therefore Marriage is evil Virginity is pure therefore Marriage is impure Whereas Marriage and single life are not opposed in the point of good and evil purity and impurity but in the point of immunity from worldly cares and troubles So it is a bad consequence at least against us unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is an instrument of obduration Ergo Worthy receiving of it is a mean of conversion For we hold that worthy receiving and unworthy receiving are not opposed in point of conversion but in point of sealing the worthy receiving seals remission and salvation the unworthy receiving seals judgement But Mr. Prynn still takes for granted what he had to prove viz. That this particular is one of those differentiae quibus dissident ista Opposita Come on to his tenth Argument It s taken from the ends for which this Sacrament was ordained 1. The keeping in memory Christs death 2. The ratification and sealing of all the promises and Covenant of grace unto the receivers souls 2. To be a pledge and symbole of that most neer and effectual communion which Christians have with Christ and that spiritual union which they enjoy with him 4. To feed the communicants souls in assured hope of eternal life 5. To be a pledge of their resurrection 6. To seal unto them the assurance of everlasting life 7. To binde them as it were by an oath of fidelity to Christ Whereupon he asketh how it is possible that this Sacrament should not both in Gods intention and Christs ordination be a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance since that which doth seal all these particulars to mens souls c. must needs more powerfully perswade pierce melt relent convert an obdurate heart and unregenerate sinner then the Word it self Answ. 1. His Argument may be strongly retorted against himself divers of these ends of the Sacrament being such as are incompetent and unapplicable to obdurate and unregenerate sinners How did he imagine that even to such as these the Sacrament doth ratifie and seal to their souls all the promises and Covenant of grace they not having yet closed with Christ in the Covenant Or how will he make it to appear that this Sacrament is a pledge of a most neer union and communion with Christ even to those who are yet far from any union with Christ Or how shall they be fed in hope and sealed in assurance of everlasting life who are yet under the curse of the Law and state of condemnation Surely Master Prynne granting here that the Sacrament is ordained of Christ to seal and that it doth seal all these particulars to mens souls doth thereby yeeld the whole cause For that which doth seal all these particulars to mens souls most certainly doth not convert but presuppose conversion 2. If this Sacrament be by Gods intention a converting Ordinance and Gods intention being by him distinguished from Christs ordination whether doth it not necessarily follow both from this and from his first Argument unto which this gives more light that God did in the secret counsel of his Will intend and decree the Conversion of the flintiest heart and obdurest spirit as he speaketh and that either this effect is wrought by the Sacrament in the flintiest heart and obduratest spirit which I believe he dare not say or that Gods decree and intention is frustrate 3. And if the Sacrament must needs more powerfully perswade pierce melt relent convert an obdurate heart and unregenerate sinner then the Word it self how then can he either seclude Pagans or dehort impenitent unworthy persons from the Sacrament His eleventh Argument is the grossest and palpablest petitio principii of any that ever I met with and to be offered to none except such as cannot distinguish between that which is affirmed and that which is proved First he tells us what true conversion is and then asks if any thing be so prevalent to effect this as the Sacrament This therefore I passe His twelfth and last Argument is an appealing to the experience of Christians But a part of his appeal is of no use that is Whether this Sacrament doth not strengthen against corruptions and tentations which doth not touch this present Controversie It is as little to the purpose which he saith of conversion by preparations to the Sacrament which may be by the Word Prayer c. But that many thousands of converted Christians will experimentally affirm that the receiving of the Sacrament was the first effectual means of their conversion yea that they had not been converted had they been debarred from it for their former scandalous sins I do as confidently deny it as he affirmeth it and if any who hath been a scandalous liver whose heart was never yet turned humbled broken changed by the Word nor by any other mean of grace should affirm that his very receiving of the Sacrament did effectually convert him I durst not herein give credit to him For to the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them And whereas he concludes For shame therefore disclaim this absurd irreligious paradox for which there is not the least shadow of Scripture or solid reason I shall wish him for shame to disclaim this and many such like expressions more bold and arrogant then either prudent or conscientious And the intelligent Reader who considereth my twenty Arguments for that which he calls so absurd and my Answers to all his twelve Arguments will easily judge where the shame and irreligiousnesse will lie If at his door let him look to it Alba ligustra cadunt vaccinâ—…a nigra leguntur All that he addeth pag. 45 46 47 being at best rhetorical not rational and a superstructure upon that foundation that the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance it needs no battering but falls of it self the foundation being taken away And as we ought not nor cannot without sin suspend scandalous sinners from the Sacrament if it be a Converting Ordinance upon which supposition also both the Advice of the Assembly of Divines and the Ordinance of Parliament concerning Suspension from the Sacrament were most sinful and unlawful So if it be not a converting but a sealing Ordinance which I hope is now luce clarius there needs no other Argument for the suspension of scandalous sinners living in grosse reigning sins but this That the end and use for which this Sacrament was instituted is not conversion which these need but sealing and confirmation of which they are incapable they being such as ought to be kept back à signis gratiae divinae as Divines speak For how shall these that in words professe God but in their works deny him be sealed with the seals or marked with the marks of the favour and grace of God Most certainly this Question concerning the nature end and use of the Sacrament casts the ballance of the whole Controversie concerning Suspension which I have therefore been the
Tabernacle till he was cleansed Lev. 15. Others were separated both from the holy things and from the company or society of their Neighbours yet not cast out of the camp for this he gives the case of women having an issue of blood who were put apart seven dayes Lev. 15. and for the same space a woman after the birth of a male Child was uncleane so farre as to be kept apart from human society but she did continue uncleane three and thirty dayes longer as to the Sanctuary and hallowed things during which space of the three and thirty dayes she was not separated from company and society as in the first seven dayes onely she was forbidden to touch any hallowed thing or to come into the Sanctuary There was a third sort separated not onely from the Sanctuary and from humane society but also cast out of the camp which was the case of Lepers I conclude all uncleane persons whatsoever were excluded from the Tabernacle Lev. 15. 31. and from eating of the flesh of the Sacrifices Lev. 7. 20. 21. Neither might any of the Sonnes of Aaron having his uncleannesse upon him eat of the holy things though it was his Food Lev. 22. v. 2. to 7. in which places cutting off is appointed to be the punishment not for unclean persons their being in the camp but for their coming to the Tabernacle or for their eating of the holy things and accordingly it is said 2 Chro. 23. 19. that Ichojada set the Porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in But we never read that none which was uncleane in any thing was permitted to enter in at the Gates of Ierusalem or to converse among the people 3 Whereas Master Prynne thinkes that uncleane persons were excluded from all Ordinances as well as from the Passeover first what saith he to that which Erastus holdeth and as he thinkes grounded upon Scripture namely that all uncleane persons as well as others were admitted to the feast of expiation Next what saith he to that which is observed by Master Selden and divers others namely that some uncleane persons might come not onely to the mountaine of the house of the Lord but might also enter into the intermurale Into that utmost Court the heathens might come and pray so might the Israelites that were not legally cleane saith Arias Montanus The fourth and fifth Answers which M r. Prynne gives that there is no such warrant for keeping back scandalous persons from the Lords Table as there was for keeping back the uncleane from the Passeover and that suspension for legall uncleannesse proves not suspension for morall uncleannesse These I say doe but petere principium and therefore to be passedover because he takes for granted what is in controversie I shall therefore proceed to that which he addeth in the next place in answer to an argument of mine in my controversall fast Sermon as he miscalleth it The argument as I did propound it was this Those scandalous sinners that were not admitted to offer a trespasse offering which was reconciling ordinance without confession of sinne and Declaration of their Repentance for the same were much lesse admitted to the Passeover which was a sealing Ordinance without confession of known and scandalous sins if they had committed any such But circumcised persons if they were scandalous sinners were not admitted to offer a trespasse offering which was a reconciling Ordinance without confession of sinne and Declaration of their Repentance for the same Lev. 5. 5. 