ments, to our souls. In the first sense (he saith) this sacrament is a seal to all receivers, even to those who are scandalous and unworthy, who receive only the outward elements." Again, this first kind of sealing, saith he, "seals all God's promises, and a free pardon of all our sins, only conditionally, if we truly repent, lay hold on Christ," &c. The second, which is an absolute sealing, he grants to belong only to worthy, penitent, believing receivers. Who doth now delude the vulgar? When the Lord's supper is called a sealing ordinance, did ever any man understand this of a sealing to our outward senses only, or of receiving the outward elements and no more? Who can mistake the thing so far as to think that Christ hath instituted and ordained this sacrament to be a mere external seal, and no more? When he grants that, in the second sense, this sacrament is a seal, "only to worthy, penitent, believing receivers, who receive the inward invisible grace, as well as the outward signs," he grants that which I require; that is, that it is a sealing ordinance intended for worthy, penitent, believing receivers, not for the scandalous and unworthy. God forbid we should make a sealing ordinance to be an empty ordinance. The truth is, his first kind of sealing, without the second, is no sealing, yea, worse than no sealing. Where there is no charter how can there be a sealing, except we seal blank paper? and, as we shall hear anon from Chrysostom, we have not so much as the seal, except we have that which is sealed. I know it will be answered, There is somewhat to be sealed even to the scandalous and unworthy; that is, the pardon of all their sins conditionally, if they truly repent, believe, lay hold on Christ. In this very place Mr Prynne tells us, that all God's promises, and a free pardon, is sealed, even to scandalous and unworthy receivers conditionally; that is, as he explicates himself, p. 37, upon condition that they "become penitent and believing receivers." But then, say I, he must, upon as good reason, grant that the sacrament may be given to pagans and Turks, at least the first day of preaching the gospel to them. May it not be said to pagans and Turks, that if they repent and believe on Christ, they shall have pardon of sin. Here is the thing to be sealed in Mr Prynne's opinion. What then should hinder the sealing? He shunneth to call the sacrament a converting ordinance in reference to pagans; and now, behold, his

principles will admit the giving of the sacrament even to pagans as a sealing ordinance, how much more then as a converting ordinance ?

We have now heard his two distinctions, which, if they have given any clearing to his assertion, it is such as is little to his advantage. I will now premise some distinctions of my own to clear that which I hold.

1. The question is not de potentia Dei absoluta, Whether God, by his omnipotency, can give the first grace of conversion in the instant of receiving the sacrament? But the question is of the revealed will of God, and the way of the dispensation of grace made known to us in the gospel, which must be the rule to us to walk by. A peradventure it may be, and who knoweth but the scandalous sinner may be converted, is no warrantable ground to go upon in this case, as Mr Prynne would make it, p. 47, for we may as well adventure to delay repentance, upon a peradventure it may be. There is an example in the New Testament of one who got repentance and mercy at his end, and if we believe the Hebrews, and divers Christian interpreters, there is another example of the same kind in the Old Testament, which is the example of Achan; whereas there is no example in all the Scripture of any converted by the sacrament. But if a thing be contrary to the revealed will and commandment of God (as both these are, the delaying of repentance, and the admission of scandalous persons to the sacrament), we may not dare to go upon peradventure. "To the law and to the testimony," "Search the Scriptures." If the Word do not show us anything of conversion by the sacrament, we must not think of any such thing.

2. We must distinguish between the sacrament itself, and those things that do accompany the sacrament,-powerful preaching, exhortation, prayer, or the like, before or after the sacrament. Put the case: A sinner being effectually converted by a sermon or a prayer which he heareth at the ordination of a minister, will any man therefore say, that ordination is a converting ordirance? So if, by most serious powerful exhortations, convictions, promises, threatenings, by prayer, by Christian conference, by reading or meditation before or after the sacrament, the Lord be pleased to touch the conscience and convert the soul of an impenitent profane wicked liver, nothing of this

kind can make the sacrament a converting ordinance.

