The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 14
SECT. XIV. Objections againſt the former Propoſition anſwered.
I Know that objections here are multiplied. I have read many, which in caſe they had been with me of weight, this that I am now upon, had been ſtifled in the birth, and more doubtles hath been ſaid then I have ſeen, and more yet happily will be raiſed. To go about to meet with all were to make no end of words: I ſhall ſpeak firſt to ſome general charges,General charges anſwerd. after to ſome particular arguments.
Firſt, In caſe this holds, (ſay ſome) then all upon that bare account are to be admitted to the Supper, who will hinder the converſion of any? yea even Turks, Pagans, and the vileſt varlots, may then come and joyn in this Ordinance. To theſe I anſwer,
Firſt, Were it of power,Promiſcous admiſſion follows not from it. as an inſtrument in the hand of God for converſion of all, yet all were not to be admitted, when the will and mind of God is known to be againſt it: The Goſpel in the mouthes of the twelve, when they had their firſt commiſſion, might have been of power for the converſion of Samaritanes and Gentiles, yet they are forbidden to make tender of it to them, Matth. 11.5. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any City of the Samaritanes enter not. The word in Pauls mouth might have been (reſpective to any operation in it ſelf) the converſion of ſouls in Aſia and Bithynia, as well as in Macedonia, yet the Spirit forbids them to go to the former, and ſends them to preach to the other, Act. 16.6.7, 10. If the mighty works which were done in Chorazin and Bethſaida, had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would hav repented in ſackcloth and aſhes; yet they were denyed to thoſe of Tyre and Sidon, Matth. 11.21. So that though the Sacraments had a generally converting power, yet in caſe they be appointed of God with limit to thoſe of Covenant-intereſt, they may not in any greater latitude be diſpenſed, and ſo Jewes, Turkes, and Pagans are excluded.
Secondly, The Word it ſelf (which is confeſt to be the power of God to ſalvation, and of the moſt large efficacy of any Ordinance for converſion) is not yet tendred to all, in any expectation of converſion by it. Not to ſpeak of thoſe to whom God in his providence doth deny it, (who are out of the pale of the Church) but thoſe, to whom the Church doth not make mention of it: Infants, Idiots, diſtracted ones, and deaf perſons, no Miniſter applies himſelf to them, to make tender of it for converſion; ſo that there muſt be not onelyonly a commiſſion to tender it, and a clear evidence, that men have (according to the mind of God) an intereſt, but there muſt be a preſent capacity in ſuch for improvement. I am not ignorant that ſome (ſeeing it ſeems that this doth lye againſt them) have pleaded for a capacity in all theſe before mentioned, to receive benefit by the Word, demanding, 1. Why are Infants, and pari ratione diſtracted perſons uncapable of the Word? An anſwer me thinks is at hand, becauſe they are neceſſarily in the condition of the high-way-ground, to hear and underſtand nothing. They profit no more then thoſe, 1 Cor. 14. that hear words in an unknown tongue. And in caſe they be in capacity (as is affirmed) to receive benefit from the Word, the Miniſter occaſionally is to make out a word of exhortation to them, giving them their portion as well as others; which how it would ſound in the ears of thoſe that are of growth, and have their ſenſes and underſtanding, let any judge. Theſe further demand, Where hath God ſaid they ſhall be kept from it? No more hath he ſaid that the ſwallow, or the ſparrow ſhould be kept from it; by providenee they have been preſent, when thoſe that would have improved ſuch an opportunity in a Spiritual way, have been denyed it. Yea, places are produced to ſhew that God hath commanded infants to be preſent at Ordinances. But where is it commanded that Idiots, diſtracted perſons, &c. ſhould be preſent? Reaſons may be given of infants preſence at entry of Covenants, at ſolemn faſts, denuntiations of bleſſings and curſes, when yet they are in an incapacity to receive benefit by the VVord. Demand is yet further made, Who knowes how God may work at the Word, though not by the Word? may not the Word be an occaſion of converſion unto infants, which is an inſtrument of converſion to elder perſons? Such queries will bring in the moſt ignorant and ſcandalous to the Lords Supper; who knowes but that which is an inſtrument of nouriſhment of men converted, may prove an occaſion of converſion to men unconverted? So that this notwithſtanding the poſition delivered will not bear this inference that is drawn from it. Though the Lords Supper (as an appendant to the Word) may ſerve to bring up thoſe of Covenant-intereſt to the terms and Propoſitions of the Covenant; may work a man of profeſſion of faith, to faith ſaving and juſtifying, yet there muſt be ſomewhat more to give actual admiſſion to it. Put in theſe two Cautions. 1. That the perſons in queſtion have their intereſt and firſt right in it. 2. That they be in a capacity to improve it for their benefit; with theſe cautions, and not elſe, I am for a general admiſſion.
