when ministered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting ordinance, far less is the Lord's supper a regenerating or converting ordinance. But baptism itself (at least administered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting ordinance; therefore, the ground of the proposition is, because baptism hath a nearer relation to regeneration than the Lord's supper, and therefore hath the name of the laver of regeneration. The assumption I prove thus : 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptized by the apostles, except such as did profess faith in Christ, gladly received the word, and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of grace did appear (I say not that it really was in all, but somewhat of it did appear in all). 2. If the baptism of those who are of age be a regenerating ordinance, then you suppose the person to be baptized an unregenerated person (even as when a minister first preacheth the gospel to pagans, he cannot but suppose them to be unregenerated); but I believe no conscientious minister would adventure to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signs of unregeneration. Sure we cannot be answerable to God if we should minister baptism to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated, unconverted person; and if we may not initiate such an one, how shall we bring him to the Lord's table?

Fifteenthly, If the baptism even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lord's supper, then the Lord's supper is not a converting but a sealing ordinance. But the baptism even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lord's supper. Therefore, the assumption is without controversy, it being the order observed by Christ and by the apostles, and by all Christian churches. The proposition I prove thus : 1. What better reason of the necessity of this precedency of baptism, than that baptism is the sacrament of regeneration, the Lord's supper the sacrament of our spiritual nourishment,1 and one must be born before he

1 Hutterus, disp. 17, de Coena Dom., thes. 1. | Sacramentum initiationis Novi Test. puta baptis

mum, ordine convenientissimo excipit sacramentum confirmationis, quod est sacratissima cœna Domini et servatoris nostri Jesu Christi: tum ob causas alias, tum quod ea est fidei nostræ, in baptismo nobis collatæ, respectu nostri infirmitas, ut nisi subinde confirmetur, mox penitus fatiscat et intereat.

eat and drink. 2. The Apostle saith, Gal. iii. 27, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ;" Rom. vi. 4, "We are buried with him by baptism into death;" Col. ii. 12, " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God." Therefore if the sacrament of the Lord's supper be intended only for the baptized, then it is intended only for such as are supposed to have put on Christ, are buried and raised again with him through faith, and consequently, it is not intended for unconverted persons to convert them, but for converted persons to confirm them. Sixteenthly, The method of the parable of the forlorn son maketh very much against Mr Prynne's opinion. The Lord is indeed ready to forgive, and hath compassion upon the poor sinner, and falls on his neck and kisseth him, and saith to his servants,

،،

Bring forth the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet, and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and be merry," Luke xv. 20-23. And this is done in the sacrament of the Lord's supper more especially and more manifestly than in any other ordinance. But when ? Not while the man it yet playing the prodigal, wasting his substance with riotous living, nor yet while he is filling his belly in a far country with the husks which the swine did eat. But it was "when he came to himself," when he “ came to his father," and said, “ Father, I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son." Then, and not till then, doth the father bestow upon him the best robe and the fatted calf; "For this my son was dead (saith the father) and is alive again, was lost and is found." Had the best robe and the fatted calf been given him before he pented and came to himself, he had, probably, been so much the more careless of coming home to his father. But we see these love tokens, this feast, and this mirth, is for entertaining a poor penitent, not for converting an impenitent sinner.

re

Seventeenthly, I shall draw another argument both out of the Directory for the public worship of God throughout the three kingdoms, and out of Mr Prynne himself. Thus it is: That ordinance from which the minister, in the name of Christ, ought concionaliter, or doctrinally, to excommunicate all impenitent profane persons, is not a