3. We must distinguish, even in conversion, between gratia præveniens et subsequens, operans et co-operans, excitans et adjuvans, or rather, between habitual and actual conversion. Habitual conversion I call the first infusion of the life and habits of grace; actual conversion is the soul's beginning to act from that life, and from those habits. The first, or habitual conversion, in which the sinner is passive, and not at all active, it being wholly the work of preventing, exciting, quickening grace, is that which never is to be looked for in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, which is enough to overthrow that opinion, that scandalous impenitent sinners (having an external formal profession, but known by a wicked, abominable conversation, to be dead in sins and trespasses, in whom the Holy Ghost hath never yet breathed the first breath of the life of grace) may be admitted to the Lord's supper (if they desire it, not being excommunicated), upon hopes that it may prove a converting ordinance to them. As for gra

tia subsequens co-operans et adjuvans, by which the sinner (having now a spiritual life created in him, and supernatural habits infused in his soul) is said actually to convert, repent, and believe, I consider, even in this actual conversion, repenting, believing, these two things: 1. The inchoation. 2. The progress of the work. Where the work is begun, if it were but faith like a grain of mustard seed, and where there is anything of conversion which is true and sound, the sacrament is a blessed powerful means to help forward the work. But I peremptorily deny that the sacrament of the Lord's supper is appointed or instituted by Christ as a regenerating, converting ordinance, as well as the word, or as a means of beginning actual, much less habitual conversion.

4. When I hold the Lord's supper not to be a converting but a sealing ordinance, the meaning is not as if I believed that all who are permitted to come to the Lord's table are truly converted, or that they are such as the seals of the covenant of grace do indeed, and of right, belong unto (for we speak of visible churches and visible saints); but my meaning is, that Christ hath intended this sacrament to be the children's bread only (though the hired servants of the house have other bread enough and to spare), and he alloweth this portion to none but such as

are already converted and do believe; and that they who are the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God, ought to admit none to this sacrament except such as are qualified and fit (so far as can be judged by their profession, knowledge, and practice, observed and examined by the eldership, according to the rules of the word, no human court being infallible) to have part and portion in the communion of saints, and to receive the seals of the covenant of grace; at least that they may not dare to admit any man, whose known and scandalous wickedness continued in without signs of repentance, saith within their hearts, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

These things premised (which are to be remembered by the reader, but need not be repeated by me as we go along), I proceed to the arguments which prove my assertion, that the Lord's supper is not a converting but a sealing ordinance. And thereafter I shall answer Mr Prynne's arguments brought to the contrary.

CHAPTER XIII.

TWENTY ARGUMENTS TO PROVE THAT THE LORD'S SUPPER IS NOT A CONVERTING ORDINANCE.

First, That which is an instituted significant sign, to declare and testify 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 sign to declare and testify the being of that thing which is thereby signified. Therefore, this is an argument used by Protestant writers against Papists. The sacraments being, by their definition, signs, are not causes of that which they signify, neither are the things signified the effects of the sacraments. Wherefore, the sacrament of the Lord's supper, being a sign of our spiritual life, faith, union with Christ, and remis

1 Chamier. Contract. tom. 4, lib. 2, cap. 9.-Quia ut efficientia toto genere suo differt a significatione: ita diversa ratio est instituendi instrumenta efficientia, et significantia, &c. 2. Prob. inductione, Quia nulla signa sive miraculosa, sive alia sunt efficientia. Polanus, Synt. lib. 6, cap. 49.-Elementum sacramentale significat, testatur, et obsignat credentibus rem verbo Dei promissam, eam autem nequaquam causat, efficit, aut producit.

sion 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 believers themselves, in the sacrament.