6. Ergo M r Prynne answereth pag. 17. it s a meer non-sequitur 1. Because contradicted as he thinks by 1 Cor. 10. which is a contrarious argument and I shall answer it in the proper place 2. He saith that examination of the Conscience Repentance and Confession are no where required of such as did eate the Passeover it being onely a commemoration of Gods mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne when he slew the Egyptians but there being no remission without confession it was necessary that those who came to offer a trespasse-offering for some particular sinnes should confesse those very sinnes yet not to the Priest but to God alone Answ. 1. If examination of the Conscience Repentance and confession were not required in those that did eate the Passeover and if there might be a worthy eating of it without this as he plainly intimateth when he saith that this is no where required in Scripture of such as did eat the Passeover though all circumstances and necessaries for the worthy eating of it he most punctually enumerated And if the Passeover was but onely a commemoration of Gods infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne as he saith which was but a temporall mercy Then he must needs say either that in the Sacrament of the Passeover or confirmation of faith increase of grace nor spirituall mercy was given or that in that Sacrament this grace yea by his Principles conversion and regeneration it selfe was conferred ex opere operato And he must either say the like of the Lords Supper or otherwise hold that the Sacraments of the new Testament differ from those of the old specifically and that the Passeover did not seale the same covenant of grace for the substance which is now sealed by the Lords Supper 2 What was the meaning of the bitter Herbs with which the Passeover was commanded to be eaten Were not the people of God thereby taught the necessity of Repentance in that very action And what means it that at Hezekiahs Passeover the people are called to turne againe unto the Lord 2 Chron. 30. 6. that the Priests and the Levites were ashamed and sanctified themselves vers 15. offered Peace-offerings made confession to the Lord God of their fathers vers 22. where I understand confession of sinne according to the Law which appointed confession of sinne to be made with the Peace offerings which confession was signified by laying hands upon the head of the offering Lev. 3. 2. 8. 13. compared with Lev. 16. 21. and so we find Repentance joyned with peace offerings Iudg. 20. 26. finally read we not of the peoples preparing of their heart to seeke God at the Passeover 2 Chro. 30. 19. which as it could not be without Repentance and examination of their consciences so Hezekiah mentioneth it as that without which the peoples eating of the Passeover could not have been in any wise accepted 3. That it was not a private confession to God alone but a publike penitentiall confession in the Temple and before the Priests I have before Chap. 8. made it to appear both out of the Text and out of Philo the Iew. This I adde here The Confession of the sin was made in the place of offering the trespasse offering before the Priest at the laying on of hands between the horns of the beast therefore it was not made in secret to God onely which
guilty Ergo he that harboureth a knowne Traytor is not guilty Eighthly for he hath given his seventh already he tels us that the Minister onely 〈◊〉 the Sacrament and the unworthy receiving is the receivers own personall act and sinne alone Answ 1. He begges againe and againe what is in Queâ—ion 2. There is an unworthy giving as well as an unworthy receiving The unworthy giving is a sinâ—ull act of the Minister which makes him also accessary to the sinne of unworthy receiving and so partake of other mens â—innes The ninth concerning Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas is answered before The tenth I have also answered before in his fourth conclusion The Minister is a sweet savour of Christ as well in those that perish by the Sacrament as in those that are benefited by it with this proviso that he hath done his duty as a faithfull Steward and that he hath not given that which is holy to dogs else God shall require it at his hands Finally he argueth from 1 Cor. 11. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh not condemnation but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgement meaning some temporall judgement to himselfe not to the Minister or Communicants Answ. 1. Whatever be meant by judgement in this place certainly it is a punishment of sinne and such a thing as proceedeth from Gods displeasure and it is as certaine that unworthy receiving maketh a person lyable to a greater judgement then that which is temporall 2. If to himselfe be restrictive and exclusive in the case of close hypocrites such as are by Church-officers judging according to outward appearance admitted to the Sacrament yet how will it be made to appeare that the Apostle meant those words as restrictive and exclusive in the case of scandalous and knowne unworthy communicants 3. Such a scandalous person doth indeed eate and drink judgement to himselfe but this can neither in whole nor in part excuse but rather greatly aggravate the sinne of the Minister for when a wicked man dieth in his iniquity yet his blood God will require at the hands of the unfaithfull Minister who did strengthen his hands in his sinne CHAP. XII Whether the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a converting or regenerating Ordinance I Had in answer to Mr. Prynns third Quaere given this reason why prophane and scandalous persons are to be kept off from the Sacrament and yet not from hearing the Word because the word is not onely a confirming and comforting but a converting Ordinance and is a mean appointed of God to turn sinners from darknes to light and from the power of Sathan to God Whereas the Sacrament is not a converting but a confirming and sealing Ordinance which is not given to the Church for the conversion of Sinners but for the Communion of Saints It is not appointed to put a man in the state of grace but to seal unto a man that interest in Christ and in the Covenant of Grace which he already hath Mr. Prynne doth with much eagernesse contradict me in this and argue at length the contrary Which is the marrow and fatnesse if there be any in his debate concerning the eighth point of difference Whereby he doth not onely contradict me but himself too as shall appear yea and joyn not onely with the more rigid Lutherans but with the Papists themselves against the Writers of the Reformed Churches For the very same thing which is controverted between him and me is controverted between Papists and Protestants The Papists hold that the Sacraments are instrumentalâ— to confer give or work grace yea ex opere operato as the School-men speak Our Divines hold that the Sacraments are appointed of God and delivered to the Church as sealing Ordinances not to give but to testifie what is given not to make but confirm Saints And they do not onely oppose the Papists opus operatum but they simply deny this instrumentality of the Sacraments that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not This is so well known to all who have studied the Sacramentarian controversies that I should not need to prove it Yet that none may doubt of it take here some few insteed of many testimonies Calvin holds plainly against the Papists that the Sacraments do not give any grace but do declare and shew what God hath given He clearâ— it in that chapter thus the Sacraments are like seals appended to writs which of themselves are nothing if the paper or parchment to which they are appended be blank Again they are like pillars to a house which cannot be a foundation but a strengthening of a house that hath a foundation We are built upon the Word the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Again Sacraments are to us from God that which messengers are which bring good newes from men they declare what is but do not so much as instrumentally make it to be These are Calvins similes Bâ—…llinger confuteth the Popish doctrine concerning the Sacraments conferring of grace by this principle that the Saints are justified and sanctified before they are sealed and confirmed by the Sacraments Ursinus speaks so fully and plainly for us that none can say more He distinguisheth between the Word and Sacraments as between converting and confirming Ordinances and argueth that the Sacraments do not confer grace because we receive not the thing by receiving the signe but we get the signe because it is supposed we have the thing Yea he speaks of it as a principle known to children Wolfangus Musculus in his common places saith thus Who seeth not what manner of persons we must be when we approach to this mystical Table of the Lord to wit not such as do therein first of all seek the fruition of the body and blood of the Lord as if we were yet destitute thereof but such as being already before partakers thereof by faith do desire to corroborate more and more in our hearts the grace once received by the Sacramental communication of the body and blood of the Lord and by the remembrance of his death and to give thanks to our Redeâ—…mer Martin Bucer upon Matth. 18. 17. puts this difference between the Word preached and the Lords Supper that the Word may be preached to the unconverted but the Lords Supper may not be given to any who by their lives do declare that they are out of communion with Jesus Christ. Which is the very point now in controversie Festus Honnius Disp. 43. Thes. 3. confuting the Popish opinion of the Sacraments working or giving grace brings this reason against it They that receive the Sacraments have this grace before they receive them neither are any to be admitted to the Sacraments who may be justly supposed not to be justified and sanctified Aretius Coment in Mark 14. loc 3. observeth Qui admissi sint ad istam Coenam discipuli solum Who were admitted to that eucharistical
