; for theſe are called to beleeve, even all that beleeve not within the ſound of the Goſpel, ſo that here he ſeemes to forget his former limitation as to the Church; his Scripture is, Revel. 22.17. and Eſay 55.1. which indeed do hold out a free admiſſion of all ſenſible ſinners to beleeve on Chriſt, but to ground on this a liberty for the moſt inſenſible ſoul to come to this Ordinance, is a non ſequitur with a witneſſe.

In the foot of all, he beleeves that none except ipſo jure, or de facto, (that is, ſuch as are, or ought to be excōmunicated,) ſhould be excluded. Here is ſomewhat more then was before, he ſeemed to ſpeak of actual excommunication alone; now if there be but ſuch as ought to be excomunicated, they may be kept back. Truly this wil almoſt ma… the mans market. Such as he ſpeaks againſt do deſire to exclude none but theſe that … jure [of right] ſhould be cenſured by the p. 183Church; for this very excluſion is a noting, or cenſuring of them, as ſome wayes offending; Now let the Reader judge, what weight, and light theſe diſtinctions carry, wherein he rather contradicts himſelf, then cleares his matter.

3. His Scripture-proofs. His firſt Text is, Exod. 12.3, 47 50. verſes. They ſhall take every man his lambe, that is, This is my, law concering every family in Iſrael, all the congregaion, and every perſon rightly diſpoſed in their families muſt obſerve this. Of theſe generall termes, [every man, all the Congregation, the whole people] I may ſay (as to his uſe, Doloſus in univerſalibus; I deny not but the Evangelicall Sacrament is one in ſubſtance with the Paſſcover, which did foreſhew Chriſt to die for his peoples ſins, nor dare I ſlight arguments fetcht from the Old Teſtament, yet I conceive, that arguments out of the Old Teſtament, and matters of the Jewiſh Church may be ſometimes miſapplied unto the things of the New, and if I am not miſtaken, it is ſo here. Here is (viz. Exod. 12.) a free admiſſion. Why? All are commanded to eate, and all diſaccordingly. But many things may be ſaid to this.

1. This was the firſt Paſſcover, and ſome things were extraordinary in it, (viz.) p. 184ſprinkling of the blood, the ſtaff in hand, &c. As learned Interpreters obſerve.

2. The text only ſhewes what is the law of the Paſſeover as to all families, not medling with the lawes of ſuſpenſion from it, as to ſome perſons, which were afterwards given, (Numb. 9.6, 7. Levit. 22.47.) where ſome for ſeven dayes, others for a monethmonth were ſuſpended; this is plaine that no uncleane perſon was to eate of holy things, Paſſeover, or other. Some [then] knowing this, grumbled, as many do now, Wherefore are we kept back? Numb. 9.7? Gods anſwer indeed there is not an abſolute denial, & the reaſon is, becauſe the uncleanneſſe ſpoken of was not moral, it was but for a ceremoniall fault; now uncleanneſſe as to ſinnes lies till men repent; here are no ſet dayes therefore, but in that cauſe, God reſolves how long that typical filthineſſe ſhould exclude. Now becauſe no ſuch lawes were given at the firſt Paſſeover, ſhall we infer, therefore it was free for all, which other Scriptures ſhew to be falſe?

3. This text ſerves not Mr. Humphreys turn. For,

1. He excepts ſome, but here all are called; Make the Lords Table, as free as the Paſſeover, and it ſhould be extended to every man, without exception.

p. 1852. If legall pollution did keep off for a monethmonth (ſo long is the pollution judg'd to continue) as he grants, much more ought ſpirituall pollution to exclude, which is greater; how elſe do we anſwer, or riſe higher then the type?

3. It ſeems to me to be a very falſehood, that no ſpirituall pollution did keep off. Did not uncircumciſion of heart, declared by practice keep back? Why elſe are thoſe that have the charge of Gods Sanctuary blamed? Ezek. 44.7.8, 9. The Jewes thought they might not eat the Paſſeover, if they enter the Judgment-hall on an holy day, which was not forbidden by any ceremoniall law, therefore a morall, and not a legal pollution, Ioh. 18.23. And why elſe are the Prieſts reproved for putting no difference betwixt the holy, and profane?

4. The Paſſeover had an external benefit which all did partake of, therefore a right to that Ordinance ſo far, as externall; but the Lords Supper is a more ſpiritual Ordinance, no type. The wicked were termed Gods people then, not ſo in the New. See Camero, p.

5. Morally unclean were kept from the treſpaſſe-offering, which was leſſe then the Paſſeover, Num 5.6.7. How inevident then, if not untrue, is that aſſertion, Morall evils p. 186keep none from the Paſſeover.

2. To the ſecond proof, which is, 2. Chro. 30.5. They decreed to proclaime through all Iſrael from Dan to Beerſheba, that they ſhould come, and keep the paſſeover to the Lord.

Here is indeed a generall proclamation, but yet you ſee after, v. 18. that ſuch as ſanctified not themſelves, and yet came, did highly, offend the will of God; therefore there ſhould not have beene ſo free a coming, as he ſuggeſts. Beſides, they had all intereſt, as I ſaid, in the typicall, externall, and commemorate part of that Ordinance, Look upon Hezekiahs prayer, and you will finde that generall coming ſinful; and if ſo, ſome prevention would have done well; ſee alſo that even the hearts unpreparedneſſe, when men are legally pure, doth deſerve excluſion.