converting but a sealing ordinance. But the Lord's supper is an ordinance from which the minister ought, in the name of Christ, concionaliter, or doctrinally, to excommunicate all impenitent profane persons; therefore the proposition ariseth from this ground, we ought not to dehort impenitent profane men from converting ordinances, but rather exhort them to come and partake thereof. The assumption I prove, First, From the Directory, in the head of the Lord's supper, which speaketh of the minister thus, "Next, he is, in the name of Christ, on the one part to warn all such as are ignorant, scandalous, profane, or that live in any sin or offence against their knowledge or conscience, that they presume not to come to that holy table, showing them that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself; and on the other part he is in especial manner to invite and encourage all that labour under the sense of the burden of their sins, and fear of wrath, and desire to reach out unto a greater progress in grace than yet they can attain unto, to come to the Lord's table." Is it not here held forth as the will of Christ, that no profane, impenitent, unconverted person, ought or may come to the Lord's table, but only such as have somewhat of the work of grace in them? But let us hear Mr Prynne himself. The seventh difference which he stateth between his antagonists and himself, p. 28, is this, "Whether the minister hath not fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy communicants of the danger they incur by their unworthy approaches to the Lord's table, and seriously dehort them from coming to it, unless they repent, reform, and come prepared."

If this be a right stating of that difference (and if it be true which Mr Hussey, in his Epistle to the Parliament, p. 7, saith, that "it is a very great and dangerous sin, if they come without repentance, faith, and charity, wherein the minister must instruct his people publicly and privately"), then, I suppose that Mr Prynne will not deny that a minister ought in duty and conscience to do all this, to admonish a scandalous unworthy person, and seriously dehort, &c.; only he contends that the minister is not bound in duty and conscience after all this to keep back such from the sacrament. Well, I take for the present what he grants, and even by that I prove the Lord's supper is no converting ordinance; for if it were,

1. How dare any minister seriously dehort any unworthy person from approaching to it? May we forbid sinners to use the means of their conversion, especially if they be such as are not excommunicated nor cast out of the church, and do desire to receive the sacrament (which are the cases often put by Mr Prynne)? 2. How can the minister warn such persons not to come to the sacrament, "unless they repent, reform, and come prepared?" If it be not a sealing ordinance intended only for such as do repent and reform, the minister may not say so. 3. And otherwise the sense were this, that such persons ought not to come to a converting ordinance, unless they be converted; for to repent, reform, and come prepared, are things which none can do who are not converted. Finally, By Mr Prynne's principles, we may as well, yea rather, dehort men from coming to hear the word unless they repent and reform. For, p. 44, he saith, that the sacrament is "as converting, yea a more humbling, regenerating, converting ordinance than the word;" which if it be so, then we may more warrantably, and with less danger to the souls of those who do not repent and reform, dehort them from coming to the word, than from coming to the sacrament.

Eighteenthly, That ordinance which is not communicable to heathens or pagans, nor to excommunicated Christians, for their conversion from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, from the state of sin to the state of repentance, is not a converting ordinance. But the Lord's supper is such: Therefore, the reason of the proposition is, because converting ordinances are communicable to heathens; and thence proceeded the general commission to preach the gospel to every creature, and to teach all nations, Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; which accordingly the apostles did, Rom. x. 18; Col. i. 6. And if the sacrament be a converting ordinance for known impenitent, scandalous, profane persons within the church, what reason is there imaginable why it is not also a converting ordinance for heathens, pagans, Turks, Jews? Or where have we the least hint in Scripture that an ordinance which may convert the profanest unexcommunicated person within the church, cannot convert both heathens and excommunicated Christians?

The assumption I prove from Mr Prynne's own acknowledgment, p. 38," Though the sacrament (saith he) must not be adminis

tered to heathens, to whom the gospel may and must be preached, before they believe and profess Christ, yet it must be administered to them as well as baptism, after their belief and profession of Christ." Where he clearly grants both sacraments, baptism, and the Lord's supper, to be only sealing and confirming (not converting) ordinances to heathens, and therefore not communicable | to them till after they believe and profess Christ.

Ninteenthly, That ordinance which is not communicable nor lawful to be administered to any known impenitent sinner under that notion, but only as penitent sinners, truly repenting of their sins past, is not a converting but a sealing ordinance. But the | sacrament of the Lord's supper is such, therefore the proposition I prove thus: A converting ordinance may be administered to known impenitent sinners under that notion, or looked upon as such, wallowing in their blood and filthiness. Yea a converting ordinance qua converting, is not (nor indeed | can be) administered to penitent sinners qua penitent, or looked upon as truly converted; for as every effect is in order of nature posterior to its cause, so a converting ordinance, | being the instrumental cause of conversion, regeneration, and repentance, it must needs be supposed that conversion and repentance doth not in order of nature precede but follow after the administration of the converting ordinance.

p.