kind can make the Sacrament a converting Ordinance 3. We must distinguish even in conversion between gratia praeveniens subsâ—…quens operans co-operans excitans adjuvans or rather between habitual and actual conversion Habitual conversion I call the first infusion of the life and habits of grace actual conversion is the souls beginning to act from that life and from those habits The first or habitual conversion in which the sinner is passive and not at all active it being wholy the work of preventing exciting quickning grace is that which never is to be looked for in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is enough to overthrow that opinion that scandalous impenitent sinners having an external formal profession but known by a wicked abominable conversation to be dead in sins and trespasses in whom the holy Ghost hath never yet breathed the first breath of the life of grace may be admitted to the Lords Supper if they desire it not being excommunicated upon hopes that it may prove a converting Ordinance to them As for gratia subsequens co-operans adjuvans by which the sinner having now a spiritual life created in him and supernatural habits infused in his soul is said actually to convert repent and beleeve I consider even in this actual conversion repenting beleeving these two things 1. The inchoation 2. The progresse of the work Where the work is begun if it were but faith like a grain of mustard seed and where there is any thing of conversion which is true and sound the Sacrament is a blessed powerful means to help forward the work But I peremptorily deny that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is appointed or instituted by Christ as a regenerating converting Ordinance as well as the word or as a means of beginning actual much lesse habitual conversion 4. When I hold the Lords Supper not to be a converting but a sealing Ordinance the meaning is not as if I beleeved that all who are permitted to come to the Lords Table are truly converted or that they are such as the seals of the Covenant of Grace do indeed and of right belong unto for we speak of visible Churches and visible Saints But my meaning is that Christ hath intended this Sacrament to be the childrens read onely though the hired servants of the house have other bread enough and to spare and he alloweth this portion to none but such as are already converted and do beleeve and that they who are the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God ought to admit none to this Sacrament except such as are quallified and fit so far as can be judged by their profession knowledge and practice observed and examined by the Eldership according to the rules of the Word no humane court being infallible to have part and portion in the communion of Saints and to receive the seals of the Covenant of Grace at least that they may not dare to admit any man whose known and scandalous wickednesse continued in without signes of repentance saith within their heart that there is no fear of God before his eyes These things premised which are to be remembred by the Reader but need not be repeated by me as we go along I proceed to the Arguments which prove my assertion that the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance And thereafter I shall answer Mr. Prynns Arguments brought to the contrary CHAP. XIII Twenty Aâ—guments to prove that the Lords Supper is not a converting Ordinance First THat which is an institute significant signe to declare and testifie the being of that thing which is thereby signified is not an operating cause or mean which makes that thing signified to begin to be where it was not But the Sacrament is an instituted signe to declare and testifie the being of that thing which is thereby signified Ergo This is an Argument used by Protestant writers against Papists The Sacraments being by their definition Signes are not causes of that which they signifie neither are the things signified the effects of the Sacraments Wherefore the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being a signe of our spiritual life faith union with Christ and remission of sins is not instituted to convey these spiritual blessings to such as have them not Significancy is one thing efficiency another You will say by this Argument there is no grace exhibited nor given to beleevers themselves in the Sacrament Answ. Growth in grace and confirmation of Faith is given to beleevers in the Sacrament which the significancy hinders not because the Sacrament doth not signifie nor declare that the receiver hath much grace and a strong faith but that he hath some life of grace and some faith The very state of grace or spiritual life regeneration faith and remission of sins are signified declared testified and sealed but not wrought or given in the Sacrament The strengthening of faith and a further degree of communion with Christ is not signified in the Sacrament I mean it s not signified that we have it but that we shall have it or at most that we do then receive it So that beleevers may truly be said to receive at the Sacrament a confirmation or strengthening of their faith or a further degree of communion with Christ but it cannot be said that the very Sacramental act of eating or drinking being a signe of spiritual life and union with Christ as that which we have not which we shall have or at that instant receive is a mean or instrumental cause to make a man have that which it testifieth or signifieth he hath already There is no evasion here for one who acknowledgeth the Sacrament to be a signe declaring or shewing forth that we have faith in Christ remission of sins by him and union with him Mr. Prynn must either make blank the signification of the Sacrament à parte ante though not à parte post or else hold that the signification of the Sacrament is not applicable to many of those whom he thinks fit to be admitted to receive it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper necessarily supposeth conversion and faith Ergo. The proposition is so certain that either it must be yeelded or a contradiction must be yeelded for that which worketh conversion and faith cannot suppose that they are but that they are not Therefore that which supposeth conversion and faith cannot work conversion and faith because then the same thing should be supposed both to be and not to be The Assumption I prove from Scripture Mark 16. 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized vers 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized Act. 8. 36. 37. And the Eâ—…nuch said See here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest with all thinâ—… heart 〈◊〉
But those Israelites which forsake their religion or become Epicures we are bidden kill them and persecute them even unto hell How could they then admit to the passeover those whom they thought themselves obliged to persecute even unto hell Fifthly those Arguments which prove an exclusion of known prophane persons from the Temple will also prove an exclusion of known prophane persons from the Passeover for none might eat of the Passeover who might not also come into the Temple That scandalous prophane persons might not come into the Temple hath been proved already Sixthly I argue from the lesser to the greater If men were to be kept back for legall uncleannesse much more for morall uncleannesse this being more hatefull to God and more hurtfull to men then the other This just consequence Grotius annot in Luk. 6. 22. doth admit If by the Law saith he one that was leprous or had a filthy scab was separated from mens company lest he should infect others it was no ill consequence that if no heavier thing this at least should be imposed on flagitious wicked persons who did by the contagion of their sinfull example hurt others bring a reproach upon the whole congregation from which the congregation could not be made free but by some publik detestation of that wickednes thus Groti Seventhly the purging out of leven from the Congregation of Israel was a significant teaching Ceremony holding forth this duty that the Church ought to put away wicked persons from among them for so doth the Apostle expound it 1. Cor. 5. vers 6. 7. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe purge out therefore the old leaven Which relateth not onely to the purging of their own hearts but to the purging of the Church and the putting away of that wicked person this being the scope of the whole Chapter Now the morall signification of that ceremony of purging out the leaven did concerne the Church of Israel as well as the Christian Church even as the divers washings under the Law did teach and hold forth the duty of sanctification and purity to the people of God at that time as well as typifie the sanctification of the Christian Church Eighthly though the hallowed bread might in case of necessity be lawfully given to David and his men the Ceremonials of the first Table yeelding to the Substantials of the second yet Abimelech the Priest would not adventure to give it till he understood that the young men had then kept themselves at least from women 1 Sam. 21. 4 5 6. this being a part of that sanctification which was required in those who did partake of holy things not onely among the Hebrews but among other Nations as Hugo Grotius noteth upon the place and upon Exod. 19. 15. Now the Shew-bread or the twelve loaves which did shew or present the people to God can not be supposed to be holier then the Paschall Lambe which did shew or present Christ to the people and was a Sacrament or Seale of the covenant of grace David also and his men in that danger of their lives had as good right to eate the Shew-bread as any Israelite could pretend to for his eating the Passeover yea that was a substantiall duty of the second Table which Christ himselfe justifieth this was a ceremoniall duty of the first Table and grounded on a positive law This therefore doth afford me an argument with manifold advantages For if the Shew-bread might not be given to David and his men in their extreame necessity unlesse they had for a certaine space before abstained from the use of their wives otherwise lawfull how much lesse might the Passeover be given as an holy Ordinance which did not concern the saving of mens lives in extreame necessity to scandalous persons living in known whordome and adultery Ninthly I argue from that place Ezech 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have prophaned mine holy things they have put no difference between the holy and prophane Will any man say that they were to put a difference between the holy and prophane in other Ordinances and not in the Passeover and why not in the Passeover as well as in other Ordinances If such difference was to be put in the Passeover then how shall one imagine that no man was kept backe from the Passeover because of known prophanesse or morall uncleannesse for what difference was put between the holy and prophane when the prophane were received as well as the holy M r Coleman held that this Text reacheth not to the keeping pure of the Ordinances by any act of government but onely that the Priests did prophane the holy things in their owne practice by eating in their uncleannesse and also in their ministery because they taught not the children of Israel to put a difference between the cleane and the uncleane Maledicis pag. 11. But the Text gives not the least ground to restraine this fault of the Priests here reproved either to their personall actions or to their doctrinall ministery Nay the Text will reach to an act of government neglected for the word here used to expresse the distinguishing or putting of a difference between the holy and prophane is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is often used in Scripture to expresse an act of government or authority whereby one person is separated or distinguished from another person or one thing from another thing as Ezra 8. 24. Then I separated twelve of the chiefe of the Priests c. Ezra 10. 8. all his substance should be forfeited and himselfe separated from the congregation Here it signifieth such a separation as was a publique censure why not also Ezech. 22. 26 The same word is used in the story of the division of the Land by Ioshua Iosh. 16. 9. And the separate Cities for the children of Ephraim It is used also to expresse Gods dividing of light from darknesse Genes 1. 4. also his separating of Israel from all other Nations Levit. 20. 24. And whereas M r Coleman did take hold of the following words in that place of Ezechiel neither have they shewed difference between the uncleane and the cleane as being meerly doctrinall First if it were so how will it appeare that these words are exegeticall to the former and that the putting of difference between the holy and prophane mentioned in the former words was onely meant of shewing the difference doctrinally or why may we not rather understand that the Priests are charged with neglect of duty both in Doctrine and Government Secondly even that latter word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fecerunt scire the Septuagints render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by all these signifying to separate or to divide they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea the Septuagints expresse a forensicall censure or judiciall separation by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ezra 108. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