3. To the 3^d. proof, which is, 1. Cor. 10.17. We being many are all partakers of one bread.

Here he hath found the word [all] and this is victory enough; but (with his leave) ſome might be excluded for all this; the ſenſe is but this, we partakers do all partake of one bread; If in that Church they did ſuffer all, or too many to partake, that was their fault, and it is ſet downe to warn us againſt the like, not to be a rule to us.

p. 187This miſtake I wiſh thoſe men would ſee, that would faine make the faults of the Corinthians to become our rule. What if theſe that were Idolaters, and drunkards did eate? This (I beleeve) is not ſet down, to teach or allow us to admit the like ſcandalous ones; but rather to warne us, that we might be more pure. I hope the faults of particular Churches, & beleevers are not recorded for our imitation. Againe, it doth not appeare to me that any of thoſe Corinthians were ſo groſſe as you make them. How is it poſſible that any one embracing Chriſt, can remaine an actuall, and open Idolater? Idolatry was their great ſinne before converſion, from which they were turned to beleeve in Chriſt. How can it then be conceived that they ſtill retained it? It is true, that they did not keep themſelves ſo cleare, as they ſhould have done from Idolatry, in that they might be ſometimes preſent (as a Proteſtant at Maſſe) in their idol-temples, or elſe (as I thinke) in that they eat with them, eating of the very meate ſacrificed by the Pagans, and drinking in the ſame cups, in which they offered. This was very baſe, it was in them Idolatry, they were guilty of that ſinne, by ſitting, and eating with them in ſuch a manner, that men given to Idolatry (as you p. 188ſpeake) that is, ſerving of Idols, were admitted to the Lords table, this (in my opinion) is very unlikely, if not falſe; do not you beleeve any longer, that the Church of Corinth was ſo corrupt, as that they would take into fellowſhip Gentiles, without an utter renouncing their knowen ſinne of Idolatry; yet this you do ſurmiſe (very ſinfully, as I thinke) that you may make men beleeve an over-eaſineſſe in this Church as to receaving members, and perſwade the ſtronger to your own Idol of general admiſſion to the Sacrament.

4. The next Scripture is, 1 Cor. 10.4, 5.

To this ſome anſwer, that this Sea, Rock, & Manna, were not Sacraments to the Jewes, but their uſe was externall, to feed their bodies, which had they wanted they muſt have died; but I rather anſwer,

1. That theſe were extraordinary things, and Ab extraordinario ad ordinarium non valet argumentum.

2. 'Tis true, they had ſome Spirituall ſignification, and therefore God was diſpleaſed with that very action proceeding from unworthy ones.

3. Their ſinnes did follow, not forego thoſe actions, at leaſt one of them (viz.) p. 189Baptiſm in the cloud & ſea. Therefore this proves not, that ſuch as are ſcandalous before, may be admitted to the Evangelicall Supper. How far then is this place from the mans purpoſe, notwithſtanding his crowing upon it? The Apoſtle preſſeth it to this end, that things ſpirituall be not abuſed by carnall, and ungodly ones, which is our aime, and deſire.

5. His next argument is from the Parable of the feaſt, Mat. 22. and, Luk. 14.

This to ſerve his turne muſt ſignifie the Sacramental Supper, whereas it ſeems much more to point unto the preaching of the Goſpel, or the Supper of grace, to which ſouls are invited. It is that feaſt which the Prophets called to, before ever this Ordinance was inſtituted. See, Iſai. 55.1, &c.

The ſcope of Parables (I grant) is argumentative, but you ſhall finde him arguing from particular branches, as that of compelling men to come in, which he will have to ſignifie their duty, which is a wilde fancy; rather (as I apprehend) the ſcope of this Parable may be either,

Firſt, by ſending three ſeveral times, to ſignifie the three ſeveral diſpenſations of the Goſpel. Firſt, as a breakfaſt, Gen. 3. Secondly, under the Law, as a Dinner. Thirdly, under the Goſpel, as a Supper. p. 190For that which is a Supper in Luke, is a Dinner in Matthew.

Secondly, in that it is a Supper, it ſhews we have now the fulleſt, and laſt diſpenſation of Chriſt; as a Supper is the laſt meale of a day.

Thirdly, it may note Gods ſending firſt to the Jews, who for the generality refuſed; then to the Gentiles, who were far off. The compelling may ſignifie the Spirits convincing, or Gods drawing of ſouls to Jeſus Chriſt.

The love of Chriſt conſtraines (ſaith the Apoſtle;) and the Spirit of Chriſt doth convince, when it begins converſion; and the love of Chriſt drawes, when it ſeazeth upon a wounded, and bleeding heart for ſinne.

So that all theſe flouriſhes from this Parable (reſtraining it to the Sacrament) ſeem much beſides the minde of God therein. I might note other defects, as where he ſaith, the ſervant brought in the man without the wedding-garment, which the text doth not ſay. Laſtly, the man will have a free Table, and a free Pulpit to be one. I meane the ſame liberty and latitude in coming to the Sacrament, as in hearing, which is a groſſe miſtake, contrary to Scripture, reaſon, and Antiquity.

p. 1916. Another Scripture is, Mat. 3.11. with Mark. 1.5. where John baptizeth all; whence is inferred an equall latitude for the other Sacrament; this argument he takes to be very ſtrong; but the Reader ſearching the Scripture, will finde it weak.

1. John did baptize none, but ſuch as came in a capacity for it, and he required confeſſion of ſinnes, yea, fruits of repentance too; give us theſe, and we ſhal ask no more. Johns example ſerves us much better then him. 1. John did not baptize thoſe Phariſees which he calls a generation of Ʋipers, they wanted the fruits he called for; the Publicans came in a capacity, the Phariſees not, therefore checkt by Chriſt; See, Luk. 7.29, 30. And all the people that heard him, and the Publicans juſtified God, being baptized with the baptiſme of John. But the Phariſees, and Lawyers rejected the counſel of God againſt themſelves, being not baptized of him. The Phariſees came to his baptiſme; which might be to ſee the adminiſtring of it, or as ſent. See, John. 1.24. And they which were ſent, were of the Phariſees; which is the judgement of diverſe godly learned; this might be, and yet they not be baptized: the text is plaine, that ſome did refuſe, if not all: and therefore are checkt by John for reſting on that p. 192carnall priviledge of being Abrahams ſeed; had ſome of the Phariſees only reſuſed, they had not been more to be blam'd then the Publicans, for ſome of them rejected alſo.