Secondly, It is objected, That this makes the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance as well as the Word, and how great an odium lyes upon that opinion, what thoſe be that maintain it, and what intereſt they drive, is very well known. To this I anſwer: The expreſſion of a Converting Ordinance may be taken two wayes: Firſt, As having power of it ſelf,In what ſenſe, and with what limit, the Lords Supper may be called a converting Ordinance. as a ſingle inſtrument in the hand of God, in his ordinary way to work a change in the heart or life. In this ſenſe the converting power of it is to be denyed. Secondly, As having ſome influence for that work as ſeconding and working with the Word, ſo I doubt not but that it may ſafely be owned, and eaſily juſtified. I ſhall lay down my whole thoughts of it in ſome Propoſitions.Explicatory Propoſitions. Affirmat.
Firſt, In the Affirmative.
Firſt, This Sacrament carries the ſoul on towards converſion, in doing the ſame thing as the Word does for converſion, in holding forth Chriſt crucified, in holding him out as our ſin, and as our Saviour, made a curſe for us, and delivering us from the curſe.
Secondly, In further engaging the ſoul, or the ſoul upon receiving the Sacrament engaging it ſelf to that which the Word requires and calls for. If Covenants in Iſrael, entred by reforming Princes, were judged to be of that force for obligation of the ſoul to a change in their wayes, putting ſtronger tyes on their ſlippery hearts, much more may we believe that the Sacraments in a due order received, may have this efficacious power. They ſerve (ſaith Mr. Hooker) as bonds of obedience to God, ſtrict obligations to the mutual exerciſe of Chriſtian charity, provocations to godlineſſe, preſervations from ſin, memorials of the principal benefits of Chriſt.
Thirdly, The Sacrament doth this in an ordinary way according to the revealed will of God in his Word, as the proper intention of the work, and not as any thing extraordinary.
Fourthly, The Sacrament it ſelf doth it, in that relation in which it ſtands to the Word, in its being and operation; and not the Sacramentals onelyonly, (as they have been called) as the Word preached, and prayer, which yet have a mighty influence on the Sacraments for this work.
Fifthly, It works as a ſecond to the Word for habitual converſion, as well as actual; In the way that the Word doth work, for the infuſion of the firſt grace, and not barely for the exciting and ſtirring up of grace in the ſoul. Their way of working I ſhall God willing in due place further enquire into.
Negat.Secondly, In the Negative.
Firſt, The Sacrament converts none by the bare work done. There is no ſuch power by receiving, to change the ſoul, as Papiſts believe there is by conſecration to change the elements. There is neither reaſon for it, nor promiſe of it. I cannot believe (for I ſee no proof of it) any regenerating power in the water in Infants Baptiſme, much leſſe can I have reaſon to believe ſuch a converting power of grown perſons in the Lords Supper. He ſhall be alone for me that will appear in ſuch Paradoxes.
Secondly, The command given, to take and eat of the bread, to drink of the cup, hath no ſuch power to convert. None can ſee the reaſon of the change of their wayes in any ſuch injunction; Converſion were an eaſie work in caſe this could do it.