of baptizing thus I baptize thee in the name of Iesus Christ. But I spake of the action not of the expression even as in the other instance I gave our assembling together is in the name of Christ though we do not say in terminis We are now assembled in the name of Christ. In baptisme Christ doth not command us to say either these words I baptize thee in the Name of Christ or these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost but we are commanded to do the thing both in the name of Christ as Mediator and in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost But in different respects A minister of Christ doth both preach and baptize in the name of Christ as Mediator that is vice Christi in Christs stead and having authority for that effect from Christ as Mediator for Christ as Mediator gave us our commission to preach and baptize by Mr. Husseys confession So that to preach and baptize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we find both of preaching Luk. 24 47. and of baptizing Act. 2. 38. comprehendeth a formall commission power and authority given and derived from Christ I say not that it comprehendeth no more but this it doth comprehend But when Christ biddeth us baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto or into or in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19. this doth relate to the end and effect of baptisme or the good of the baptized if we understand the words properly not the authority of the baptizer as if a formall commission were there given him from the Father Son and holy Ghost So that to baptize one in or unto the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost is properly meant both of sealing the parties right and title to the enjoyment of God himself as their God by covenant and their interest in the love of God the grace of Christ and the communion of the holy Ghost and of dedicating the party to the knowledge profession saith love and obedience of God the Father Son and holy Ghost I return The next branch of my Argument was that we excommunicate in the name of Christ 1 Cor. 5 5. Mr. Hussey pag. 22. saith I make great hast here deliver to Sathan saith he is not to excommunicate c. But grant that it were excommunication c. the decree was Pauls and not the Corinthians What is meant by delivering to Sathan belongs to another debate Call it an Apostolicall act or call it an Ecclesiasticall act or both yet it was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the like whereof we find not in Scripture of any act of the civil Magistrate Why doth he not attend to the drift of the Argument And as to his exceptions they are no other then Prelats Papists and Socinians have made before him and which are answered long agoe That the Apostle commandeth to excommunicate the incestuous man is acknowledged by Mr. Prynne That he who is excommunicated may be truly said to be delivered to Sathan is undeniable for he that is cast out of the Church whose sins are retained on whom the Kingdom of heaven is shut and locked whom neither Christ nor his Church doth owne is delivered to Sathan who reignes without the Church That this censure or punishment of excommunication was a Church act and not an Apostolicall act onely may thus appear 1. The Apostle blameth the Corinthians that it was not sooner done he would not have blamed them that a miracle was not wrought 2. He writeth to them to do it when they were gathered together not to declare or witnesse what the Apostle had done but to joyne with him in the authoritative doing of it vers 4. 5. again he saith to them vers 7. Purge out therfore the old leaven vers 12. Doe not ye judge them that are within vers 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked person 3. It was a censure inflicted by many 2. Cor. 2. 6 not by the Apostle alone but by many 4. The Apostle doth not absolve the man but writeth to them to forgive him 2 Cor. 2. 7. Lastly the Syriack maketh for us which runneth thus vers 4. That in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ you all may be gathered together and I with you in the Spirit with the power of our Lord Iesus Christ vers 5. That you may deliver him to Sathan c. But now at last Mr. Hussey comes home and gives this answer to my third Argument A thing may be said to be done in the name of Christ or of God when men do any thing in confidence that God will assist us so Psal. 20 5. In the name of our God will we set up our banners in confidence God will assist us Thus I hope the Parliament and other Christians may undertake the businesse in the name of Christ c. Secondly In the name of Christ a thing is said to be done that is done in the authority room and place of Christ c. So he pag. 24. seeking a knot in the rush In the first part of his distinction he saith nothing to my Argument neither saith he any more of the Parliament then agreeth to all Christians the poorest and meanest for every Christian servant every Christian Artificer is bound to do whatsoever he doth in the name of Christ Colos. 3. 17. But what is that to the Argument Come to the other member of his distinction The Ministers of Christ do act in the name of Christ that is in the authority room and place of Christ We are Ambassadors for Christ and we preach in Christs stead 2 Cor. 5. 20. This he doth not nor cannot denie which makes good my Argument Why did he not shew us the like concerning Magistracy I suppose he would if he could this is the very point which he had to speak to but hath not done it My fourth Argument against the Magistrates holding of his office of and under and for Christ that is in Christs room and stead as Mediator shall be that which was drawn from Luk. 12. 14. The Jewes were of the same opinion which Mr. Coleman and Mr. Hussey have followed namely that civil government should be put in the hands of Christ which they collected from Ier. 23. 5. He shall execute justice and judgement in the earth and such other Prophecies by them mis-understood And hence it was that one said to Christ Master Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me Our Lords answer was Man who made me a Judge or a divider over you Whatsoever act of authority is done by a Deputy or Vicegerent as representing his Master and Soveraigne may be done by the King himself when personally present If therefore the Magistrate judge civil causes and divide inheritances as the Vicegerent of Christ and of Christ as Mediator then Christ himself when present in the dayes of his flesh had power as Mediator to
former Becanus for the latter Tannerus You will say peradventure that Protestant Writers hold the Sacraments to be 1. Significant or declarative signes 2. Obsignative or confirming signes 3. Exhibitive signes so that the thing signified is given and exhibite to the soul. I answer That exhibition which they speak of is not the giving of grace where it is not as is manifest by the afore quoted Testimonies but an exhibition to beleevers a real effectual lively application of Christ and of all his benefits to every one that beleeveth for the staying strengthening confirming and comforting of the soul. Chamierus contractus Tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 2. Docemus ergo in Sacramentorum perceptione effici gratiam in fidelibus hactenus Sacramenta dicenda efficacia Polan Syntag. lib. â— cap. 49. saith the visible external thing in the Sacrament is thus far exhibitive quia bona spiritualia per eam fidelibus significantur exhibentur communicantur obsignantur So that in this point Habenti dabitur is a good rule For unto every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath Maith 25. 29. Our Divines do not say that the Sacraments are exhibitive Ordinances wherein grace is communicated to those who have none of it to unconverted or unbeleeving persons By this time it may appear I suppose that the controversie between us and the Papists concerning the effect of the Sacraments setting aside the opus operatum which is a distinct controversie and is distinctly spoken to by our Writers setting aside also the casualitas phisica and insita by which some of the Papists say the Sacraments give grace though diverse others of them hold the Sacraments to be onely moral causes of grace is thus far the same with the present controversie between Mr. Prynn and me that Protestant Writers do not onely oppose the opus operatum and the casualitas physica insita but they oppose as is manifest by the Testimonies already cited all casuality or working of the first grace of conversion and faith in or by the Sacraments supposing alwaies a man to be a beleever and within the Covenant of grace before the Sacrament and that he is not made such nor translated to the state of grace in or by the Sacrament This the Papists contradict and therein Mr. Prynn joyneth with them When Bellarmine brings an impertinent Argument The Sacraments saith he have not the same relation to faith which the Word hath Nam verbum Dei praecedit fidem Sacramenta autem sequuntur saltem in adultis The Word of God doth go before faith but the Sacraments follow after it at least in those who are of age Dr. Ames Bell. enerv Tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 5. corrects his great mistake or oblivion Hoc illud est quod nos docemus Sacramenta confirmare fidem per verbum Dei prius ingeneratam saltem in adultis This saith he is that which we teach that the Sacraments confirm that faith which was first begotten by the Word of God at least in those who are of age Mr. Prynns assertion is that the Lords Supper is