Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 14
CHAP. XIIII. Mr. Prynne his twelve Arguments brought to prove that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance, discussed and answered.
IT shall be now no hard businesse to answer Mr. Prynns twelve Arguments, brought by him to refute my assertion, that that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance. See Vindic. pag. 41. to 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. 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 onelyonly.
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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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 Ordinan…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 …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 Ordinance. Which if it be, he cannot choose but allow to give the Sacrament of the Lords 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 naught: for this must be the consequence, If examination of mens hearts, the searching out of all their sins, confession, contrition, prayers, vowes, meditations, exhortations, which do accompany the Sacrament, be most effectual to convert and to beget grace, then the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance. Which consequence he will never prove. Put the case that self-examination, confession, prayers, vowes, meditations, exhortations, at the calling of a Parliament, at the going out of an Army, at the choosing of Magistrates or Ministers, at the death of Parents, friends, &c. prove effectual to conversion; Shall we therefore say that the calling of a Parliament, the going out of the Army, the choosing of Ministers or Magistrates, the death of Parents or friends, are converting Ordinances?
His fourth Argument alone is syllogistical (I wish all his Arguments throughout his whole book had been such, that the strength or weaknesse thereof might the sooner appear) That Ordinance where…n we most immedietly converse with God and Christ, and have more intimate visible sensible communion with them, then in any other, is certainly the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others, to humble, regenerate, convert, and beget true grace within us. &c. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper by our Antagonists own confession is such. Ergo.
Answ. 1. I retort his Argument against himself. That Ordinance wherein we most immediatly converse with God and Christ, and have more intimate communion with them then in any other, is a sealing, confirming, but not a converting Ordinance. For they who are converting have not such intimate communion and immediat conversing with God and Christ, as they who are already converted and do walk with God as Enoch did and are filled with all joy and peace in beleeving, Rom. 15. 13. even with joy unspeakable and full of glory, 1 Pet. 1. 8. The daughters of Ierusalem being sick of love for Christ, yet are far from that communion with him, which his Spouse longer acquainted with him did enjoy, therefore they ask at her, whither her beloved was gone that they might seek him with her. Cant. 6 1. Hath the child fed with milk more communion and conversing with his father, then the son come to years, who eateth and drinketh at his fathers Table? Do we not see often a servent convert like Apollos, whom an Aquila and Priscilla must take and expound unto him the way of God more perfectly. Act. 18. 25, 26.
2. I deny his Proposition as he frames it, for the plain English of it is this; If it be a sealing, comforting, confirming Ordinance, then it is a converting Ordinance, which I clear thus. He takes his Medium from his Antagonists concession, for they accord (saith he) that we have more immediate communion with God in this Ordinance then in any other, for as much as in this Sacrament Christ is more particularly applied, and the remission of our sins more sensibly sealed to us then in any other Ordinance: from whence I thus infallibly conclude against these opposites. Then follows his Argument, which is no other then a putting of the converted in the condition of the unconverted, or the unconverted in the capacity of the converted▪ or to prove it converts, because it seals.
3. If this Sacrament be the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others, to humble, regenerate, convert, and beget true grace: it will follow that we ought (at least may) give the Sacrament not onelyonly to the most ignorant and scandalous within the Church, but to Turks, Pagans, Jews, and to excommunicated persons, as I said before.
4. He challengeth his Antagonists for crying up and magnifying this Sacrament above the Word preached, and by way of opposition tells them that he hath in some former Tractates proved Gods presence and Spirit to be as much, as really present in other Ordinances as in this. Vindic. pag. 37 yet now I see no man who doth so much as himself, magnifie the Sacrament above the Word.
5. Whereas he brings this proof for his Major Proposition: because the manifestation, revelation, and proximity of God and Christ to the soul, is that which doth most of all humble and convert it. If this hold true in the generality as he propounds it, then the Spirits of just men made perfect and glorified, are converted by the revelation and proximity of God and of Christ, whereof they have unconceaveably more then the Saints on earth. But neither in this world doth the manifestation and revelation of God and of Christ, prove conversion and regeneration to be in fieri at that instant when God so manifesteth and revealeth himself, which is the thing he had to prove. I give instance in divers of those Scriptures cited by himself: Gods revealing of himself to Iob, chap. 38. and 42. to Isaiah, chap. 6. Christs manifesting of his power to Peter, Luke 5. was after, not at their conversion, so that Psal. 148. 14. But heteregeneous impertinent quotations of Scripture are usual with him: I am sorry I have cause to say it. Some other Scriptures which here he citeth may be expounded of Gods proximity to us, and ours to God in Conversion, Isa. 55. 6. Zeph. 3. 2. Eph. 2. 17. Iam. 4. 7. But that this kind of proximity which doth convert, is in the Sacrament, he hath supposed, but not proved.