Thirdly, The Sacrament of the Lords Supper muſt by no means be parallelled with the Word, in the work of converſion; but the Word many wayes muſt have the preeminence: 1. The Word may work to converſion without the Lords Supper; There are many in ſaving grace, that did never partake of this Ordinance. Gods engagement by word and oath holds up the faith, and is the ground of ſtrong conſolation to thoſe that never enjoyed this ſeal. But the Sacrament cannot convert or do any thing towards it, without the Word. A Covenant may convey an intereſt without a ſeal, when a ſeal can never do it without a Covenant. 2. The Sacrament does nothing of its own ſtrength, but by vertue from the Word; It hath its dependance on the Word for being, as a ſeal on a Covenant, and alſo for the operation. The Word may go alone in the work of converſion, yet may have aſſiſtance from the Sacrament; the Sacrament can never work alone without the Word, but as an aſſiſtant to it. 3. The Word muſt qualifie the ſoul for the Sacrament, in laying open the nature and uſe of it; and the ſoul muſt attend what the Sacrament holds out, otherwiſe there can be no improvement of it for any ſpiritual benefit: And theſe things being premiſed, I wonder how any that ſeem to appear moſt on the contrary part can juſtly be offended, that I affirm, (and as I think, with ſo good reaſon prove) that the Lords Supper may be aſſiſtant towards converſion in ſome, and may work with the Word, to carry the ſoul profeſſing Chriſt up to it, eſpecially when it ſhall appear that I would have the door of admiſſion to ſtand at leaſt little more wide then they themſelves: And perhaps not ſo wide, as according to the practice of many of their judgment it ſtands already. Moſt of theſe acknowledge, that knowing perſons, free from groſſe errors and ſcandals, may be admitted; others ſay, none but they, that in the judgment of charity appear to be indeed in Chriſt, may be received; in which they yet confeſſe that men may be eaſily deceived: Either of theſe confeſſe, that many unconverted partake with them, even when rules of admiſſion (according to their own mind) are moſt tenaciouſly held. And in caſe it appear that theſe may receive benefit by the Sacrament, and their converſion poſſibly holpen on, eſpecially if well followed on by the Word, why ſhould they be troubled? I confeſſe it is to me no ſmall trouble, to ſee godly Miniſters of the oppoſite way, ſo much enſnared in their own principles, and neceſſitated to let in ſuch (where moſt of order is held, and diſcipline exerciſed) that of neceſſity further their damnation, and are in impoſſibility (according to their tenents) to improve it towards ſalvation.
Thirdly, It is yet further objected, That in this doctrine we oppoſe the unanimous judgment of Proteſtant Divines, who generally teach, that the Sacraments are appointed of God and delivered to the Church, as ſealing Ordinances, not to give, but to teſtifie what is given; not to make, but confirm Saints; ſimply denying the inſtrumentality of Sacraments, that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not. And that we concur with Papiſts, who hold that the Sacraments are inſtruments, to confer, give, or work, grace, ex opere operato. But how unjuſt this charge is, in both the parts of it, might eaſily be made manifeſt.
In this we Symbolize not with Papiſts.Firſt, For that charge of joyning with the Papiſts, let any judge, who comes neareſt to their doctrine of the efficacy of this Sacrament. Not to mention the opus operatum, which is alike deteſted of both, (whatſoever is charged) but enquire further what they deliver of the efficacy of it. Thomas Aquinas, Part 3. quaeſt. 73. art. 3. putting differences between Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper, aſſignes this for one; Baptiſme is the beginning of spiritual life, and the entrance of the Sacraments. The Euchariſt is the conſummation of ſpiritual life, and the end of all Sacraments. And further, The receiving of Baptiſme is neceſſary to begin ſpiritual life; The receiving of the Euchariſt is neceſſary for the conſummation of it. The Councell of Florence, quoted by Suarez, diſput. 7. Quaeſt. 62. ſaith, By Baptiſme we are ſpiritually born again, and are nouriſhed by the Divine Alimony of the Euchariſt. Suarez, diſput. 63. Quaeſt. 79. laies down this concluſion. This Sacrament is not inſtituted, per ſe to conferre the firſt grace; and confirmes it by multiplicity of Authors, and the Churches cuſtome, who never uſed to give the Sacrament unleſſe it be to thoſe whom ſhe believes to be cleanſed from ſin by Baptiſme or penance. And thus argues it by reaſon. The Sacrament (ſaith he) doth not ſuppoſe the effect that it ſerves to work, but this Sacrament doth ſuppoſe the man to be juſt that receives it. 2. Meat (ſaith he) is not ordayned of it ſelf to quicken or raiſe the dead, but to nouriſh or ſtrengthen a man already alive. But this Sacrament is inſtituted, as meat and drink. And though he after affirmes that this Sacrament ſometimes, and as by accident conferres the firſt grace, (which according to his principles he hath much a do to make out) yet he acknowledges that many and grave Divines held the contrary, quoting, Gabriel, Alenſis, Bonaventure, and Major. And their diſtinction is well enough known. That as a Sacrifice offered, it takes away ſin; but as a Sacrament received, it onelyonly nouriſhes, and increaſes ſpiritual life. By all which it appeares how farre thoſe of that part are from aſſent to this poſition; and no marvell, when they will hold their communicants in that ignorance, as to look after no more then conſecration, to inquire nothing into the inſtitution. The way of the Sacraments work, as a viſible Word, as a demonſtrative ſign in the aggravation of ſin, and tender of pardon, is to them a myſtery.
