Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII. Twenty A…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 rChamier. contract. Tom 4. lib. 2. cap. 9. Quia ut efficientia toto genere suo differt a significatione: ita diversa ratio est instituendi in st…umenta efficientia, & significantia &c. 2. prob. inductione. Quia nulla signa sive miraculosa, sive alia sunt efficientia. Polanus Synt. lib. 6. cap. 49. Elementum Sacramentale significat, testatur, & obsignat …redentibus rem verbo Dei promissam, eam autem nequaquam causat, efficit, aut producit.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, its 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 E…nuch said, See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou beleevest with all thin… heart … 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. sSynops. Pur. Theol. Disp. 43. Thes. 35. Duo tantum esse & non plura (Sacramenta) affirmamus: quoniam unum est initiationis, seu regenerationis, alterum nutritionis seu alimoniae. So Matthias Martinius lexic. Philol. pag. 3272. makes this distinction between baptisme and the Lords Supper: that is a Sacrament of initiation and …doption: this of confirmation and …urishment.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 Lord… 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 tPolan. Synt lib. 6. cap. 56. He holds that omnes illi qui scandala praebent & non resipiscunt serio, a mensa Domini sunt arcendi. 1. Quia si infideles & impoenitèntes ad Coenam Domini admitterentur, profanaretur foedus Dei, tam communicando Symbola foederis iis quibus Deus nihil promittit, quam usu…pando Symbola sacra sine fide & resipistentia. 2. Quia polluerent & contaminarent eibum & potum consecra…um, quem Christus non destinavit nisi suis domesticis & fidelibus &c. 6. Quia incredulos & manifeste impios Christus prohibuit admitti ad sacram Coenam: nam instituit illam solis fidelibus.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 onelyonly for beleevers and justified persons, is no converting but sealing Ordinance. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is instituted onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 Circ…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 foreign, For of what shall it be a signe, or of what shall it be a seal, when there is none to be sealed. foreign. 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 onelyonly for beleevers and justified persons, because to such onelyonly it can seal the righteousnesse of faith. Upon this ground saith uUbi supra pag. 395.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 uncircumcis…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 xBullinger Decad. 5. serm. 7. Quis praeterca i…de non colligat, nos qui filii Abrahae sumus, non alia ratione justificari, quam p…trem justifica…um constat, ac Sacramenta nostra in nobis non aliud …fficere, quam quod in ille …? … cum eadem sit ratio Sacramentorum veterum & nostrorum.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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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, ySynops. pur. Theol. Disp. 45. Th…s. 83. Dignus ejus usus praeeu…te probatione sui cujusque definitur: scilicet an sit in fide 2 Cor. 13. 5. & s…ria resipiscentia afficiatur, secundum illud Pauli, Probet vero seipsum homo. &c.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. zUrsinus Tract. Theol. pag. 650. edit. 1584. Ad Coenam Domini autem nulli nisi adulti, qui & probare seipsos possunt, & hanc probationem confessione & vita ostendant. Quid porro de his faciendum qui vitam Christianis indignam agunt? Ecclesiastica disciplina coercendi sunt.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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 Lords Table unworthily and unpreparedly, eats and drinks not having before rightly examined himself. Ergo. What of that? will you say. aMagdeb. Cent. lib. cap. 4. pag. 278. Indigne eos uti docet (Paulus) qui sine vera poenitentia & fide accedunt. &c. Oecumenius upon 1 Cor 11. fixeth the sin of eating and drinking unworthily upon the Corinthians, in regard of their contempt of the … poor, and their other sinnes: supposing all such to eat unworthily who are under any wickednesse unrepented, when they come.Much to the point. Every unconverted and unregenerate person is an unworthy person (as the Scripture distinguisheth worthy persons and unworthy) and comes unworthily and unpreparedly (if he come while such) to the Lords Table; Therefore such a one if he come, eats and drinks unworthily, and so eats and drinks judgement to himself. bDe Tempore Scrm. 244. Et cum nullus homo velit cum …unica sordibus plena ad Ecclesiam convenire, nescio qua Conscientia cum anima per luxuriam sit inquinata, praesumit ad altare accedere: non timens illud quod Apostolus dixit: Qui enim manducat Corpus & sumit sanguinem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini.Augustine argueth promiscuously against those who come unworthily, and those that eat and drink unworthily, and applyeth the Apostles words of eating and drinking unworthily, to all who come with polluted souls, such as all unconverted have. And Gualther, Martyr, and other Interpreters upon the place, the Centurists also in the place last cited, reckon those to eat and drink unworthily, who come without the wedding garment, and without faith, and holinesse of conversation, which intimateth that they who live unworthily, do also eat the Lords Supper unworthily, which is most plainly intimate in the Directory pag. 50. where ignorant, scandalous, and prophane persons are warned not to come to that holy Table, upon this reason, because he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgement to himself, which necessarily implyeth that unworthy persons and prophane livers, if they come to the Sacrament, are not converted, but sin more in eating and drinking unworthily. I conclude therefore that the prohibition of eating and drinking unworthily doth necessarily imply a prohibition of unconverted, unregenerate, impenitent persons, to come to the Lords Table, and by consequence that it is no converting Ordinance.