His fifth Argument is taken from the converting power of the Word: that which makes conversion by the Word is the particular application of Christ and the promises. Now the Sacrament doth most particularly and effectually apply Christ and the promises unto every Communicants eyes, ears, heart, and soul, far livelier then the Word preached.
Answ. 1. This is a meer fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter: and easily discovered. The Sacrament applyeth Christ, but to whom? not to the unconverted and unbeleevers (for that were to give a seal without a charter) but to those that are supposed to be converted and beleevers. He had this to prove, That the Sacrament doth apply Christs death, passion, and merits to unconverted persons, and to unbeleevers, yea to their heart and soul. 2. That the Sacrament doth apply the death, passion, and merits of Christ to the Communicants ears, and that far livelier than the word preached, is to me a riddle which I think will trouble Mr. Prynn himself to expound. 3. A great controversie there hath been about the orall or corporal manducation of the body of Christ in the Sacrament. But Mr. Prynn out-runneth here all Ubiquitaries in the World, for he hath said no lesse then that every Communicant eateth spiritually and by faith the body of Christ, even unconverted persons, for he saith, that this Sacrament doth most particularly, fully, lively, and sensibly 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 onelyonly 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 the people were inclined to hearken to doctrine by miracles, which moveth natural men to flock together to see strange things saith Mr. Hussey. Plea for Christian Magistracy, pag. 30. which he is pleased to clear by peoples flocking to a Mountebank. Other Texts which he citeth, speak of miracles, but not a syllable of conversion or regeneration wrought by miracles, as Act. 15. 12. Act. 19. 11. 12. Among the rest of the Texts he citeth Iohn 6. 26. Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. And hence forsooth he will prove that miracles did convert and regenerate men. I had not touched these particulars, were it not that I desire Mr. Prynn himself in the fear of God may be convinced of his making too bold with the Scripture in citing and applying it very far amisse: and that for the future his Reader may be wary, and not take from him upon trust a heap of Scriptural quotations, such as often he bringeth.
In the fourth place, he tells us, That the things we see with our eyes do more affect, and beget deeper impressions in our hearts, then the things we hear. He means (I think) do more effectually convert, for so he makes the Application, that the very beholding of Christs Person, passion, without the Word, were the most effectual means of working contrition, conversion, &c. Well: What is his proof? He citeth Christs words to his Disciples, Blessed are your eyes for they see: (without adding the rest, and your ears, for they hear) and Simeons words, Mine eyes have seen thy salvation, as if forsooth either Simeon or the Apostles had been converted and regenerated by the seeing of Christs person. He cites also Luk. 23. 46, 47, 48. as if all who (beholding Christs passion and death) smote upon their breasts, had been by that sight converted and regenerated. That the things we behold with our eyes, if they be great or strange things work deep impressions, there can be no doubt of it. But that the hearing of great things may not work as deep impressions, or that seeing without hearing doth convert and regenerate, hath been strongly affirmed by Mr. Prynn, but not yet proved.
I proceed to his seventh Argument which is this. The most melting soul-changing meditation is the serious contemplation of Christs death and Passion. No meditation comparable to this, to regenerate and convert a carnal heart. And is not this effectually represented to our eyes, hearts, in this very Sacrament in a more powerful prevailing manner then in the Word alone.
Answ. That which he had to subsume and prove is, that this Sacrament worketh in a unregenerate carnal heart such soul changing meditations of the death and passion of Christ, as it never had before (the soul having never before been regenerate) Which being the point to be proved, why did he not prove it, if he could? No doubt the Sacrament is a most powerful mean to beget in the hearts of beleevers and regenerate persons most humbling and melting meditations concerning the death of Christ. But that it begetteth any soul changing or regenerating meditations in those in whom the Word hath never yet begun the work of regeneration and conversion; I do as much disagree in this, as I agree in the other.
The eighth Argument which he brings is from comparing the Sacrament with afflictions. Our own corporal external afflictions are many times without the Word the means of our repentance and conversion unto God, &c. Then much more the Sacrament, wherein the afflictions of Christ himself are so visibly set forth before our eyes.