Secondly, thoſe that were baptized by John whether Phariſees, or Publicans, did all confeſſe their ſinnes, they were firſt tryed by that; now grant this to be done before the Lords Supper in a ſerious way, and we are friends. The drunkards, and profane perſons, which he would have freely admitted muſt firſt confeſſe their drunkenneſſe to be a foule ſinne, and take ſhame to themſelves for it, or we may exclude them by his own argument; for Eadem eſt ratio utriuſque Sacramenti; and John did not baptize any without this triall by confeſſion of ſinnes, which was an act, and evidence of their repentance.

7. The next Text is, Acts. 2.41. Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized, &c. And did communicate.

How little this Text helps him, the Reader will plainly ſee, when he hath noted the great difference between thoſe thouſands, and our multitudes.

1. Theſe were all converted ones, ours many of them making but a dead and contradictory p. 193profeſſion, ſome as void of the knowledge of Religion as the Heathen, and others worſe then Pagans in their practice. Is it not the mans doting on his Sacramentall liberty, which keeps him from ſeeing any difference betweene thoſe converts, and [ſome] looſe profeſſors among us? I would faine learne from this Author, what more could be ſaid of the trueſt Saints, then is ſaid of theſe, Acts. 2. Firſt, they are pricked in heart, ours (alas many) inſenſible ſinners, blinded, and hardened creatures. Secondly, they affectionatly deſirous after the ways of ſalvation, ours (ſome) enemies in heart, and very croſſe to good wayes. Thirly, they were ſtedfaſt and conſtant in the communion with the Apoſtles, and practice of holy duties; theſe ſtand off from the people of God as hypocrites, maligning and defaming them; what they can, not having ſo much as a forme of godlineſſe, if you expect their cuſtomary coming to the Church.

It ſeems to argue ſome want of ſpiritual ſight and love to holineſſe, when ſcandalous perſons, only becauſe they profeſſe, muſt be admitted to the Lords Table upon this ground alone, becauſe thouſands of precious godly ones had this liberty of generall admiſſion; in his next let him p. 194teach us how we ſhall know common drunkards and ſwearers to be converted, which muſt be, or this argument dies; it was, I know, ſome twenty yeares a go, the opinion of Chancellours and Officials, that albaptized perſons were to be held regenerate, and upon this account their uſe was to check ſuch Miniſters as did difference mens ſpirituall eſtates in their preaching.

8. Acts. 10.28. God hath ſhewed me that I ſhould not call any man common, or unclcane.

He very much likes this place as peculiar for expreſſion; See how fancy may bring a man in love, and make him bleſſe God for that which ſhould make him mourne; he judges no man unclean, and yet the Apoſtle teacheth us to call, and account ſome ſwine, even all ſuch as wallow in their ſins. But let us ſee his ſtrength from this Scripture. Peter he ſaith was ſcrupulous about admitting the Gentiles in Chriſtian communion, and well he might, till God reſolved him; I much queſtion whether Mr. Humfry can ſhew ſo good a warrant for his reſolvedneſſe to admit ſcandalous ones to the Lords Table: If he have had a viſion from heaven to juſtifie his general admiſſion, let him tell us; He hath not any clear light from Scripture, and yet he is reſolved, p. 195ſo was not Peter; Why muſt the Gentiles be taken into fellowſhip? Firſt, becauſe the wall of partition is taken down. Secondly, becauſe God gives of his Spirit & grace to them; I pray ſee Peters Comment. v. 35. In every Nation he that feareth God; and worketh righteouſneſſe is accepted of him; Such Gentiles as feare God; yea, all men fearing God muſt be embraced; muſt all Gentiles be embraced? No, but ſuch as believe, receive the Word, had the Holy Ghoſt, and repentance unto life. See Acts. 11.1.18. Acts. 10.46. The Gentiles upon this account are not accounted uncleane. If your conſcience be ſo large, as not to account thoſe men unclean, who want all hopefull evidences of grace, yet do not ſo abuſe the Scripture, and Peters example, as to make theſe your ſupporters.

9. His laſt texts are, Iſay 55.1. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come. Rev. 22.17. Whoſoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. Mat. 11.28. Come unto me all ye that labour. 1 Tim. 2.4. Who will have all men to be ſaved. John 6.37. All that the Father giveth me, ſhall come unto me.

To ſpeak nothing particularly unto theſe Scriptures; here are two groſſe miſtakes. 1. That the tender or offer of Chriſt in p. 166the Word preacht ought to be no larger then admiſſion to the Lords Table; Chriſt and grace are to be propoſ'd in the miniſtery of the Word, even to the wicked, being ſenſible of ſinne; yea, to them, that they may be ſenſible; but that before men do beleeve, or are converted, they ſhould have enjoyment of the Sacrament, is contrary to all the practice of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles. 2. Another miſtake is this, That we ſo ſtraighten the Ordinance, as to ſhut out poor ſinners from it; This here, and elſewhere he quaintly dilates on, and aggravates to ſtir up hatred againſt godly Miniſters. But Sir, I would have you know, that we embrace every poor ſinner, ſo farre as we can diſcerne; and they are only ſcandalous, and groſſe ſinners, ſuch as want feeling of ſinne, and ſpirituall poverty that we willingly exclude; do you no better underſtand who are poor ſinners? Alas poor Froome.

Having ſpoken to his Scriptures, I come next to his Reaſons, and conſiderations, which are ſix, or ſeven, as he numbers them.