Eleventhly, That Ordinance which is Eucharistical and consolatory, supposeth that such as partake of it have part and portion in that thing for which thanks are given, and are such as are fit to be comforted. But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance Eucharistical and consolatory. Ergo. The Proposition needs no other proof but the third Commandement; Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain. Shall a man be called to give thanks for redemption, reconciliation, and remission of sins, and to take comfort in Jesus Christ, even while he is such a one of whom God hath said, There is no peace to the wicked: High talk becommeth not a fool. Psal. 33. 1. Rejoyce in the Lord O ye righteous, for praise is comely for the upright. Psal. 50. 14. 16. Offer unto God thanksgiving &c. But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth. cZuinglius Tom. 2. de verâ & falsâ Religione cap. de Sacram. Coena Dominica d…nus experimentum, quod morte Christi fidamus, quum gratulantes & laeti adsimus in eo coe…u, qui Deo gratias agit pro beneficio redemptionis.The Assumption is acknowledged among all; for as it hath the name foreign, so is the nature of it. It is also a consolatory Ordinance, in which we are called to spiritual joy and gladnesse, it being a feast of fat things full of marrow, and of wines on the lees well refined. At this Ordinance of the holy Supper Christ spake many a sweet and consolatory word to the disciples, and did not rebuke them nor chide them, as he had done at other times. Is it not then a healing slightly of the malady of impenitent unconverted sinners, yea a betraying of their souls to bring them to joy and comfort and thanksgivings and songs of praise, to eat of the marrow and fatnesse, and to drink of the rivers of pleasure which are in the house of God, when we ought rather call them to weeping and to mourning, to make their peace with God, and to flee from the wrath to come?
Twelfthly, That Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual gracious qualifications, is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance. But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual and gracious qualifications. Ergo.
The Proposition I hope needs no proof, because unconverted persons dead in sins and trespasses, have no spiritual gracious qualifications. The Assumption may be proved by many Scriptures. If of any Ordinance, chiefly of this; it holds true that Christ inviteth and calleth none but such as labour and are heavie loaden, Matth. 11. 28. such as are athirst for the water of life, Iohn 7. 37. Isa. 55. 1. such as have the wedding garment, Matth. 22. 12. such as examine themselves 1 Cor. 11. 28. such as are Christs friends, Cant. 5. 1. Eat O friends, drink yea drink abundantly O beloved.
Thirteenthly, That Ordinance which is instituted for the Communion of Saints, is intended onelyonly for such as are Saints, and not for unconverted sinners. But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints, and of those who are members of the same body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1. 2. Ergo.
Martin Bucer de Regno Christi lib. 1. cap. 7. conceiveth that this Sacrament doth so far belong to the Communion of Saints, that wicked and unworthy persons are not onelyonly to be kept back from partaking, but from the very beholding or being present in the Church at the giving of the Sacrament: which yet is more then we have affirmed.
Fourteenthly, If Baptisme it self (at least when ministred to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance, far lesse is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance. But Baptisme it self (at least when ministred to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance. Ergo.
The ground of the Proposition is, because Baptisme hath a nearer relation to regeneration then the Lords 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 professe 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 Baptisme 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 beleeve no consciencious Minister would adventure to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signes of unregeneration. Sure, we cannot be answerable to God if we should minister Baptisme to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person. And if we may not initiate such a one, how shall we bring him to the Lords Table?