a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance for clearing whereof hâ— premiseth two distinctions There are two sorts both of conversion and sealing which he saith his Antagonists to delude the vulgar have ignorantly wilfully or injudiciously confounded Whether such language beseems a man fearing God or honouring them that do fear God let every one judge who knoweth any thing of Christian moderation See now if there be any reason for this grievous charge First saith he there is an external conversion of men from Paganisme or Gentilisme to the external profession of the faith of Christ. This he saith is wrought by the Word or by Miracles and effected by Baptisme in reference to infants of Christian Parents But how the Baptismâ— of such Infants is brought under the head of conversion from Paganisme to the external profession of Christ I am yet to learn Secondly saith he There is a conversion from a meer external formal profession of the Doctrine and Faith of Christ to an inward spiritual embracing and application of Christ with his merits and promises to our souls by the saving grace of Faith and to an holy Christian real change of heart and life In this last conversion the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not onely a sealing or confirming but likewise a regenerating and converting Ordinance as well as the Word He might upon as good reason have made a third sort of conversion from a scandalous and prophane life to the external obedience of the will and commandements of God But all this is to seek a knot in the rush for there is but one sort of conversion which is a saving conversion and that is a conversion from nature to grace from sin to sanctification from the power of Sathan to God whether it be from paganisme or from prophanenesse or from an external formal profession Now that conversion which Mr. Prynn ascribes to the Sacrament is a true sanctifying and saving conversion The other conversion which he ascribes not to the Sacrament is not a saving conversion for the external conversion of men from Paganisme or Gentilisme to the external profession of the faith of Christ without the other conversion to an inward spiritual embracing of Christ doth but make men seven fold more the children of Hell So that Mr. Prynn hath more opened his sore when he thought to cover and patch it The other distinction which he gives us is of a twofold sealing But by the way he tells us that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are termed Sacraments and Seals without any Text of Scripture to warrant it Hereby as he gratifieth the Socinians not a little who will not have the Lords Supper to be called either seal or Sacrament but an obediential act and a good work of ours and tell us that we make the Lords Supper but too holy to delude the vulgar So he correcteth all Orthodox Writers Ancient and Modern The Apostlâ— describeth Circumcision to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. 11. Whence Divines give the name of seals to all Sacraments Rectè autem saith Aretius Theol. Probl. Loc. 76. speciebus imis intermediis generibus eadem â—…ssignantur in definiendo genera Circumcision is a seal therefore a Sacrament is a seal as well as this Justice is a habit therefore vertue is a habit Man is a substance therefore a living creature is a substance And further if Circumcision was a seal the Lords Supper is much more a seal as we shall see afterwards The honourable Houses of Parliament after advice had with the Assembly of Divines have judged this point which Mr. Prynn so much quarrelleth to be not onely true but so far necessary and fundamental that in their Ordinance of October 20. 1645. for keeping
back the ignorant and the scandalous from the Sacrament this truth That the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant of grace is enumerate among those points of Religion which all persons who shall be admitted to the Lords Supper ought to know and of which whosoever is ignorant shal not be admitted to the Lords Supper I hope Mr. Prynn shall not be willing to fall within the Category of ignorant persons and such as ought not be admitted to the Sacrament which yet by that Ordinance he must needs do if he will not know the Lords Supper to be a seal of the Covenant of grace Wherefore though he leaneth much that way both here and pag. 30. yet I shall expect he will rectifie himself in this particular His words are these There is a double sealing if we admit this Sacrament or Baptisme to be seals though never once stiled seals in any Scripture Text And in the Margent they are termed Sacraments and seals of the Covenant without any Text to warraâ—…t it Now Quaeritur whether Mr. Prynn doth know that the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant of grace and if he doth not know this whether doth not the Ordinance strike against him And now to return the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Seal which makes most to our present purpose is a Scripture word As for the Word Sacrament we need not seek it in Scripture because it is a Latin Word and there is not either in the Hebrew or Greek the languages in which Scripture was written any word which properly closely and fully answereth to the Word Sacrament Sure we have the thing Sacrament though not the name in Scripture Peradventure Mr. Prynn is the more afraid of the Word Sacrament because some derive it à sacramente which suteth not so well to his notion of a converting Ordinance Well But what are nis two sorts of sealing 1. A visible external sealing of the pardon of sin and Gods promises in the blood of Christ to our outward sâ—…nces 2. An internal invisible sealing of them by the Spirit working in by the Word and Sacraments to our souls In the first sence he saith this Sacrament is a seal to all receivers even to those who are scandalous and unworthy who receive onely the outward Elements Again this first kind of sealing saith he seals all Gods promises and a free pardon of all our sins onely conditionally if we truly repent lay hold on Christ c. The second which is an absolute sealing he grants to belong onely to worthy penitent beleeving receivers Who doth now delude the vulgar When the Lords Supper is called a sealing Ordinance did ever any man understand this of a sealing to our outward sences onely or of receiving the outward Elements and no more Who can mistake the thing so far as to think that Christ hath instituted and ordained this Sacrament to be a meer external seal and no more When he grants that in the second sence this Sacrament is a seal onely to worthy penitent beleeving receivers who receive the inward invisible grace as well as the outward signes He grants that which I require that is that it is a sealing Ordinance intended for worthy penitent beleeving receivers not for the scandalous and unworthy God forbid we should make a sealing Ordinance to be an empty Ordinance The truth is his first kind of sealing without the second is no sealing yea worse then no sealing Where there is no charter how can there be a sealing except we seal blank paper and as we shall hear anon from Chrysostome we have not so much as the seal except we have that which is sealed I know it will be answered there is somewhat to be sealed even to the scandalous and unworthy that is the pardon of all their sins conditionally if they truly repent beleeve lay hold on Christ. In this very place Mr. Prynn tells us that all Gods promises and a free pardon is sealed even to scandalous and unworthy receivers conditionally that is as he explicates himself pag 37. upon condition that they become penitent and beleeving receivers But then say I he must upon as good reason grant that the Sacrament may be given to Pagans and Turks at least the first day of preaching the Gospel to them May it not be said to Pagans and Turks that if they repent and beleeve on Christ they shall have pardon of sin Here is the thing to be sealed in Mr. Prynn's opinion What then should hinder the sealing He shunneth to call the Sacrament a converting ordinance in reference to Pagans and now behold his principles will admit the giving of the Sacrament even to Pagans as a sealing Ordinance how much more then as a converting Ordinance We have now heard his two distinctions which if they have given any clearing to his assertion it is such as is little to his advantage I will now premise some distinctions of my owne to clear that which I hold 1. The Question is not de potentia Dei absoluta Whether God by his omnipotency can give the first grace of conversion in the instant of receiving the Sacrament But the Question is of the revealed will of God and the way of the dispensation of grace made known to us in the Gospel which must be the rule to us to walk by A peradventure it may be and who knoweth but the scandalous sinner may be converted is no warrantable ground to go upon in this case as Mr. Prynn would make it pag. 47. for we may as well adventure to delay repentance upon a peradventure it may be There is an example in the New-Testament of one who got repentance and mercy at his end and if we beleeve the Hebrews and divers Christian Interpreters there is another example of the same kind in the Old Testament which is the example of Achan Whereas there is no example in all the Scripture of any converted by the Sacrament But if a thing be contrary to the revealed will and commandement of God as both these are the delaying of repentance and the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament we may not dare to go upon peradventures To the Law and to the Testimony Search the Scriptures If the Word do not shew us any thing of conversion by the Sacrament we must not think of any such thing 2. We must distinguish between the Sacrament it self and those things that do accompany the Sacrament powerful preaching exhortation prayer or the like before or after the Sacrament Put case a sinner be effectually converted by a Sermon or a prayer which he heareth at the Ordination of a Minister will any man therefore say that Ordination is a converting Ordinance So if by most serious powerful exhortations convictions promises threatnings by prayer by Christian conference by reading or meditation before or after the Sacrament the Lord be pleased to touch the Conscience and convert the soul of an impenitent prophane wicked liver nothing of this