Reaſ. 1. His firſt Reaſon is ſhortly this. The Sacraments are a viſible word, a declaring of Chriſt crucified; This Sacrament ſpoken of, ſets forth Chriſt to the eyes, as the Goſpel preacht doth to the eare; 'tis p. 197only to diverſe ſences, there is all the difference; hence he confidently infers, that the ſame latitude muſt be in communicating, and hearing; and here, ſaith he, I ſtand as upon a Rock; Now I ſhall try whether he build upon a Rock indeed, or upon the ſand. Sir, you do in this tell us that the forenamed Ordinances aggree in their matter, this is moſt true; but that there is no difference between them, but only in this, that they are to diverſe ſences, this is what you affirme, but do not prove; Some difference beſides in their proper and peculiar uſe, is apparent; the Word ſerves to call ſinners, this Sacrament to nouriſh, and confirme believers. Multitudes of authorities, even of the moſt learned and godly might I heap, who are ſo rationall as to reject this Reaſon, but I ſhould argue, and reaſon out the difference between us in this particular. Where do you finde that ever the Sacrament was made uſe of but to confirme, and comfort ſuch as had already the effect of the Word upon their hearts? Therefore although the Sacrament doth repreſent Chriſt to believers, (which is all you prove, and this is not denyed) yet it doth not follow but the Word hath a precedency, and muſt firſt call and diſpoſe before this Sacramentall declaration is propor for any p. 198eyes; Go teach, and boptize, ſaith out Saviour; firſt teach, make diſciples, and then baptize; this [de adultis] is found reaſoning; we muſt not baptize men of yeares, much leſſe give the Lords Supper without ſome fruits of teaching, appears. Our bleſſed Saviour only mentions thoſe two, Word, and Baptizme for the gathering of Churches, and ſo as the Word muſt go before Baptizme too; As for the Lords Supper, that follows both. It is by the Goſpel phreacht in a proper ſence, that ſinners are gathered Eph. 1.10. Though we be not about gathering Churches (unleſſe our peoples obſtinacy drives us to it) but ſtudying and ſtriving to reforme our Congregations corrupted by a too long diſuſe of Scripture diſcipline, yet here to perſecute this rationally and effectually, it will be neceſſary that we try who they be that are wrought upon by the word, at leaſt that we for a time keep off them from the Ordinance who appear to be wicked ones. We are about I ſay to redreſſe, and perfect our Church-communion according to the Word; our Covenant, and will of the chief Magiſtrate. Now, why may we not obſerve the ſame rule in reforming, which the Apoſtle did in gathering?

So then, I grant you what your texts p. 199ſay, namely, that the Sacrament doth declare Chriſt cruſified to believers, but it followes not (as I take it) that it muſt be a proper Ordinance for the ignorant, and ſcandalous to partake of; The Word in its proper latitude reaches to the world, to every creature, to the old creature, as wel as to the new; but if we make the Word & Sacrament to be (as you ſay) of the ſame latitude, we ſhall confound the Church and world, which the Word diſtinguiſhes and oppoſes; but you ſay, are there any to whom the matter of the Word may not be declared?

Sir, the bare declaring, or ſetting forth of Chriſt is not the thing we ſtand upon; we ſet not bars to mens hearing, or ſeeing, but to their receiving; the Sacrament doth more then declare, it doth ſeal Chriſt, now this ought not to be done, but to beleevers only; I meane, to ſuch as in a rationall charity may be judged ſuch.

The matter of the Goſpel may be declard to any to the Word preacht, or any other holy way, even to the moſt ſcandalous, if they will give it the hearing; but it doth not follow, that therefore in this Ordinance which doth not declare only, but ſeal, they ſhould have equall fellowſhip; The declaring or ſetting forth of Chriſt even p. 200to the worſt diſhonours not Chriſt, but the taking of ſuch as are ſcandalous into full communion, and owning them as members of Chriſt, I dare not ſay that this either pleaſeth, or honours Chriſt. The Doctrine of the Sacrament, or Chriſt Sacramentall may be ſet before them, but it is their admiſſion to partake, that we oppoſe; The Sacraments are (you ſay) ſeales as ſignes; As much as they are ſignes as ſeales; 'Tis true, theſe two ſigning and ſealing are diſtinct ends of the Lords Supper, they are ſignes to repreſent, and ſeales to confirme. So farre as they repreſent they may be ſomewhat ſuitable unto ſcandalous perſons, but nothing as they confirme. Would you have them confirm'd in grace, who have no true grace at all? Your two lame ſimilitudes contributes nothing, that the ſeale is not to be divided from the writing, we eaſily grant, but you will have the writing ſeal'd to him which is no purchaſer, which is abſurd. You tell us how the writing and ſeal are delivered together unto the Church, but our diſpute is about the Churches delivery of them to creatures. Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper were delivered together unto the Church, muſt the Church therefore p. 201deliver them together? then Infants muſt partake of the Lords Supper as well, and as ſoone as of Baptiſme. What an abſurdity is this? Becauſe men are under the declaration of ſuch a bargaine as heaven, that therefore the Church muſt ſeal it to them in particular, in hope that they hereafter will have a minde to buy, 'tis pity ſuch ſtuffe ſhould ſtand under the notion of reaſon. No man (I grant) will ſay that the Proclamation belongs to any, to whom the ſeal belongs not, nor will any one (well adviſ'd) ſay, that either Proclamation or Seale doth belong to a Rebell that doth not lay downe his armes, which are your owne wrods. The Goſpel belongs in a fence to all ſuch as are under it, God ſends it to moſt wretched ſinners, offers them conditions of peace with himſelf, ſeal'd with Chriſts bloud, but the doubt is, whether theſe promiſes, and tenders muſt be actually and formally ſealed to men, becauſe this Proclamation, they being ſtill in armes, this you ſeeme to affirme.

What you mean by confirming men to come in, I ſcarſe underſtand, I think they ſhould come in before they be confirm'd, or elſe your confirming will prove to be (as it is) a ſad deluſion.

p. 202The Authour adds force to his firſt Reaſon by four conſiderations. He had need adde ſome force, for his reaſon wants it.