The assumption is granted by Mr Prynne, 37: "The minister (saith he) doth not I suppose he will also say ought not) administer the sacrament to any known impenitent sinners under that notion, but only as penitent sinners, truly repenting of their sins past, and promising, purposing to lead a new life for the future." Therefore yet again, by some of his own principles, the sacrament is not administered as instrumental to the first conversion of scandalous unworthy persons in the church; for where there is in any ordinance an instrumental casuality toward the conversion of a scandalous person, that ordinance must needs be administered to that person under the notion of an unconverted person, and the effect of conversion looked upon as consequent, not as an

tecedent.

The twentieth argument, and the last, is this: As I have before showed that Mr Prynne in holding the sacrament to be a converting ordinance, unto which unregenerate, impeni- |

tent, and unbelieving persons (not being excommunicated) ought to be admitted, doth join issue with Papists, and dissenteth from the Protestant writers in a very special point, and that the controversy draweth very deep; so I will now make it to appear that he dissenteth as much from the ancients in this particular. Dionysius Areopagita, de Eccles. Hierarch., cap. 3, part. 3, speaking of the nature of this ordinance of the Lord's supper, tells us, that it doth not admit those scandalous sinners who were in the condition of penitents, before they had fully manifested their repentance, much less profane and unclean persons in whom no sign of repentance appeareth; ror un Tavreos ieparator on mporteuévn : not admitting him who is not altogether most holy. Justinus Martyr, apol. 2, lets us know that in his time the Lord's supper was given to none but to such a person as was looked upon as a believer, and washed in the laver of regeneration, and lived according to the rule of Christ. Chrysostom, hom. 83, in Matt. ; Augustine, de Fide et Operibus, cap. 18; Isidorus Pelusiota, lib. 1, epist. 143, and others, might be here added. But I shall bring their full testimonies, chap. xvii., where I will show antiquity to be for the suspension of scandalous persons unexcommunicated. Beside these, I add also Beda upon 1 Cor. xi., who tells us, both out of Augustine and Prosper, that none ought to come to the Lord's table but a justified person, and such an one as abideth in Christ and Christ in him.1 Isidorus, de Ecclesiast. offic., lib. 1, cap. 18, citing the Apostle's words, "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily," addeth, this is to receive unworthily, if any man receive at that time in which he should be repenting." The same words hath Rabanus Maurus, de Instit. Cleric., lib. 1, cap. 31, which plainly showeth us, that in their judgment the sacrament of the Lord's supper doth suppose conversion and repentance to be already wrought, and if it be not wrought, the receiving is an unworthy receiving.

"For

Moreover, that the Lord's supper was not anciently esteemed a converting ordinance, but a sealing ordinance, supposing conver

1 Si itaque in me manet, et ego in illo, tunc manducat tunc bibit. Qui autem non in me manet, nec ego in illo, et si accipit sacramentum, magnum acquirit tormentum. Et infra. Ad altare Dei invisibile (quo non accedit injustus) ille pervenit, qui ad hoc præsens justificatus accedit.

2 Hoc est enim indigne accipere, si eo tempore quis accipiat, quo debet agere penitentiam.

sion, is more than apparent by the distinction of Missa Catechumenorum and Missa fidelium; and by that proclamation in the church before the sacrament, sancta sanctis, the sense whereof Durantus, de Ritibus, lib. 2, cap. 55, num. 15, giveth out of Chrysostom and Cyril, that sancta sanctis was as much as to say, Si quis non est sanctus, non accedat: If any man be not holy, let him not approach. Or as if it had been said to them, The sacrament is an holy thing, sancti et vos cum sitis Sancto Spiritu donati, and seeing you also are holy, the Holy Spirit being given unto you; atque ita sancta sanctis conveniant, and so holy things agreeing to holy persons. If the Lord's supper be a holy thing intended only for holy persons, then, sure, it is no converting ordinance.