mayest Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we Now if Baptisme it self which is the Sacrament of our initiation supposeth according to the tenor and meaning of Christs institution that the party baptized if of age doth actually convert and beleeve and if an infant supposeth an interest in Jesus Christ and in the Covenant of grace for if he be a child of an Heathen or an Infidel although taken into a Christian Family yet the Synod of Dort Sess. 19. adviseth not to baptize such a child till it come to such age as to be instructed in the principles of Christian Religion How much more doth the Lords Supper necessarily by Christs institution suppose that the receivers are not unconverted and unbeleeving persons The previous qualifications which are supposed in Baptisme must be much more supposed in the Lords Supper Thirdly That which gives us the new food supposeth that we have the new birth and spiritual life and that we are not still dead in sins and trespasses But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us the new food Ergo it supposeth we have the new birth The proposition I prove thus A man must first be born by the new birth before he can be fed with the new food and how can a man eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ and yet be supposed not to have a spiritual life before that act but to get a spiritual life in that very act Doth a man get life because he eats and drinks or doth he not rather eat and drink because he lives The Assumption is a received and uncontroverted truth And hence do Divines give this reason why we are but once baptized but do many times receive the Lordâ— Supper because it is enough to be once born but not enough to be once nourished or strengthened See the Belgick confession Art 34. and D. Parei Miscellanea Catechetica pag. 79. I shall strengthen my Argument by the Confession of Bohemia Cap. 11. The Sacraments cannot give to any such which before was not inwardly quickened by the holy Ghost either grace or justifying and quickening faith and therefore they cannot justifie any man nor inwardly quicken or regenerate any mans Spirit for faith must go before And after For if a dead man or one that is unworthy do come to the Sacraments certainly they do not give him life and worthinesse c. See the Harmony of Confessions printed at London 1643. pag. 280. 281. To what end then is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted For that see the Confession of Belgia Ibid. pag. 320. We beleeve and confesse that Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour hath instituted the holy Sacrament of his Supper that in it he might nourish and sustain those whom he hath regenerated and ingrafted into his Family which is the Church Both these Chapters did Mr. Prynn cite in the Question of Iudas which yet prove not what he affirmeth in that point as I have noted before but it seems he did not observe these passages which make directly against him in this Question of conversion or conferring of grace by the Sacrament I add also Mr. Pemble in his Christian disections for receiving the Sacrament The Sacrament saith he is appointed for our nourishment in grace where we grow not by it it is a signe this food was not digested but vomited up again Where faith repentance thankfulnesse and obedience are not increased there Christ crucified was not remembred But how can there be any nourishment in grace or any increase of grace in those who come to the Sacrament without the first grace or in the state of unregeneration Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons is no converting but sealing Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons Ergo. The Proposition hath light enough in it self for converting Ordinances do belong even to unjustified and unconverted persons Therefore that which is instituted onely for beleevers is no converting Ordinance All the Question will be of the Assumption which I shall the rather confirm because it is the very principle from which Polanus and others argue for the suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Table Now I prove the Assumption thus Every Sacrament even a Sacrament of initiation is a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith If Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. 11. then Baptisme which hath succeeded to Circumcision is also a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and that more fully and clearly then Circâ—mcision was and if Baptisme be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith much more is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith which is also proved by Mat. 26. 28. For this is my blood of the new Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins Chrysostome on Rom. 4. considering those words vers 11. a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith hath this meditation upon it that a Sacrament is no signe no seal except where the thing is which is signified and sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For of what shall it be a signe or of what shall it be a seal when there is none to be sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For faith he if it be a signe of righteousnesse and thou hast not righteousnesse neither hast thou the signe If therefore a Sacrament be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith then it is instituted onely for beleevers and justified persons because to such onely it can seal the righteousnesse of faith Upon this ground saith Ursinus that the Sacraments are to the wicked and unbeleevers no Sacraments which agreeth with that Rom. 2. 25. If thou be a breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made uncircumcisâ—…on Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the father of the faithfull and whose justification is as it were a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision or as Aquinas confesseth upon the place that Circumcision was not the cause but the signe of Justification Rom. 4. 9. 10. 11. We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse How was it then reckoned When he was in Circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in uncircumcision And he received the signe of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised If Abraham the father of the faithful got not so much as the Sacrament of initiation till after he was justified and sanctified how shall we think of receiving not onely the Sacrament of initiation but the Sacrament of spiritual nourishment while unjustified and unsanctified And if God did by his Word make a Covenant with Abraham before he received Circumcision the seal of that Covenant must it not much more be supposed that they are within the Covenant of grace
who eat and drink at the Lords Table and consequently that those who are children of disobedience and wrath and strangers to Christ and the Covenant of Grace apparently and manifestly such though not professedly ought not to be admitted to the Lords Table under colour of a converting Ordinance it being indeed a seal of the Covenant of grace Sixthly That Ordinance which is appointed onely for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration repentance faith and conversation is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an Ordinance which is appointed onely for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration repentance faith and conversation Ergo it is no converting Ordinance The reason of the Proposition is because unconverted persons cannot nor do not rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration c. For such are a generation pure in their own eyes and yet not washed from their filthinesse Proverb 16. 2. and 21. 2. and 30. 12. and the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned But he that is spiritual judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2. 14. 15. The carnal mind is enmity against God Rom. 8. 7. The Assumption is proved by 1 Cor. 11. 28. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup. This self-examination Interpreters say must be concerning a mans knowledge repentance faith and conversation The Apostle expounds himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves whether ye be in the Faith prove your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates or counterfeit and unapproved This self examination as it is requisite at other times so especially before our comming to the Lords Table and an unconverted man can no more do it truly and rightly according to the Apostles meaning then he can convert himself And here that which Mr. Prynn did object maketh against himself the Apostle saith Let a man examine himself not others for the examination there spoken of belongs to the Court of a mans own Conscience and to the inward man saith Martyr upon the place not to the Ecclesiastical Court But a natural unconverted man may possibly examine others and espie a mote in his brothers eye he cannot in any right or acceptable manner examine his own Conscience nor go about the taking of the beam out of his own eye He therefore who either cannot through ignorance or doth not through impenitency and hardnesse of heart examine himself and is known to be such a one by his excusing justifying or not confessing his scandalous sin or continuing in the practice thereof ought not to be admitted to that holy Ordinance which is instituted onely for such as can and do humbly and soundly examine themselves and consequently not intended for unconverted impenitent persons Seventhly That Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings son is an Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment Ergo. The Proposition hath this reason for it If a man must needs have a wedding garment that comes then he must needs be converted that comes for what-ever ye call the wedding garment sure it is a thing proper to the Saints and not common to unconverted sinners and the want of it doth condemn a man into utter darknes Matth. 22. 13. The Assumption is clear from Matth. 22. 11. 12. When the King came in to see the Guests he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment And he saith unto him Friend how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment and he was speechlesse If he had been of Mr. Prynns opinion he needed not be speechlesse for Mr. Prynns divinity might have put this answer in his mouth Lord I thought this to be a converting Ordinance and that thou wouldest not reject those that come in without a wedding garment provided that here at the marriage feast they get one But we see the King condemneth the man for comming in thither without a wedding garment Eightly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The proposition must be granted unlesse a man will say that conversion may be without faith The Assumption is proved by Rom. 10. 