His firſt conſideration is this. 1He findes the Goſpel is to be preacht to every creature, and baptizing, which includes this Sacrament (as he ſaith) in the ſame Commiſſion; I Anſwer, the Lords Supper is in the ſame Commiſſion, if you underſtand the whole Goſpel, elſe the Word and Baptiſme are named you know without it; If Baptiſme as large as preaching of the Word, becauſe it is in the ſame commiſſion? I hope not; you know many were preacht unto, who nevertheleſſe were never baptized, neither ought to be.

The Second conſideration is. 2The whole Goſpel is to all, and offers Chriſt freely, therefore you infer, that we, who would have a poor ſoul come to Chriſt, and yet will not have the ſame come to the Sacrament, deale amiſſe. Anſwer. Sir, you are a ſtranger (as it ſeemes) to the actings of godly Miniſters, you conceive ſo groſſely of them.

1. That they refuſe to admit poor ſouls, this is your ſlaunder, I told you before of this, you diſtinguiſh not between groſſe ſinners, and ſenſible ſinners

p. 2032. That they receive not men though qualified according to Chriſts minde. This is another falſe witneſſe.

Sir, it is Chriſts minde that men ſhould be qualified with grace, as with knowledge, to diſcerne Chriſt in that Ordinance, &c. And therefore do his faithfull Miniſters look after theſe things.

3. He coming with knowledge and repentance, or requiring and looking after theſe, contrary to free grace? I had thought that free grace had only oppoſed merrit, not caſt off all qualifications as the fruites, and ſignes of it. Cannot Chriſt be free in the Sacrament, unleſſe the ignorant, and ſcandalous perſon be alſo admitted to it? I know well, we muſt come to this Ordinance, without the leaſt thought of the merit of our graces; but yet he that comes to the Lords Table without this price in his heart, and life, will be dealt with as he was that wanted a wedding garment; Indeed by your arguing you make grace not free, but looſe.

The third conſideration is an inconſiderate one, a very darke, and ſad one; 3It doth affirme or ſuppoſe, that the giving or applying the ſeale of the New Covenant is a proper means to convince, and ſave them. Anſwer. Sir, the uſe of the Ordinance p. 204of the Goſpel in Chriſts owne way, and order is beſt; I am confident you neever read that Chriſt, or the Apoſtles uſed this way of conviction. The experience of the moſt godly in all parts of the land, and of the world, will riſe up againſt this your aſſertion; The ſealing of the Covenant to men, before they underſtand it, and take hold of it, is the common cutthroats of ſouls in our Pariſhes. Which way ſoever we take it, it is the ſpirit, and his fulneſſe that doth convince. The Sacrament is not the fulneſſe of the Word, but the Spirit; the Word may come with the outward ſeal, and yet not come in its full vertue, as you ſay.

The fourth conſideration is. That the Goſpel is a Goſpel of peace, but the courſe of ſeparation, or admitting only ſome, this is unpeaceable. Anſwer. Have you never read thoſe words of Chriſt? I came not to ſend peace, but a ſword. The godly will more peacable, and quiet, when the ſcandalous are put from them. You would have a worldly, and fleſhly unity kept up, whatever become of purity and Reformation. Sir, The peace of the Church will not well, nor long ſtand without a holy uſe of all Church Cenſures. It is the ſweet ſaying of a p. 205godly man. It is farre better to occaſion wrath in the bad, then grief in the good. We are and muſt be tender of unity, but not inſenſible of corruptions in Gods worſhip. We look upon the diſtempers in many mens ſpirits, their railing, and many created difficulties to the godly to be evidences that the work is Gods, who can, if not calme, yet reſtraine the ſpirits of the worſt; you are told that wounded ſinners are not to be rejected: in your next impreſſion leave out your Proſopopria's, we take Saints of the loweſt forme, and acknowledge none to be ſuch, unleſſe they acknowledge themſelves to be the chiefeſt of ſinners.

Reaſ. 2. This is from the nature of the viſible Church containing a mixture, now our Congregations being Churches, they ſhould have this Sacrament in a free, and mixt way.

Anſw. I ſhall in this oppoſe you upon your own principles, let the Churches of England be true Churches, (as it wil not be hard to prove many of them to be) yet are they corrupted through the negligence of former times, that there may be need of Reformation or ſeparation in our Churches, to prevent ſeparation from them.

I do not beleeve, nor can you prove, p. 206that we ſhould own men for Church-members for bare profeſſion.

Sir, We are not about to take this Ordinance from our Churches, but to fit our Churches for this Ordinance; ſo that what you ſay is little to the purpoſe, you allow particular Churches to uſe the higheſt cenſure of Excommunication, why not this of Suſpenſion, acting in, and for the Reformation of our Diſcipline according to Gods Word, and our Covenant, whereof you take as little notice, as if you were a man of another Nation. What you ſay about the nature of a viſible Church, I ſhall not oppoſe, only I muſt point at your ignorance in making our ſeparation, and Chriſt to be one. Chriſts is a final determination of all men as to their eſtates. Ours is but a ſevering of ſome in order to their future ſalvation, if they belong to God. We note ſome for ignorance, that they may get knowledge; and others for their wickedneſſe, that they may repent. We ſhould indeed preſume, and (as you ſay) anticipate Chriſts work, did we attempt, or deſigne, a general, or final ſeparation. Hypocrites (as the tares) will grow together with the wheat to the end. This is all the ſcope of that Parable, but the p. 207force of your argument is built not upon the ſcope, but upon the circumſtance, namely the ſervants diſcerning; which is but a branch of the Parable, and added to fill up this Similitude, of no vertue therefore to prove that known ſinners muſt not be kept off, when diſcerned. The Parable ſpeaks of hypocrites, as you your ſelves ſay well, now hypocrites are not diſcerned but by God onelyonly. Is not here a contradiction? If we put theſe things together.

Let us come now to Chriſts example. What is that?