As for the other part of the charge,Nor oppoſe the unanimous judgement of Proteſtant Writers. which is the oppoſition of the unanimous judgement of Proteſtant Authors; I know many are produced ſpeaking of the Sacraments, as no cauſes of ſpiritual life, or veſſels to convey it; but as ſeales and teſtimonies of Gods good will towards us. To which I fully ſubſcribe, as after ſhall (God willing) appear. But how farre moſt of them come ſhort when they are throughly examined, of that poſition which is laid down as their opinion, That they are appointed to ſeal unto a man that ſaving interest in Chriſt and the Covenant of grace that he hath already, may eaſily be demonſtrated. Firſt, That poſition hath that confuſion in it, that many of them will not own, and is inconſiſtent almoſt with all their principles. This makes intereſt in the Covenant of grace, and intereſt in Chriſt (which is underſtood of intereſt as a lively member) the ſame, when it is well known that they make Covenant-intereſt farre more large then intereſt in Chriſt; ſee Mr. Cobbet in his Vindication, pag. 48. quoting not alone Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory, Nazianzen, Jerome, Auſtin, among the Ancient; but alſo Ameſius, Chamier, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Pareus, Peter Martyr, Bucer, Melanchton, Mr. Philpot, for this latitude of the Covenant. Pareus, (who is not looked upon as any diſſenting man from the reſt of his brethren) ſpeaks fully. When it was objected that all Iſrael was not in Covenant with God, nor all the infants of Chriſtians, becauſe ſome among them were, and are reprobates, he anſweres, To be in Covenant, or to have intereſt in it, is taken two waies, either according to the right of Covenant, or the benefit of it. He is in Covenant that either obtaines the benefits of the Covenant, which are pardon of ſin, Adoption, regeneration, ſalvation, or which hath onelyonly the right or outward ſymbole of the Covenant. He applies his diſtinction that, that propoſition, That no reprobate is in Covenant with God, is onelyonly true of the benefits of the Covenant, which heretofore were, and ſtill are peculiar to the Elect; but being underſtood of the right, and outward ſymbole of the Covenant it is to be denyed; for that indifferently belongs to all that are born in the Church, among which many are reprobates, as the event doth demonſtrate; neither is it lawful for the Church to exclude any, that by their own impiety do not exclude themſelves (which Iſraelites in times paſt did, and Apoſtatizing Chriſtians now do, to their greater damnation) whether they be of thoſe that by a true faith receive the benefits of the Covenant, or whether they be thoſe that remain hypocrites. All of his practice muſt neceſſarily be of his judgement, unleſs we believe that their practice militates againſt their principles. And that this is the practiſe of the reformed Churches in general, needs not to be ſhewn.
Secondly, They cannot then baptize any upon the account of Covenant-holineſſe, but onelyonly holineſſe of regeneration. This is plain. If the right be theirs alone that have their intereſt as in Covenant, ſo alſo in Chriſt, onelyonly theſe muſt be baptized, or elſe we muſt baptize without right. And that they do not onelyonly baptize, but diſpute for Baptiſme upon a bare Covenant-intereſt without any further title is manifeſt.
Thirdly. This ſtands not with that which they hold concerning the way of the Sacraments ſealing, which according to them can be no evidence that he does believe, as ſome aſſert, evidences of faith muſt be in the ſoul, and not in the Sacrament; neither doth it abſolutely make up to the ſoul the benefit of the Covenant, then no man without infallible revelation (ſuch as it ſeems Ananias had concerning Paul) could adminiſter it. It ſeals the benefits of the Covenant upon Gods terms and propoſitions, which when the ſoul makes good, there is Gods ſeal for performance. That this is the judgement of Proteſtant Divines, I have elſewhere declared, Treatiſe of the Covenant, pag. 35, 36. ſo that their Doctrine of the Sacraments doth not oppoſe the poſition delivered.
Hitherto I have conſidered ſome generall charges againſt this poſition; now I muſt look into ſome Arguments in form produced againſt it.
Several particular arguments anſwered.Firſt, Sacraments, (ſay ſome) are ſignes, as appears in their definition, and not cauſes of what they ſignifie; ſignes declaring and ſhewing that we have Faith in Chriſt, remiſſion of ſin by him and union with him.