14. men cannot pray if they do not beleeve and they cannot beleeve if they do not hear the Word v. 17. So then faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God If faith commeth by hearing then not by seeing if by the word then not by the Sacrament Ninthly That Ordinance which hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor any example in the Word of God of any converted by it is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor is there any example in all the Scripture of any ever converted by it Therefore it is no converting Ordinance Tenthly That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake is not a converting Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake Ergo. The proposition I prove thus It is not the will of Christ that converting Ordinances should be dispenced to no unworthy person for else how should they be converted but onely he hath forbidden to dispence unto unworthy persons such Ordinances as belong to the Communion Saints The Assumption I prove from 1 Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever though otherwise a worthy person one converted to the state of grace shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. v. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself not discerning the Lords body If the unworthines of that particular act in respect of the manner of doing it make a man so guilty and liable to such judgement how much more the unworthinesse of the person that eats and drinks For a mans state the course of his life and the frame of his Spirit is more then one single act This therefore doth prove that he that is an unworthy person if he come to the Lords Table doth eat and drink unworthily Whence is that where the Apostle saith vers 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily the Syriack Interpreter hath it he that eateth and drinketh thereof being unworthy or indignus existens Which may be also gathered from the interweaving of vers 28. between vers 27. and vers 29. He that eats and drinks not having before rightly examined himself eats and drinks unworthily But he that is an unworthy person and comes to the
that moral carnal Christians and all such as are not convicted of scandalous sins are to be admitted to the Sacrament Thrrefore doubtlesse saith he it is and was intended by Christ for a converting Ordinance to all such as these to turn them from their evil waies and work saving grace within their hearts since it can have no other proper primary effect in such Certainly God and Christ bestow no Ordinances upon men in vain therefore their intentions in instituting this Supper even for such visible moral unregenerate Christian as well as real Saints must necessarily be for their conversion not their confirmation and sealing onely Answ. Lapsus in initio mali augurii est He confoundeth here things most different 1. He confoundeth our admitting of Communicants with Gods intention to do good to their souls and his Argument runs upon this mistake that God intendeth good to the souls of all who come to the Lords Table though wicked close Hypocrites and since this good cannot be sealing onely it must be conversion But it is neither sealing nor conversion nor any good at all which God intends by that Ordinance to them that perish yet it is not in vain for he himself tells us pag. 34. that even in these the Minister administring the Sacrament is a sweet savour to God who hath appointed the Sacrament secundarily and contingently to be a means of aggravating mens sins and condemnation to magnifie his justice 2. There is a most dangerous mistake in that which he saith of the intentions of God and of Christ. If he mean of what God intendeth or purposeth in the Councel of his own will that in this sence God intendeth the conversion of those that perish is to make void and frustraneous the decree will and intention of God which is grosse Arminianisme and Jesuitisme But if he mean finis operis the proper end for which the Sacrament was instituted and the good which the Word of God tells us we ought to seek and may through the grace of God find in the Sacrament Then in that sence to say that Christs intention in instituting this Sacrament was for conversion of moral unregenerate Christians is meerly a begging of what is in question The like I say of that proper primary effect of the Sacrament in such If he mean the proper primary effect decreed in the secret counsel of God he myres himself in Arminianisme If he mean the proper primary effect of the Sacrament in respect of its own nature this is but petere principium 3. All who pretend right to the Sacrament are either visible Saints qualified according to the rule of Christ and such as the Eldership examining their profession and practice according to the rules of the word judgeth fit to be admitted to the Sacrament or they are not such If they be such then the end and use of the Sacrament in reference to them is to be a sealing Ordinance for the Eldership judgeth and supposeth them fit to be sealed and confirmed so far as they can understand and in that capacity do admit them God onely being able to judge close Hypocrites If they be not qualified as I have said then we do not grant that they ought to be admitted His second Argument hath no strength at all All Ordinanâ—es which strengthen grace do more or lesse begin or beget it and the Directory it self calls the Sacraments means of grace pag. 52. What then The Directory calls this Sacrament means of grace because by it Christ and all his benefits are applied and sealed up unto us and we are sealed up by his Spirit to an assurance of happinesse and everlasting life But saith he why may not the Sacraments convert as well as confirm I have given many reasons for it If he could prove that what confirms doth also convert why did he not do it If he could not prove it why brings he a strong affirmation instead of an Argument As for that which he addeth that the Lords Supper is received not once as Baptism but frequently For this very end that those who often fall into sin through infirmity may likewise by this Supper often rise again be refreshed comforted and get strength against their corruptions and sins and is it not then a converting as well as a confirming Ordinance What a wavering is here Is the raising refressiing and comforting of those who often fall through infirmity the conversion or first grace which now we dispute of Or whether doth he not here yeeld the cause For the refreshing and comforting and strengthening of those that fall through infirmity is the effect of a confirming not of a converting Ordinance And in this sence Divines have given a reason why we are but once baptized but do often receive the Lords Supper because Baptisme is the Sacrament of our initiation the laver of regeneration I mean not that which hath been called Baptismal regeneration fancied to be common to all the baptized but I mean that which is wrought in and sealed to the Elect baptized the Lords Supper is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and strengthening and it is enough to be once born once regenerate but we must be often nourished and strengthened His third Argument is this The very receiving of the Sacrament even in â—…nregenerate persons is accompanied with such things as are most effectual to convert As 1. With a previous external serious examination of their own hearts and estates between God and their own Consciences 2. A solemn searching out of all their open or secret sins and corruptions past or present accompanied with a serious particular privat confession of them a hearty contrition and humiliation for them c. 3. Pious soul ravishing meditations c. which make deep temporary impressions on their hearts 4. Flexanimous exhortations admonitions comminations directions prayers by the Ministers in the Congregation before in and after this dutie Whereupon he leaveth it to every mans Conscience to judge whether this Sacrament is not more likelie to regenerate and change their hearts and lives then the bare Word preached or any other Ordinance Answ. 1. Here is a lump of wild uncouth and most erroneous Divinity Who ever heard of an external examination of mens hearts between God and their own Consciences Or 2. That unregenerate persons can and do seriously examine their own hearts and search out all their sins with a hearty contrition and humiliation for them c. Or 3. That deep temporary impressions on their hearts are most effectual to convert and regenerate for he doth enumerate all these as particulars most effectual to convert Or 4. That in the very receiving of the Sacrament men hear the Ministers prayers in the Congregation 5. That this Sacrament is more likely to regenerate then the bare Word preached I suppose he means not the word without the Spirit for nobody holds the bare word in that sence to regenerate but preaching without other concurring Ordinance or any other
apply the promises yea the death passion and merits of Christ unto EVERY Communicants eyes ears HEART and SOUL Which is plainly universal grace to all who ever received this Sacrament and so to Iudas according to his principles and to all who ever shall receive it 4. Whereas he would confirm this which he saith by his Antagonists Confession I do not think he can give any conscientious account of that word Who said it or where He must needs hold universal grace hold it who will 5. Here lies the strength of his Argument The Word converts by applying Christ therefore the Sacrament which doth more lively apply Christ to every Communicant must be a converting Ordinance Which necessarily implyeth that all who receive the Sacrament are converted Yea if application inferre conversion as the effect of the Application the Saints and Beleevers themselves must be again constituted in the first Article of Conversion and transition from the estate of nature and unregeneration 6. The Application of Christ in the Word unto Conversion is a thing of another nature than the Sacramental application of Christ and therefore like effects ought not to be ascribed unto these Ordinances For the Application of Christ made in the Word preached to the unconverted to convert them is per influxum Physicum by a most efficacious life-giving influence as when Elisha applyed himself to the Shunnamites dead child or like that Ezek. 16. 6. Iohn 5. 25. and 11. 