1. He converſes with Publicans, and ſinners, but where I pray you? Was it at the Sacrament? I hope not, but at their owne Table. This he did that he might have occaſion to do them good by his Word. But what is this to the purpoſe? We know it is our duty to hold forth Chriſt to the worſt of men, if they will hear us.

2. But in this Ordinance, Chriſt alſo converſed with Judas, ſomething you ſay for this; and I could quickly ſay as much againſt it; I will only tell you, what a learned man ſaith to others, that you have choſen a bad Porter to let in men to the Sacrament, nor have you well ſtudied p. 208the Evangeliſts I ſee: for you might have found the three Evangeliſts to differ ſomewhat, which might have abated your confidence.

Luke indeed ſpeaks of Judas after the Cup, but Matthew, and Mark before; and it is the opinion of very many godly and learned, that there is a recapitulation in Lukes Narration. As for John he is expreſſely againſt you. Immediately after the Sop, (ſaith he) which was before the Sacrament, Judas went out, being now diſcovered, and in a ſort caſt out, as thoſe words intimate (John 13.30.) which was before the Suppers adminiſtring; ſo then what was dark as to the diſagreeing of the other Evangeliſts about the order, and Judas his preſence, that John clearly reſolves, ſaying, That he went immediately out upon our Saviours diſcovering him.

That which thou doeſt do quickly, which words were ſpoken before the Sacrament.

Here is little argument in all this; But he will tell you that it is a poore ſhift to ſay, Judas was a cloſe hypocrite.

Anſw. He aimes (I know) at an Objection lying againſt him, namely this, That though Judas had received, yet this p. 209will not help him, or his cauſe. Had he prov'd that to be a ſhift, which he ſo ſtiles, he had written ingenuouſly, but he ſayes it, and proves it not.

The truth is, That though the moſt eminent of our Divines, (at leaſt many of them) oppoſe Judas his receiving, (which ſhould have moved this Author unto a little more conſideration, and modeſty in faying down his opinion) yet the thing is left by others as doubtful, and ſo hath it ever ſtood in the Church, ſo that there is no ſuch evidence of fact, as he ſpeaks of; if there had, men of cleare heads, and upright hearts would ſee it, as well as himſelf,

Sir, let me give you and others this Caveat. You know the ſtory of Judas, beware leſt your contending for a free admiſſion to the Lords Table, prove not as traiterous to the Churches purity, as Judas did to Chriſt himſelf.

Reaſ. 3 Reaſ. 3. Admiſſion to, and tranſaction of the buſineſſe of this Sacrament muſt be with much charity, and humility; without judging, eſpecially in Miniſters; But this is impoſſible, where there is not a free admiſſion. Thus he.

Anſw. But what time will he take to prove his Minor?

p. 210He ſhews us not the leaſt proof or reaſon, onelyonly flies to his own experience, which is a weak prop. Should a Jew go this way to work, how might the precious doctrine of our Saviour be decried? That Doctrine which is of God ought to bring forth, and continue love among men; but ſee the Goſpel doth the contrary. What ſects, what warres, what bitterneſſe from this way? The Popiſhly affected commonly argue in this ſort againſt the Goſpel. Look (ſay they) what ſtirs, and blood ſince Luther, the founder of their Reformation: The truth is; That when men faile in their judgements they muſt needs faile in their obſervations, ſo doth this Authour; He is fallen in love with a free admiſſion to the Sacrament, (and ſo is the generality of men) and therefore layes load upon our opinion and practice, voting it to be the ready way to heart-burnings, and ſuch like evils in mens ſpirits; I will not ſay, but theſe courſes of Reformation may occaſion and draw forth ſuch evils, but ſurely mens own luſts and wickedneſſes are the cauſes of them. And why ſo much pride, and hatred, and contempt of others in Miniſters, and other Chriſtians, perſwaded to exclude ſome from the Lords Table? p. 211May we not be humble, and loving too, and yet careful, and tender over the Ordinances of Chriſt? The Spirit of a Miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt (as I take it) carries him to a ſpecial love of the godly. Can we not be loving to men unleſſe we be cruel to the blood of Chriſt? Lay down therefore theſe uncharitable conjectures, and evil ſurmiſes of Gods ſervants: the faithfulneſſe, humility, and gentleneſſe of ſome of theſe is very evident to the hearts of the godly, and yet of a contrary judgement to you in this matter of the Sacrament; Your text 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. is not to be underſtood of ſuch forbearing of evil men, as rationally conduces to pleaſe them in their ſins, and blinde their ſouls; ſuch ſuffering and bearing with evil ones is moſt ungracious; ſee what follows his ſuffering, and bearing, In meekneſſe inſtructing, ver. 25. This all godly ones will ſtrive to obſerve; ſuch as they debar they alſo lovingly informe of their unfitneſſe, and intreate to forbear till they ſhall be apprehended to be in a better capacity. Can you tell us of any won to repentance by your free way? truly we know none; but if we may ſpeak our experiences, as you do yours, we finde very many hardened in their ſins by this indulgence, which you plead for.

p. 212Here you minde us of three paſſages of our Saviours.

1 From that Parable of the Phariſee, and Publican, where you go about to faſten Phariſaiſme upon us, but with ſome mollifying; not a proud, only a ſtrict and rigid Phariſaiſm; here he is ſomewhat more modeſt then others who are of his minde in our diſpute. We are Puritans, Novatians, Chathariſts, Donatiſts, or what you will, if we be found deſirous to mend our Church-ſociety by examining and ſevering of our people. But what if this be his own blinde zeal? For, firſt, he knows not that we turn off any poore ſinners: no, we embrace where we ſee any (though the leaſt meaſure of) true ſpiritual poverty, Secondly; I might tell him, that he rather inverts the uſe of this bleſſed Ordinance, and by his freeneſſe layes it open to manifeſt prophanation. Chriſt ordained it to be a Diſciple-priviledge, a bond to unite his people, and he would have it lie common even to them that have not the face of Chriſtians in their practice. O bleſſed Lord! open the eyes, and rectifie the zeal of theſe men, who are more forward to ſatisfie the deſires, and cries of carnal men, then they are to advance the Churches holineſſe, or preſerve the dignity of thy holy inſtitutions.

p. 2132. The ſecond memorable paſſage concludes Chriſts freeneſſe in eating with ſinners to be a reaſon for a free communion; but I have told him already, Chriſt was more free at the Phariſees Table, then at his own. Chriſt that did eat with Publicans, did celebrate his Supper with his own Diſciples onelyonly, he took none of them in there; nay, he left out very many that profeſſed him to be their Lord; How impertinent therefore is that paſſionate exclamation? O ſweet Jeſus! &c. I ſee Rhetorick muſt ſerve, when Logick failes.