To let that ſlip paſſe, making them no cauſes, becauſe they are ſignes, as though no ſigne were a cauſe of the thing ſignified: This to me is as ſtrange as new, that Sacramental ſignes declare, and ſhew that we have faith and remiſſion of ſins. The Sacrament now in queſtion, is a ſigne of the body and blood of Chriſt, in whom by faith remiſſion of ſins may be obtained I know; but that it is a ſigne either that we do believe, or that we have remiſſion of ſin otherwiſe then upon our believing, (to which this engages, but not preſuppoſes) I know not. Simon Magus had not Baptiſme, to ſignifie that all his ſins were forgiven; but that by faith in the Name of Chriſt he might be forgiven. Mr. Cobbet ſayes well, Vindication, pag. 54. The initiatory ſeal, which holds true of the other ſeal, is not primarily and properly the ſeal of mans faith, or repentance, or obedience, but of Gods Covenant rather; the ſeal is to the Covenant: even Abrahams Circumſion was not primarily a ſeal to Abrahams faith of righteouſneſſe, but to the righteouſneſſe of faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant; yea, to the Crvenant it ſelf or promiſe, which had believed unto righteouſneſſe: hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 10. I confeſſe it is a ſymbole of our profeſſion of faith, but this is not the faith ſpoken to, neither is remiſſion of ſins annext unto it.
Secondly, That which neceſſarily ſuppoſeth converſion and faith, doth not work converſion and faith: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ſuppoſeth converſion and faith. The Minor is proved, Mar. 16.16. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.36, 37. ver. 41. Act. 10.4.7. All which texts are ſpoken of Baptiſme, and not of the Lords Supper. To that text, Mar. 16.16. I have ſpoken fully, Treatiſe of the Covenant, pag. 243. To that, Act. 8.36, 37. I have ſpoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38. I have ſpoken, pag. 396. and ther is no need that I ſhould repeat what I have ſaid. For Act. 2.41. They that gladly received his Word, were baptized, It ſpeaks no more then ready acceptation of the tender of the Goſpel; and whether this neceſſarily implyes ſaving faith, let Ezek. 33.31. Matth. 13.20, 21. Gal. 4.15. be conſulted. For, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, who have received the holy Ghoſt as well as we? it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title, ſuch gifts gave Judas a title not onelyonly to baptiſme, but Apoſtleſhip; ſuch a faith may be had, and ſanctification wanting.
Thirdly, That which gives us new food, ſuppoſeth that we have the new birth, and Spiritul life; and that we are not ſtill dead in treſpaſſes and ſins: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us new food: Ergo.
Anſ. 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into ſyllogiſmes.
2. A difference may be put between ordinary food, and living and quickening food: It may be true of the former, but not of the latter.
3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food, 1. Pet. 2.2. and yet preſuppoſeth not new life. If any reply, that the Word is more then food; it is ſeed as well as food, and it gives not new life as food, but as ſeed. I anſwer that the Sacrament is more then food. There is a Sacramental work preceding our taking and eating, which ſome ſay may be done to edification and profit, by thoſe that are not admitted to be partakers; where they divide I may diſtinguiſh, and there Chriſt is ſet forth to the aggravation of ſin: to carry on the work of contrition and compunction.
Fourthly, That Ordinance which is inſtituted onelyonly for believers and juſtified perſons, is no converting, but a ſealing Ordinance: But this Sacrament is inſtituted onelyonly for believers and juſtified perſons. The Minor is proved, Circumciſion was a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4.17. much more then Baptiſme; and if Baptiſme, much more the Lords Supper.
Anſ. Upon this account it muſt needs follow, that as Abraham was a juſtified man, ſo Iſhmael was juſtified alſo, who according to the mind of God, and in obedience to his commands was circumciſed, Gen. 17.23. yea, every Proſelyte that joyned himſelf to Iſrael, and every male in Iſrael according to this Interpretation muſt be juſtified. 2. Howſoever Abraham was a juſtified perſon, yet his Circumciſion in that place is not made a proof of his juſtification, but a diſtinct text of Scripture, Gen. 15.16. quoted by the Apoſtle, ver. 3. And that Scripture ſetting out his juſtification to be by faith, and not by works, the Apoſtles words onelyonly ſhew that the Sacrament of Circumciſion ſealed the Covenant, not of works, but of faith; ſo that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in anſwer to the firſt argument, are a full anſwer here.
Fifthly, The Apoſtle argues, that Abraham the Father of the faithful, and whoſe juſtification is a pattern of ours, was not juſtified by Circumciſion. Circumciſion was not the cauſe, but the ſign of his juſtification. Therefore no Sacrament is a cauſe of our juſtication.