43. But this manner of influence or causality is denied to the Sacrament by many of the Schoolmen and Papists themselves So much of his fifth Argument which I thought to answer in two words if the many absurdities in it had given me leave His sixth Argument is this All grant that God doth as effectually convert by the eye as by the ear All grant I deny it and I verily beleeve he can produce very few Authors if any for it He ought not to speak so great words without good warrants which here I am sure he hath not Well but he will prove the thing it self First he tells us of the book of Nature and of the Creatures by which we are instructed c. But either he means that the very book of Nature can and doth effectually and savingly convert to Faith in Christ and to true sanctification or not If the affirmative then the Heathens who lived and died in Paganisme had sufficient means and helps to conversion and faith in Christ for those Pagans had the book of the Creatures to instruct them as is expressed in some Scriptures cited by himself and so there may be salvation and the means thereof without the Church If this be not his meaning but that the book of Nature instructeth us concerning many things of God yet doth not teach us to know Christ and all things necessary to salvation far lesse doth effectually and savingly convert then he hath said nothing to that point which he had to prove 2. He saith that all the Sacrifices of the old Law and Circumcision and the Passeover did teach Gods people who participated of them or were present at them by the eye and were converting Ordinances as all do and must acknowledge Answ. Here is another tinckling Cymbal Do all acknowledge that the Sacraments of the Old Testament were converting Ordinances There can be no rational account given hereof Certainly our Writers before cited and diverse others who denie the Sacraments of the New Testament to be converting Ordinances never meant to admit that the Sacraments of the old Testament were converting Ordinances 2. How Circumcision did teach by the eye those who did participate of that Ordinance and so Infants is another riddle 3. If Sacrifices under the Law had been converting Ordinances yet that cannot be a just parallel to Sacraments except seeking to make the Lords Supper a converting Ordinance we convert it self into a Sacrifice for sin as Papists do But neither doth he offer the least colour of reason to prove that all the external Sacrifices of the old Law were converting Ordinances which here he affirmeth The Apostle speaketh otherwise of the Legal Sacrifices which he saith could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 99. and therefore calls all those rites carnal Ordinances vers 10. for though they were spiritual in respect of their signification and typifying of Christ and sealing the Covenant of grace to the faithful in the Old Testament yet they were not spiritual in regard of their giving of grace or working conversion or purging the Conscience for they had no such operation nor effect Fourthly Mr. Prynn confirms his present Argument by the miracles of the Prophets Christ and the Apostles which saith he converted thousands without preaching did convert and regenerate men by the eye without the ear For proof whereof he cites abundance of Texts of Scripture which do not prove what he saith nay some of them prove the contrary Some of the Scriptures cited do not prove conversion and regeneration by miracles but either confirmation as Iohn 2. 11. after the miracle it is added and his Disciples beleeved on him Or some preparatory initial work before regeneration as that Iohn 3. 2. Mr. Prynn will hardly prove that Nicodemus was already regenerated at that instant when he knew not what regeneration was Or that those Iohn 2. 23. who beleeved on Christ when they saw his miracles at the feast had any more then a temporary faith it being said of them that Iesus did not commit himself unto them because he knew all men Act. 2. 12. Luke 5. 25. 26. tell us of some who at the sight of miracles were stricken with fear and amazement and gave glory to God which proves not that miracles did convert but convince The like I say of 1 Kings 18. 38. 39. Other Texts cited by him make expresse mention of the Word as a mean of the conversion which was wrought as Iohn 4. 50. the man beleeved the Word that Jesus had spoken and this was before the miracle Iohn 7. 31. many beleeved but they heard Christ preach vers 14. So Iohn 11. 45. those Jewes who beleeved on Christ after they had seen the miracle did also hear that which Christ said yea their beleeving is mentioned as an effect of their hearing vers 41. 42. So Act. 6. 8. Stephen did indeed great miracles but the multiplying of the number of the Disciples is referred to the Word vers 7. Act. 8. 6. it is expressely said And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake hearing and seeing the miracles which he did Quâ fide hath Mr. Prynn cited this very Text to prove that men were converted by miracles without the Word by the eye without the ear Some other Scriptures by him quoted prove onely a popular confluence and the multitudes following of Christ. Having seen his miracles as Iohn 6. 2. and 11. 47. 48. Matth. 15. 30. 31. For
discipline against them that certainly makes us partakers of their sin I mean in a reformed and well constituted Church where the thing is feasible But where it cannot be done because of persecution or because of the invincible opposition either of authority or of a prevalent profane multitude in that case we have onely this comfort left us Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse and in magnis voluisse sat est Fifthly neither doth this Question concerning the pollution or profanation or abuse of the Sacrament concern those peccata quotidianae incursionis such sins of infirmity as all the godly or at least the generallay of the godly are subject unto and guilty of as long as they are in the world for then the Sacrament should be polluted to all for Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sins but onely grosse and scandalous sins such as make the Name of God and the profession of Religion to be evil spoken of and reproached those roots of bitternesse which spring up whereby many are like to be defiled those that are guilty of such sins and have given no evidence of true Repentance if they be received to the Sacrament it is a profaning of the Ordinance Now that the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament in a reformed and constituted Church is a profanation or pollution of that Ordinance may be thus proved First Paraeus upon the 82 Question in the Heidelberg Catechism where it is affirmed that by the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament the Covenant of God is profaned giveth this reason for it Because as they who having no Faith nor Repentance if they take the sâ—als of the Covenant do thereby profane the Covenant so they who consent to known wicked and scandalous persons their taking of the seals or to their coming to the Sacrament do by such consenting make themselves guilty of profaning the Covenant of God for the doer and the consenter fall under the same breach of law yea so far do they sin by such consenting as that they do thereby acknowledge the children of the devil to be the children of God and the enemies of God to be in Covenant and to have fellowship with God He distinguisheth these two things who ought to come to the Sacrament and who ought to be admitted None ought to come except those who truely believe and repent None ought to be admitted except such as are supposed to be believers and penitent there being nothing known to the contrary If any impenitent sinner take the Sacrament he profanes the Covenant of God If the Church admit to the Sacrament any known to live in wickednesse without repentance the Church profaneth the Covenant of God Secondly that Ordinance which is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance which is not appointed for the conversion of sinners but for the communion of Saints is certainly profaned and abused contrary to the nature institution and proper end thereof if those who are manifestly ungodly profane impenitent and unconverted be admitted to the participation thereof But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance c. which I have proved by infallible demonstrations Ergo. Thirdly That use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the name of Christ is a prophaning of the Sacrament But to give the Sacrament to those who are known to live in grosse sins without repentance is an use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the Name of Christ. Ergo. I suppose no man will denie that if we truly and faithfully preach the Word we may and ought to pronounce and declare such as live in sin impenitent and unconverted to be under Gods wrath and displeasure as long as they continue in that estate Be not deceived saith the Apostle neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor theeves nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9. 10. See the like Ephes. 5. 5 6 7. Whence it is that doctrinally we warn the ignorant and scandalous and all such as live in known sins without repentance that they presume not to come and prophane that holy Table Of which Ministers are appointed by the Directory to give warning How then can we by giving the Sacrament to such as these give the lye to the Word For what other thing shall we do if those whom the Word pronounceth to have no part in the Kingdom of God nor of Christ shall be admitted as well as the Godly to eat and drink at the Lords Table while known to continue in the committing of their damnable sins or while it is known that they have not repented of the uncleannesse and fernication and lasciviousnesse which they have committed 2 Cor. 12. 21. What is this but to absolve in the Sacrament those who are condemned in the Word and to open the Kingdom of Heaven in the Sacrament unto those on whom the Word shutteth it Fourthly That use of the Sacrament which strengtheneth the hands of the wicked so that he turneth not from his wickednesse is an abuse and profanation of the Sacrament But the giving of the Sacrament to any known prophane impenitent person is such an use of the Sacrament as strengtheneth the hands of the wicked so that he turneth not from his wickednesse Ergo. I appeal to the experience of all godly and faithful ministers whether they have not found it a great deal more difficult to convince or convert such prophane men as have been usually admitted to the Sacrament then to convince or convert such as have been kept back from the Sacrament No marvel that such prophane ones as have usually received the seals of the Covenant of grace and joyned in the highest act of Church-communion live in a good opinion of their souls estate and trust in lying words Have we not eaten and drunken at thy Table The Sacrament The Sacrament as of old The Temple The Temple Mr. Prynn thinks that the Minister hath fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy Communicants of the danger they incurre by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table Vindic. pag. 28 29. But he may be pleased to receive an answer from himself pag. 43. The things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts then the things we hear The Word preached is Verbum audibile the Sacrament is Verbum visibile How shall prophane ones be perswaded by their ears to beleeve that whereof they see the contrary with their eyes they will give more credit in Mr. Prynns own opinion to the visible Word then to the audible Word Fifthly If it were a prophanation of the Sacrament of Baptisme to baptize a