3. The third place is in John 8. 3of the woman taken in adultery, of whom our Saviour ſaith: Let him that is without ſin himſelf, caſt the firſt ſtone at her. I could tell him of a better uſe to be made of this example; though Chriſt knew this woman to be a grievous ſinner, yet becauſe no proof came, he would not cenſure her; he would act ſo as he might example us; not as a God, who knew all things, but as a Judge, who muſt know but what is prov'd. And this may afford a reaſon, why Judas was not excluded, (if we grant him admitted) becauſe Chriſt would not exclude him upon his divine knowledge, as he would not condemne the woman ſpoken of; as to men, Judas was as free from ſcandal p. 214as any of the reſt; beſides, if this be a reaſon why we ſhould not cenſure, and note open offenders, becauſe we our ſelves have ſins and corruptions about us, then why ſhould not this hinder the Church from excommunicating alſo, which he himſelf grants to be a Chriſtian cenſure? I confeſſe the feeling of our own ſins ſhould make us act humbly, and compaſſionately, but that this ſhould take us off from cenſuring others in the way of our callings. and offices, becauſe God may cenſure us; this is a meere fancy; God without doubt can cenſure us all, and will as for other ſinnes, ſo for our unrighteous cenſures of others, yea, for our not cenſuring when there is cauſe. Why falls he ſo foule upon the Churches cenſures? Why doth he not tell the Judges on the bench, that they are ſinners themſelves and therefore ſhould not condemn theeves, and murtherers? The Churches ſpiritual cenſures are in the hands of men, ſubject to like paſſions with others, even to all humane infirmities, and if this had been a barre to their execution Chriſt would (not doubt), have found other hands for them.

Reaſ. 4 Reaſ. 4. This is drawn from the vanity, (as he ſaith) formality, impoſſibility p. 215of ſelecting people to this Ordinance, all theſe ſeparations come to nothing.

Anſw. Anſw. He hath heard (I beleeve) of ſome raſh, groundleſſe ſeparations to have run unto a ſhameful extreme. What of this? doth it follow that a moderate ſevering (as to ſome Ordinance) of the more precious (in a viſible Church) from the vile muſt needs end ſo too? he might (were he willing) obſerve the contrary in many places of this land, where this diſcipline hath been long practis'd, and the Churches ſtanding to this day, and the godly walking with much ſtedfaſtneſſe in them; ſo then, here an untruth is affirm'd; & he bids men to look for that which I hope they ſhall never ſee; here he makes this query under his reaſon, Who are to be accounted fit? Are all that make profeſſion? or only real beleevers the men? I anſwer, We do not think bare profeſſion to be enough to challenge admiſſion unto this Ordinance, where there is a denial thereof by ignorance, or a contradiction by ungodlineſſe of life; and yet we do not ſtand to this that all muſt be ſincere; you are out therefore in your diviſion, it wants a member; we expect rationall grounds for our hopes of mens ſeriouſneſſe in what they profeſſe; but are not p. 216for certainty, and infallibility, as to their gracious eſtates. We are not aſham'd to profeſſe that we would have our Churches as pure as by any ſanctified meanes we can make them, and yet are enemies to the endleſſe, infinite ſeparation you point at. As for your girds at Purity, God may perchance make you mourne without an Onion.

Reaſ. 5 Reaſ. 5. This is gathered from a ſuppoſed uniformity of Gous ſervice in all other parts of worſhip; the command of God is univerſal, therefore ſhould be ſo as to the Communion. Anſw. Some incloſure you your ſelf have yielded, as to children, mad men, &c. All therefore may not do this. In a Church reformed, as to goverment, all (I grant) ſhould be admitted which are not under the Churches cenſure; but with us hath been a long neglect of diſcipline, with us are multitudes of prophane ones, and no ſuch thing as excommunication in uſe. The preſent incloſure put upon this Sacrament, is a way to redreſſe our fellowſhip, and communion, which are grown ſo corrupt, that without a purge there can be ſmall hopes of ever ſeeing order or diſcipline among us. Had you, and others the patience to wait till the Churches hedge be made up, you might then have p. 217your deſired freedome. While the Church is without incloſure, the Sacrament will need one very much; When the ſtreetdoore lies open, there is the more need to lock the inner roomes. You ſay, that unregenerate men, who cannot performe duties without ſinne, are not yet to be excluded from any. [You ſay] This is your ſtrength and common thunderboult; ſhould I but ſay the contrary, this were a juſt anſwer to you. But to give you better then you bring: you would faine (I ſee) have all duties alike, but this will not be yielded you. There be duties that be naturall, and there be duties that be inſtituted; Theſe you ſhould learn to diſtinguiſh. There be intiall duties; To theſe unregenerate men muſt be call'd and mov'd, as to pray, beleeve, repent. Prayer and hearing of the Word, are ſuch, that whatever the men be, they are to endeavour, and act in theſe as the meanes of grace. Notwithſtanding that it is any ones duty to come to the Sacrament being unregenerate, this you will hardly prove. Certainly Chriſt commanded not thoſe to come, that cannot performe what he wills, nor diſcerne what he offers. Every one muſt pray to God, and praiſe God. It is their duties as creatures to do thoſe things, and they ſinne as much or p. 218more in not doing, as in doing. But to receive the Sacrament, this is a duty of men, not as creatures, but as beleevers. And he that is judg'd unfit by his Miniſter or the Church, doth not ſinne in ſtaying away.