I might also cite divers schoolmen against Mr Prynne in this particular. I shall instance but in two for the present. Scotus, in lib. 4, sent. dist. 9, quest. 1, proveth from 1 Cor. xi. 27, that it is a mortal sin for a man to come to the sacrament at that time when he is living in a mortal sin; and that he who is not spiritually a member of Christ, ought not to receive the sacrament, which is a sign of incorporation into Christ. Alex. Alensis, part. 4, quest. 11, mem. 2, art. 2, sect. 2, saith thus, "As there is a double bodily medicine (curativa et conservativa), one for cure, another for conservation, so there is a double spiritual medicine, to wit (curativa et conservativa), one for cure, another for conservation; repentance for the cure, the eucharist for conservation," &c.

CHAPTER XIV.

MR PRYNNE'S TWELVE ARGUMENTS, BROUGHT TO PROVE THAT THE LORD'S SUPPER IS A CONVERTING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSED AND ANSWERED.

It shall be now no hard business to answer Mr Prynne's twelve arguments, brought by him to refute my assertion, that the sacrament of the Lord's supper is no converting ordinance. See Vindic., p. 41–45.

First, He tells us we grant that moral carnal Christians, and all such as are not convicted of scandalous sins, are to be admitted to the sacrament. "Therefore, doubtless (saith he), it is and was intended

by Christ for a converting ordinance to all such as these, to turn them from their evil ways, 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 Christians, as well as real saints, must necessarily be for their conversion, not their confirmation and sealing only."

Ans. Lapsus in initio mali augurii est. He confoundeth here things most different. 1. He confoundeth our admitting of communicants, with God's 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 Lord's table, though wicked close hypocrites; and since this good cannot be sealing only, 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, p. 34, that even in these, the minister administering the sacrament is a sweet savour to God, who hath appointed the sacrament "secondarily and contingently, to be a means of aggravating men's sins and condemnation, to magnify 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 counsel of his own will, that, in this sense, God intendeth the conversion of those that perish, is to make void and frustraneous, the degree, will, and intention of God, which is gross Arminianism and Jesuitism. 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 sense, to say that Christ's intention, in instituting this sacrament, was for conversion of moral unregenerate Christians, is merely 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 mires himself in Arminianism; 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 only 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 ordinances which strengthen grace, do more or less begin or beget it, and the Directory itself calls the sacraments means of grace, p. 52. What then? The Directory calls this sacrament a means of grace, because by it "Christ and all his benefits are applied and sealed up unto us,' and we 66 are sealed up by his Spirit to an assurance of happiness 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 Lord's 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 confirming ordinance?" What a wavering is here! Is the raising, refreshing, 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 yield the cause? For the refreshings and comforting, and strengthening of those who fall through infirmity, is the effect of a confirming, not of a converting ordinance. And, in this sense, divines have given a reason why we are but once baptized, but do often receive the Lord's supper, because baptism 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 Lord's supper is the

sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and strengthening; and it is enongh 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 unregenerate persons," is accompanied with such things 66 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, private confession of them, &c. 3. Pious, soul-ravishing meditations, &c., which make deep temporary impressions on their hearts. Flexanimous exhortations, admonitions, comminations, directions, prayers by the ministers in the congregations, before, in, and after this duty." Whereupon he leaveth it to every man's conscience to judge whether this sacrament is not 66 more likely to regenerate and change their hearts and lives, than the bare word preached, or any other ordinance.

Ans. 1. Here is a lump of wild, uncouth, and most erroneous divinity. Who ever heard of an external examination of men's hearts between God and their own conscience? 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 minister's prayers in the congregation; 5. That this sacrament "is more likely to regenerate than the bare word preached (I suppose he means not the word without the Spirit, for nobody holds the bare word in that sense to regenerate, but preaching without other concurring ordinance), or any other ordinance," which if it be, he cannot choose but allow to give the sacrament of the Lord's supper to excommunicated persons, and to the unbaptized, whether heathens or Jews, being of age and desiring to receive it.

Secondly, If all the whole antecedent part of his argument were granted, the consequence is nought; for this must be the consequence: If examination of men's hearts, the searching out of all their sins, confes