Anſ. Though animadverſions might be made on theſe words, yet if any will put them into form, I ſhall grant the concluſion, when I ſay the Sacrament, as an Appendix to the Word, may have its influence with the word upon a profeſſor offaith to work him to the truth of faith, I am far from ſaying it is any cauſe of juſtification; I look on faith no otherwiſe, then as an inſtrument in the work, and the Sacrament as an help, and not the principal to the work of faith.
Sixthly, There is an argument drawn from the neceſſity of examination which before hath received an anſwer.
Seventhly, That Ordinance unto which none may 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 a man may not come without a wedding argument.
Anſ. 1. Arguments drawn from parables muſt be uſed with all tenderneſſe. But in this Argument here is much boldneſſe, to make this Ordinance that marriage-feaſt. 2. We ſhall find if we look to the ſcope of it, that this feaſt is the fruition of Chriſt in his Kingdom, as appears by thoſe words that give occaſion to the Parable of the Supper, Luk. 14.15. And when one of them that ſate at meat with him, heard theſe things, he ſaid unto him, Bleſſed is he that ſhall eat bread in the kingdom of God. Now thoſe that pretend a forwardneſſe towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it, (according to the ſcope of the Parable) ſhall be caſt out from it. This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances, and yet remaine in their ſins, ſhall come to heaven; But it no more proves that a man cannot get ſaving good by this Ordinance, then it proves that a man cannot get ſaving good by the Word; The VVord may lay as fair a claime to this wedding feaſt, as the Lords Supper.
Eighthly, 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 Aſſumption is proved, Rom. 10.14. Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the Word of God; then not by ſeeing; if by the Word, then not by the Sacrament.
Anſ. If faith comes by hearing, will it therefore follow that hearing can receive no help from, but muſt exclude ſeeing? Did the Bereans when they had heard the Apoſtles, yet nothing towards faith by their ſearch of the Scriptures? Act. 17.11.12. or did they not make uſe of their eyes in the ſearch that they made? When Chriſt had Preached to the Jewes not yet in the faith, and commended to them the ſearch of the Scriptures, Joh. 5.39. can we think that this ſearch could be no ſtep in their way of believing? Why were miracles wrought, if they were of no uſe to the work of faith f What comment ſhall we make on thoſe words, Joh. 2.23. Many believed in his Name when they ſaw the miracles that were done? If the Word do work faith, it will by no means follow, but that it may take in aſſiſtance by miracles, and Sacraments, by ſignes extraordinary and ordinary. That conſequence, if by the Word, then not by the Sacrament, will never hold, till the VVord and Sacrament are proved to be oppoſite, and not ſubordinate.
Ninthly, That Ordinance, which hath neither the promiſe of the grace of converſion annext unto it, or any example in the Word of God of any converted by it, is no converting Ordinance: But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath no ſuch promiſe of the grace of converſion, neither is there ſuch an example: Ergo.
Anſw. For Examples, though we could give inſtances of men being converted by receiving of the Lords Supper, yet it would ſtill be denyed to have any poſſible influence towards converſion; as the laſt Argument is an evident witneſſe. We bring Examples of men that have been brought to the faith by ſeeing, and yet it is ſtill denyed that fight can be any help towards it. And though we could bring a promiſe of ſuch grace annext, yet we ſhould have little hopes to be heard or heeded, ſeeing we can bring a Promiſe of bleſſedneſſe to reading, which is by ſight, as to hearing, Rev. 3. Bleſſed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this Prophecy. 2. We have as many examples of mens converſion by the Sacrament, as we have of their receiving ſtrength and nouriſhment: If one may be aſſerted without an example, then then other likewiſe. 3. We have no particular precedents by name (except at firſt inſtitution) of any that were Communicants, and therefore we cannot expect examples of converſion, or receiving of ſtrength by communicating. 4. The examples of converſion by the Word perhaps well examined, would prove ſhort of ſuch converſion as here is intended. The converſion in Goſpel narratives is to a Chriſtian profeſſion. A man may evince calling thence, but not elctdion, and this is the work of the Word without the Sacrament, ſeeing it muſt precede the receiving of the Sacrament.
As to that of no promiſe made to it, 1. When the adverſary ſhall bring a promiſe made to the Sacrament for Spiritual ſtrength, it will happily be found of an equal force to the giving of a new life. 2. Though we have no promiſe explicite, and expreſſe; yet we have promiſes implicite and virtual. Every promiſe made to the Word is made to the Sacrament; The Sacrament being not oppoſite, but ſubordinate to it, an appendant that receives ſtrength from it.
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 Minor is proved, 1 Cor. 11.27.