Ans. Growth in grace, and confirmation of faith, is given to believers in the sacrament, which the significancy hinders not, because the sacrament doth not signify nor declare that the receiver hath much grace and a strong faith, but that he hath some life of grace, and some faith. The very state of grace or spiritual life, regeneration, faith, and remission of sins, are signified, declared, testified, and sealed, but not wrought or given in the sacrament. The strengthening of faith, and a further degree of communion with Christ, is not signified in the sacrament, I mean, it is not signified that we have it, but that we shall have it, or at most, that we do then receive it. So that believers 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 sign 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 acknowedgeth the sacrament to be a sign, declaring or showing forth that we have faith in Christ, remission of sins by him, and union with him. Mr Prynne 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 Lord's supper necessarily supposeth conversion and faith: therefore, the proposition is so certain, that either it must be yielded, or a contradiction must be yielded; for that which worketh conversion and faith, cannot that they are, but that they are not. suppose 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

xvi. 16, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Acts ii. 38, "Repent and be baptized;" ver. 41, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." Acts viii. 36, 37, " And the eunuch said, See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest." Acts x. 47," Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

Now if baptism itself (which is the sacrament of our initiation) supposeth (according to the tenor and meaning of Christ's institution) that the party baptized (if of age) doth actually convert and believe, 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 Lord's supper, necessarily, by Christ's institution, suppose that the receivers are not unconverted and unbelieving persons? The previous qualifications which are supposed in baptism, must be much more supposed in the Lord's 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 Lord's supper gives us the new food, therefore it supposeth we have the new birth. The proposition I prove thus: A man must first be born by the new birth before he can be fed with the new food; and how can a man eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, and yet be supposed not to have a spiritual life before that act, but to get a spiritual life in that very act ?1 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's supper: because it is enough to be

1 Synops. Pur. Theol. disp. 43, thes. 35.-Duo tantum esse et non plura (sacramenta) affirmamus: quoniam unum est initiationis, seu regenerationis, alterum nutritionis seu alimoniæ. So Matthias Martinius, Lexic. Philol. p. 3272, makes this distinction between baptism and the Lord's supper: that is a sacrament of initiation and adoption, this of confirmation and nourishment.

once born, but not enough to be once nourished or strengthened. See the Belgic Confession, art. 34; and D. Parei, Miscellanea Catechetica, p. 79. I shall strengthen my argument by the Confession of Bohemie, cap. 11.

"The sacraments can

not 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 justify any man, nor inwardly quicken or regenerate any man's 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 worthiness," &c. See the Harmony of Confessions, printed at London 1643, p. 280, 281. To what end then is the sacrament of the Lord's supper instituted? For that, see the "We Confession of Belgia, Ibid. p. 320. believe and confess 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 Prynne cite in the question of Judas (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. Add also Mr Pemble in his Christian Directions for receiving the Sacra"The sacrament (saith he) is appointed for our nourishment in grace; where we grow not by it, it is a sign this food was not digested but vomited up again; where faith, repentance, thankfulness, and obedience are not increased, there Christ crucified was not remembered." 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?

ment.

Fourthly, That ordinance which is instituted only for believers and justified persons, is no converting but a sealing ordinance. But the sacrament of the Lord's supper is instituted only for believers and justified persons; therefore, the proposition hath light enough in itself; for converting ordinances do belong even to unjustified and unconverted persons. Therefore that which is instituted only for believers 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 Polanus1 and others argue for the suspension of scandalous persons from the Lord's table. Now I prove the assumption thus: Every sacrament, even a sacrament of initiation, is "a seal of the righteousness of faith." If circumcision was "a seal of the righteousness of faith," Rom. iv. 11, then baptism (which hath succeeded to circumcision) is also "a seal of the righteousness of faith," and that more fully and clearly than circumcision was; and if baptism be “ a seal of the righteousness of faith," much more is the sacrament of the Lord's supper seal of the righteousness of faith;" which is also proved by Matt. xxvi. 28, "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Chrysostom on Rom. iv., considering those words, ver. 11, a seal of the righteousness of faith," hath this meditation upon it, that a sacrament is no sign, no scal, except where the thing is which is signified and sealed τίνος γὰρ ἔσται σημεῖον, τίνος δὲ σφραγίς, ουκ ὄντος του σφραγιζομένου : For of what shall it be a sign, or of what shall it be a seal, when there is none to be sealed? 'E γὰρ δικαιοσύνης ἐστί σημεῖον δικαιοσύνην δὲ ουκ ἔχεις, ὀυδὲ σημεῖον ἔχεις : For (saith he), if it be a sign of righteousness, and thou hast not righteousness, neither hast thou the sign. If therefore a sacrament be a seal of the righteousness of faith, then it is instituted only for believers and justified persons, because to such only it can seal the ! righteousness of faith. Upon this ground saith Ursinus that the sacraments are to the wicked and unbelievers no sacraments; which agreeth with that, Rom. ii. 25, “If thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision."2