Fifteenthly, If the Baptisme even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lords Supper, then the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance. But the Baptisme even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lords Supper. Ergo.
The Assumption is without controversie, it being the order observed by Christ and by the Apostles, and by all Christian Churches. The Proposition I prove thus. 1. dHutterus Disp. 17. de Coena Dom. Thes. 1. Sacramentum initiationis novi Test. puta Baptisinum, ordine convenientissimo excipit Sacramentum confirmationis, quod est sacra…ssima Coena Domini & Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi: tum ob causas alias, tum quod ea est fidei nostrae, in baptismo nobis collatae, respectu nostri infirmitas, ut nisi subinde confirmetur, mo… penitus fatiscat & intereat.What better reason of the necessity of this precedency of Baptisme, than that Baptisme is the Sacrament of regeneration, the Lords Supper the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment, and one must be borne before he eat and drink. 2. The Apostle saith Gal. 3. 27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by Baptisme into death. Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in Baptisme, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God. Therefore if the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be intended onelyonly for the baptized, then it is intended onelyonly 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 confirme them.
Sixteenthly, The Method of the parable of the forlorne Son maketh very much against Mr. Prynns 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 15. 20. 22, 23. And this is done in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, more especially and more manifestly then in any other Ordinance. But when? not while the man is yet playing the prodigal, wasting his substance with riotous living, nor yet while he is filling his belly in a far Countrey 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 repented and came to himself, he had (belike) been so much the more carelesse of comming 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.
Seventeenthly, I shall draw another Argument both out of the Directory for the publike Worship of God throughout the three Kingdoms, and out of Mr. Prynn himself. Thus it is. That Ordinance from which the Minister in the Name of Christ ought concionaliter or Doctrinally to excommunicate all impenitent prophane persons, is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance. But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance from which the Minister ought in the Name of Christ concionaliter or Doctrinally to excommunicate all impenitent prophane persons, Ergo.
The Proposition ariseth from this ground, we ought not to dehort impenitent prophane 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 Lords 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, prophane, or that live in any sin or offence against their knowledge or Conscience, that they presume not to come to that holy Table, shewing them that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself. And on the other part he is in especial manner to invite and encourage all that labour under the sence of the burthen of their sins, and fear of wrath, and desire to reach out unto a greater progresse in grace then yet they can attain unto, to come to the Lords Tàble. Is it not here held forth as the will of Christ, that no prophane impenitent unconverted person ought or may come to the Lords Table, but onelyonly such as have somewhat of the work of grace in them? But let us hear Mr. Prynn himself. The seventh difference which he stateth between his Antagonists and himself pag. 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 incurr by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table, and seriously dehort them from comming to it, unlesse 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 pag. 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 publikely and privatly.) Then I suppose that Mr. Prynn 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. OnelyOnly 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 Lords 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. Prynn.) 2. How can the Minister warn such persons not to come to the Sacrament unlesse they repent, reform, and come prepared? If it be not a sealing Ordinance intended onelyonly for such as do repent and reform, the Minister may not say so. 3. And otherwise the sence were this, that such persons ought not to come to a converting Ordinance, unlesse they be converted; for to repent, reform, and come prepared, are things which none can do who are not converted. Finally▪ By Mr. Prynn his principles, we may as well▪ yea rather, dehort men from comming to hear the Word unlesse they repent and reform. For pag. 44. he saith that the Sacrament is as converting, yea a more humbling, regenerating, converting Ordinance then the Word. Which if it be so, then we may more warrantably and with lesse danger to the souls of those who do not repent and reform, dehort them from comming to the Word, then from comming to the Sacrament.
Eighteenthly, That Ordinance which is not communicable to Heathens or Pagans, nor to excommunicated Christians, for their conversion from darknesse to light, from the power of Sathan to God, from the state of sin to the state of repentance, is not a converting Ordinance. But the Lords Supper is such. Ergo.
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 Matth. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15. which accordingly the Apostles did, Rom. 10. 18. Col. 1. 6. And if the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance for known impenitent scandalous prophane 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 prophanest unexcommunicated person within the Church, cannot convert both Heathens and excommunicated Christians?