Anſw. This Argument well followed will take off every Ordinance from that honour of converſion, as well as this of the Lords Supper: ſeeing many Texts may be produced, equally calling for qualifications for them as for this, equally ſhewing the danger of unworthy addreſſes. As to this for hearing the Word, ſee 1 Pet. 2.1, 2. Wherefore laying aſide all malice, and all guile, and hypocriſies, and envies, and all evill ſpeakings, as new-burn babes deſire the ſincere milk, of the Word, that ye may grow thereby. Jam. 1.21. Wherefore lay apart all filthineſſe and ſuperfluity of naughtineſſe, and receive with meekneſſe the engraffed Word, which is able to ſave your ſoules. Is not the Word a favour of death unto death to ſuch? 2 Cor. 2.14, 15, 16. Shall i. not be more tolerable for Tyre and Zidon then for them? Matth. 11.24. For prayer to God, ſee James 1.6, 7. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering; for he that wavereth is like a wave of the Sea, driven with the wind, and toſſed; for let not that man think:; he ſhall receive any thing of the Lord, 1 Tim. 2.8. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting: Good will never be had by ſuch mens prayers. Eſay 1.15. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you when ye make many prayers, I will not hear, your hands are full of blood. Zach. 7.13. Therefore it is come to paſſe, that he cryed, and they would not hear: ſo they cryed, and I would not hear, ſaith the Lord of Hoſts. Shall we now ſay, that neither Word, nor prayer is a converting Ordinance? But perhaps it will be ſaid, Men unworthy muſt hear, muſt pray to be made worthy, muſt come in unconverſion to be converted. But they muſt bring worthineſſe hither, or elſe this can have no hand in making worthy they muſt bring converſion, or elſe this cannot convert. This is a begging of the queſtion. And as to prayer, there is no more ground, or colour to make it a converting Ordinance, then the Supper; we muſt pray in faith, before we can pray, with acceptance of our perſons, and ſo muſt the Word be mixt with faith when we hear it, Heb. 4.2.
Eleventhly, That Ordinance which is euchariſticall and conſolatory, ſuppoſeth ſuch that partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given, and are ſuch as are fit to be comforted: But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance euchariſticall and conſolatory: Ergo.
Anſw. And might not the Aſſumption. as well have been, That the Word and Prayer are Ordinances euchariſtical, and conſolatory? I hope none will deny the Goſpel (our good tydings) to be euchariſtical, and conſolatory; nor yet thankſgiving which is a branch of prayer. And then in caſe the Propoſition be of univerſal truth, both Word, Prayer, and Lords Supper, are excluded from any power of converſion; The Propoſition then muſt be underſtood with limit, and reſtriction; That Ordinance, which in whole and in part is euchariſtical and conſolatory, can have no hand in converſion, and then (though perhaps exception might be taken at it) it had colour in it: But then the Aſſumption, That this Ordinance is in whole and in part euchariſticall and conſolatory, muſt be denyed. It is for humbling, heart-breaking, as it is comforting: There we ſhew forth Chriſts death, and ſee him broken for ſin; and it is no matter of conſolation, but humiliation and horrour to ſee our ſoules under that guilt that brought upon Chriſt a neceſſity to ſuffer; Though it is a matter of conſolation, that guilt by ſuffering is removed, and an atonement made, in which there is either preſent aſſurance, or at leaſt a poſſibility of future actuall intereſt.
Twelfthly, That Ordiinance, unto which Chriſt calleth none but ſuch that 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 Aſſumption is proved, Matth. 11. 28. Joh. 7.37. Iſa. 55.1. Matth. 22.12. 1 Cor. 11.28. Cant. 5.1.