Fifthly, The Apostle argues that Abraham, the father of the faithful, and whose justification is as it were a pattern of ours, was not justified by circumcision, or (as

1 Polanus, Synt. lib. 6, cap. 56.-He holds that omnes illi qui scandala præbent et non resipiscunt serio, a mensa Domini sunt arcendi. 1. Quia si infideles et impœnitentes ad cœnam Domini admitterentur, profanaretur fœdus Dei, tam communicando symbola fæderus iis quibus Deus nihil promittit, quam usurpando symbola sacra sine fide et resipiscentia. 2. Quia polluerent et contaminarent cibum et potum consecratum, quem Christus non destinavit nisi suis domesticis et fidelibus, &c. 6. Quia incredulos et manifeste impios Christus prohibuit admitti ad sacram cœnam: nam instituit illam solis fidelibus.

2 Ubi Supra, p. 395.

Aquinas confesseth upon the place) that circumcision was not the cause but the sign of justification. Rom. iv. 9-11, "We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." If Abraham, the father of the faithful, got not so much as the sacrament of initiation till after he was justified and sanctified, how shall we think of receiving, not only 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 Lord's 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 Lord's table under colour of a converting ordinance, it being indeed a seal of the covenant of grace.

Sixthly, That ordinance which is appointed only 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 Lord's supper is an ordinance which is appointed only for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate, regeneration, repentance, faith, and conversation: therefore, 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 filthiness," Prov. xvi. 2; xxi. 2; xxx. 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

1 Bullinger, Decad. 5, serm. 7.-Quis præterea inde non colligat, nos qui filii Abrahæ sumus, non alia ratione justificari, quam patrem justificarum constat, ac sacramenta nostra in nobis non aliud efficere, quam quod in illo effecerunt? præsertim eum eadem sit ratio sacramentorum veterum et nostrorum.

all things," 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; "The carnal mind is enmity against God," Rom. viii. 7. The assumption is proved by 1 Cor. xi. 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 man's knowledge, repentance, faith, and conversation. The Ap Apostle expounds himself, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, " Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove your ownselves, 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 coming to the Lord's table; and an unconverted man can no more do it truly and rightly (according to the Apostle's meaning) than he can convert himself. And here that which Mr Prynne 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 one's 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 espy a mote in his brother's eye; he cannot in any right or acceptable manner examine his own conscience, nor go about the taking of the beam out of his own eye. He therefore who either cannot through ignorance, or doth not through impenitency and hardness of heart, examine himself, and is known to be such an 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 only for such as can and do humbly and soundly examine themselves, and consequently not intended for unconverted impenitent persons.1

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 king's son, is an ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment; therefore, the proposition hath this reason for it.

ejus usus præeunte probatione sui cujusque definitur: scilicet an sit in fide, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, et seria resipiscentia afficiatur, secundum illud Pauli, probet vero seipsum homo, &c.

1 Synops. pur. Theol. disp. 45, thes. 83.-Dignus

2 Ursinus, Tract. Theol. p. 650, edit. 1584.-Ad cœnam Domini autem nulli nisi adulti, qui et probare seipsos possunt, et hanc probationem confessione et vita ostendant. Quid poro de his faciendum qui vitam Christianis indignam agunt? Ecclesiastica disciplina coercendi sunt.