Answ. 1. It is a very bad consequence, for the strength resolves into this principle, an unregenerate carnal man will be more affected and moved with the representation of Christs afflictions, than with the feeling of his own corporal afflictions. 2. Affliction doth not convert without the Word either going before or accompanying it (unlesse we say that Pagans or Turks may be converted savingly by affliction before ever they hear the Word.) Psal. 94. 12. Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest and teachest him out of thy Law. Job. 36. 9. 10. 11. And if they be bound in fetters, and holden in cords of affliction. Then he sheweth them their work and their transgression that they have exceeded. He openeth also their ear to Discipline, and commandeth that they return from iniquity. Behold conversion by afflictions, but not without the Word. While Mr. Prynn goeth about to prove that afflictions convert without the Word, the first Text he citeth is Psal. 119. 67. 71. where expresse mention is made of the Word.
3 As for Manasseh his conversion 2 Chron. 33. 11. 12. it was wrought by the means of affliction, setting home upon his Conscience that Word of God mentioned in the verse imediatly preceding, which saith and the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his people, but they would not hearken. Let him shew the like instance of the conversion by the Sacrament of such as would not hearken to the Word, and I shall yeeld the cause. The Word is expresse, that affliction is one special powerful mean of conversion, but it no where saith any such thing of the Sacrament. 4. It was also incumbent to him to prove that afflictions do convert without the Word, not onelyonly at such times and in such places as do sequester a person from the liberty of hearing the Word preached, but also when and where the Word is freely enjoyed. Otherwise how far is he from concluding by Analogy the point he had to prove? which is, that an unregenerate person living under the Ministery of the Gospel, and being an ordinary hearer, never converted by the Word, may neverthelesse (according to the dispensation of the grace of God revealed in Scripture) be converted by the Sacrament received?
His ninth Argument is this. That Ordinance whose unworthy participation is a means of our spiritual obduration, must by the rule of contraries when worthily received, be the instrument of our mortification, conversion, salvation. But the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is a means &c.
Answ. 1. This Argument doth necessarily suppose, that an unconverted, unmortified, unworthy person, while such, may yet worthily receive (and so by that means be converted) the contrary whereof I have demonstrated in my tenth Argument. 2. If the Sacrament be not worthily received, without repentance, faith, and self-examination (for which cause men are dehorted to come, except they repent &c.) then there is perfect non-sence in the Argument, for to say that the Sacrament when worthily received is the instrument of conversion, is as much as this; The Sacrament is an instrument of conversion to those who are already converted. 3. That rule of Contraries is extremely mis-applyed. The rule is Oppositorum, quatenus talia, opposita sunt attributa, Contraries have contrary attributes. gVide Kekerm. System. log. lib. 3. cap. …0.The comparison must be made secundum differentias quibus dissident, Otherwise that old fallacy were a good Argument. A single life is good, 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. Its 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, vaccin…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 larger upon.
And whereas Master Prynne concludeth, pag. 47, with a large citation out of Lucas Osiander Enchir. contra Anabapt. cap. 6. quaest. 3. for that he shall have this return. First, all that Osiander there saith, is brought to prove this point against the Anabaptists, quod et si unum aut alterum videamus in Ecclesia aliqua flagitiosum, propterea neque secessionem faciendam, neque à sacris congressibus, aut Coena Domini Christiano abstinendum. That although in some Church we see some one or other flagitious person, yet a Christian is not therefore either to make a separation, or to abstain from the sacred Assemblies or the Lords Supper. Which is not the Question now agitated between us. Secondly, after that passage cited against us, Master Prynne might have taken notice of another passage which maketh against himself. Where the Anabaptists did object to the Lutheran Churches, their admitting of scandalous persons to the Sacrament, Osiander denieth it: for (saith he) although we cannot help hypocrites their coming to the Lords Table; nos tamen scienter neminem admittimus, nisi peccatores poenitentes, &c. Yet we admit none willingly, except penitent sinners who confesse their sins and sorrow for them. Thirdly, Osiander, ibid. Quaest. 2. holdeth Excommunication to be an Ordinance of God, and groundeth it upon Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. Therefore Master Prynne must seek another Patron then Osiander.
And now the nature of the Ordinance being cleared, there needeth no more to confute Master Prynne in that which he makes the eighth thing in controversie between him and his Antagonists, namely, Whether Ministers may not as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated, grosse, impenitent, scandalous Christians, whom they would suspend from the Sacrament. Certainly it is not lawful but commanded as a duty to preach both to the converted and to the unconverted, without excluding the most scandalous impenitent sinners whosoever. But the Lords Supper being (according to its institution and the minde of Jesus Christ) a sealing or confirming Ordinance onelyonly, it cannot without a violation of the Institution be given to known impenitent scandalous persons. Other particulars in his Debate concerning this eighth point of difference, which do require any Answer, I will take occasion to speak unto them in the next Chapter.