Anſw. OnelyOnly one of theſe ſpeaks of the Lords Supper, the reſt have immediate relation to Chriſt, not to this Ordinance, of the Supper and poſitive ſpiritual qualifications, as preceding all coming, is not required in any of them; upon ſenſe of want, we may come to Chriſt for ſpiritual qualifications; (as wen may come with them) though without poſitive ſpiritual qualifications there is no aſſurance of intereſt in him. 2. As to that worthineſſe which is ſpoken to, in that Text of the Corinthians, there is an uſual diſtinction of worthineſſe of merit, and worthineſſe ſuitable to the work in hand; It is the latter onelyonly, that, as is confeſt, is called for. There is yet a double ſuitableneſſe to the work: One is compleat, anſwering to all that the work can call for, which compriſes grace, not onelyonly in the habit, but in the act; an actual improvement of our graces for the participation of it; and this is alike required in other Ordinances of hearing, praying, &c. as in this Orainance of communicating. The other is a worthineſſe, reſpecting the perſon that doth communicate: ſuch a worthineſſe of ſuitableneſſe and conveniency, whereby according to the meaſure of grace vouchſafed (whether common; or ſaving) he addreſſeth himſelf to it. Now though the regenerate man alone receives to the acceptation of his perſon, as he onelyonly hears and prayes with ſuch acceptance: yet a man in unregeneration may be ſo far ſuitably worthy for this work, that he may know himſelf called untp it, and that it would be his ſin to hold back from it: and he may hopeuMlly expect bleſſing in it: and ſuch a worthineſſe was in Chriſts and John Baptiſts hearers, ſo many of them as have their commendations in the Goſpel for ſuch ready and forward hearing; and ſuch a worthineſſe, as I take it, is mentioned, Matth. 10 11. Let the Learned Conſider, whether either the word foreign, indigne, or the context in that place will neceſſarily take in every unregenerate man, or rather the irreverend prOphanation of that duty; and whether arguments drawn from want of ſaving faith, and ſincere repentance in performance of this work, do not bring unregenerate men under like danger in faſting, praying, thankſgiving, hearing, Sabbath-keeping, and every other duty of worſhip whatſoever.
Thirteently, 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 thoſe that are members of the ſame body of Chriſt. The aſſumption proved, 1 Cor. 1016, 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1.2.
Anſw. Saint, is either ſuch that are ſo by calling and ſeparation for God, or elſe by qualifications and regeneration from God. In the former ſenſe, unconverted ſinners, proſeſſing the Goſpel, are Saints: as of old they were of the people of God, and called by his Name: Saint is a New Teſtament-word, taking in all of a Chriſtian profeſſion, and outward Covenant-intereſt, and then the Propoſition is to be denyed; Saint being taken in the latter ſenſe, the aſſumption is falſe. This Lords Supper is a priviledge of the Church as viſible, diſpenſed by viſible officers, not as inviſible, as thoſe very Texts quoted do manifeſt.
Fourteenthly, If Baptiſme it ſelf (at leaſt when adminiſtred 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.
Anſw. This Argument ſeemeth to ſuppoſe an opinion of regeneration or converſion, by the very work done in Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper; which ſeeing I do not own, but in either of both diſclaim, I need to give no further anſwer.
Fifteenthly, If the Baptiſme even of thoſe that are at age muſt neceſſarily precede the receiving of the Lords Supper, then the Lords Supper is not a converting, but a ſealing Ordinance: But Baptiſme even of thoſe that are of age muſt neceſſarily precede the Lords Supper: Ergo.
Anſw. I ſee no neceſſity of this conſequence, unleſſe I ſhould believe that all that are baptized, are ipſo facto regenerate; and that not with an initial regeneration (of which ſome ſpeak) that may be loſt, but the immortal ſeed of the Spirit that abides for ever; But being not (as I am not) of that faith, I ſuppoſe a baptized man may be (to uſe Pareus his phraſe) Chriſtianus non regeneratus, ſed regenerandus, a Chriſtian not regenerate, but to be regenerate: and ſo regeneration may, as ordinarily it doth, not precede, but follow Baptiſme.
Sixteenthly, There is an Argument drawn from the Parable of the Prodigal, There is a robe ring, and ſhoes put upon him, and a fatted calf killed for him, but this when he comes to himſelf, and ſayes, Father, I have ſinned, &c. But this is done in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more eſpecially, and manifeſtly then in any other Ordinace: Ergo.
Anſw. All Ordinances (as I take it) are to bring a prodigal unto ſuch a returning poſture, in the diſcovery of the hatefulneſſe of ſin againſt ſuch a Father, and the riches that are in his Fathers family. There are ſome Arguments of this nature follow, which may ſeaſonably be ſpoke to in the cloſe of theſe Propoſitions. I ſhall onelyonly here by the way, hint ſo much to the Reader, that in caſe theſe Arguments had been framed againſt the power of this Sacrament, for converſion the ſenſe as generally the oppoſers of it underſtand it, that it works, as a medicine to heal, and hath an opus operatum in it: I ſhould not at all have undertaken them, how inconcluding ſoever I had judged them: But ſeeing a tendency in them, to intereſt alone, men already in grace in this Ordinance, and denying all hope of benefit by it, to the majority of thoſe that men, of all intereſts ordinarily admit to it, to the neceſſary enſnaring of all that are concerned in the adminiſtration of it, I could not be ſilent; let the Reader impartially weigh and determine.