The Assumption I prove from Mr. Prynns own acknowledgement, pag. 38. though the Sacrament saith he must not be administred to Heathens, to whom the Gospel may and must be preached, before they beleeve and professe Christ: yet it must be administred to them as well as Baptisme, after their beleef and profession of Christ. Where he clearly grants both Sacraments, Baptisme and the Lords Supper, to be onelyonly sealing and confirming (not converting) Ordinances to Heathens, and therefore not communicable to them, till after they beleeve and professe Christ.
Nineteenthly, That Ordinance which is not communicable nor lawful to be administred to any known impenitent sinner under that notion, but onelyonly as penitent sinners, truly repenting of their sins past, is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is such. Ergo.
The Proposition I prove thus. A converting Ordinance may be administred to known impenitent sinners under that notion, or lookt upon as such, wallowing in their blood and filthinesse. Yea a converting Ordinance qua converting, is not (nor indeed can be) administred to penitent sinners qua penitent, or lookt 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.
The Assumption is granted by Mr. Prynn pag. 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 onelyonly 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 administred as instrumental to the first conversion of scandalous unworthy persons in the Church: for where there is in any Ordinance an instrumental causality toward the conversion of a scandalous person, that Ordinance must needs be administred to that person under the notion of an unconverted person, and the effect of conversion lookt upon as consequent, not as antecedent.
The twentieth Argument and the last is this. As I have before shewed that Mr. Prynn in holding the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance, unto which unregenerate impenitent and unbeleeving persons (not being excommunicated) ought to be admitted, doth joyn issue with Papists, and dissenteth from the Protestant writers in a very special point, and that the controversie 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 Lords 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 lesse prophane and unclean persons in whom no signe of repentance appeareth; foreign, not admitting him who is not altogether most holy. Just in Martyr Apol. 2. lets us know that in his time the Lords Supper was given to none, but to such a person as was lookt upon as a beleever, and washed in the laver of regeneration, and lived according to the rule of Christ. Chrysostome Hom. 83. in Matth. Augustine de side & operibus Cap. 18. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist. 143. and others might be here added. But I shall bring their full testimonies chap. 17. where I will shew Antiquity to be for the suspension of scandalous persons unexcommunicated. Beside these, I add also eSi itaque in me manet, & ego in illo, tunc manducat, tunc bibit. Qui autem non in me manet, nec ego in illo, & si accipit Sacramentum, magnum acquirit tormentum. Et infra. Ad altare Dei invisibile (quo non accedit injustus) ille pervenit, qui ad hoc praesens justificatus accedit.Beda upon 1 Cor. 11. who tells us both out of Augustine and Prosper, that none ought to come to the Lords Table but a justified person, and such a one as abideth in Christ and Christ in him. Isidorus de Ecclesiast. offic. lib. 1. Cap. 18. citing the Apostles words, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, addeth. fHoc est enim indignè accipere, si eo tempore quis accipiat, quo debet agere poenitentiam.For 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 sheweth us that in their Judgement, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth suppose conversion and repentance to be already wrought, and if it be not wrought, the receiving is an unworthy receiving.
Moreover that the Lords Supper was not anciently esteemed a converting Ordinance, but a sealing Ordinance, supposing conversion, is more then apparent by the distinction of Missa Catechumenorum and Missa fidellum: and by that proclamation in the Church before the Sacrament, Sancta Sanctis, the sence whereof Durantus de ritibus, lib. 2. cap. 55. num. 15. giveth out of Chrysostome and Cyrill, that Sancta Sanstis 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 a holy thing, sancti & 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 Lords Supper be a holy thing intended onelyonly for holy persons, then (sure) it is no converting Ordinance.
I might also cite divers School-men against Mr. Prynn in this particular. I shall instance but in two for the present. Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. dist. 9. Quaest. 1. proveth from 1 Cor. 11. 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 signe of incorporation into Christ. Alexander Alensis part 4. Quaest. 11. Membr. 2. Art. 2. Sect. 2. saith thus. As there is a double bodily medicine (curativa & conservativa) one for cure, another for conservation, so there is a double spiritual medine, to wit (curativa & conservativa) one for cure, another for conservation; repentance for the cure, the Eucharist for conservation. &c.