To your Grammatical conceit, which here followes, I returne you this: Why do you not as well queſtion Lily, as to his Grammar method, as Independents, and Presbyterians for their practice as to Ordinances? Being a Scholar you, know, the Grammar would not be perfect without a Quae genus. No more will our Churches if there be a Syntax, & no noting Anomala's. The ignorant, and ſcandalous are Heteroclites to the Churches communion, or Syntax. And to your queſtion, the Presbyterians will tell you, that a child, by a remote right of his Parents, may have a juſt claime to a Church-priviledge. The Lepers had a right to their houſes, when they were thruſt out of them. Such as are of a Church may make themſelves incapable of ſome Church-enjoyment, and yet prefer their children: So do ſuſpended, and excommunicated perſons. Infants of Church-members, whether de jure, or de facto excommunicate, or whether growing mad, and ſo excluded; theſe infants (I ſay) p. 219are borne in that Church, whoſe cenſure their Parents beare.

Now Sir, that is ſuch a ſtitching, ſuch a Presbyterians ſeame, as your knife is (for ought I ſee) too dull to rip; So farre is this from truth which you ſay, that in yielding the one, they have granted the other.

Reaſ. 6 Reaſ. 6. This is made up of many particulars.

11. I do (ſaith he) but my duty. Anſw. When you prove it your duty to do, as you teach, I ſhall then beleeve you.

22. You have no power to turne away any. Anſw. Yes, as a ſteward of the myſteries of the Goſpel you have a power to preſerve the dignity of this Ordinance, and to keep off all viſible unworthy ones.

33. I hope the beſt of all. Anſw. So (it ſeemes) of the moſt prophane drunkards and ſwearers; but is not your hope faithleſſe, and your charity blind, and irrationall.

44. I know God can turne the worſt. Anſw. But his abſolute power muſt not be eyed in ſuch caſes, but his revealed will.

55. I endeavour my utmoſt, that all may come prepared. Anſw. This is good, and p. 220charitable, that your endeavour extends to all; but when you do, or may know by conſtant experience of too many, that they are unprepared; is not this branch of your reaſon vaine? Your duty is to endeavour to fit all; but, Sir, this is not all, but only a part of your duty. It is your duty to advance holineſſe, and order in the Churches of Chriſt, to preſerve the dignity and purity of his Ordinances, to provide for the comfort of his people in the uſe of them. This you do not.

66. I humbly confeſſe the ſinnes of all. Anſw. Becauſe God in mercy heard Hezekiah, and removed upon his prayer a judgment inflicted for unworthy coming to a typical Ordinance, therefore he concludes his innocency from doing a like; but ſtay, Sir, in this you are unlike Hezekiah, he did this once, when upon an extraordinary occaſion, the people came from far, and could not well obſerve the legall rites; but you (it ſeemes) make this a common practice. You know beforehand what people will come, (that the ſcandalous ones of your flock will come) and you think to preſerve your ſoul from the guilt of their ſinnes by confeſſing their unworthineſſe. Pray for thoſe that come, (the beſt need it) but think not that your praying will be an antidote p. 221to you and others, if you knowingly admit the unworthy.

7. Laſtly, I venture the iſſue on God. 7Anſw. It is good to be ſure keeping to our rule, and not to venture too far.

To venture without the Word is to preſume, which is evill as you know. It is good to walk by a rule; for then if we venture, 'tis in a good bottome.

Gods Ordinances (I acknowledge) will be a ſweet ſavour to him, whatever be the effects of them upon others: But while his Ordinances are ſweet, our actings may be ſoure; and when they are ſo we muſt look one day to heare of it.

Finally, he hints at ſome other preſſing conſideracions from the command, and good of coming, and from the evill of omitting this Ordinance. Anſw. What is here behinde in the bottom, we'll meet with in the other part of the book.

Ordinances are meanes, this is true, but yet all Ordinances are not alike, as hath been ſhewen. If a ſoul want grace, there are proper means of converſion, and begetting grace, to which he muſt apply himſelf; ſome Ordinances (as this) are both meanes and pledges of grace already given.

The Ordinances are baths, but are baths p. 222common to them, that have the plague, (I hope not) though they are open to all, or moſt other diſeaſes, Some Records tell us, that John would not come into the bath, becauſe Cerinthus was there.

In his upſhot, he makes a weak flouriſh, with the Parable, Mat. 22. and inſtead of ſcrupling the unworthy coming of the worſt men, ſentences them to be worſt of all that come not. I think him a wretch, who deſpiſes, and altogether neglects this Ordinance; but he that forbears for a time, either as ſcrupling his owne fitneſſe, or as offended with the undue manner of adminiſtring where he ſhould partake, I am far from thinking ſuch a one more unworthy, then a preſumptuous intruder. Such as are in a capacity, and come not, theſe deal unworthy indeed. As to your trouble about neglect of adminiſtring, and coming; Why take you ſuch a large ſtride, ſtepping from one extream into another, whereas the truth and your duty lies between both? You need not neglect adminiſtring, that is another extream to admitting all. I wiſh you would avoid them both. If you will not be perſwaded to this, but ſtill practiſe your free admiſſion, who will promiſe you, that p. 223none ſhall preſume? I think very many have already preſum'd upon your book to come unworthily, and many more (while you maintaine this freeneſſe) are like to do ſo. Let this ſtick another while on your thoughts, and then perchance inſtead of calling in of all, you may ſee cauſe to call in much of what you have publiſht in this book.

FINIS

End of the text · Humphrey Saunders, An Anti-Diatribe (1655)