the participation thereof. But the sacrament of the Lord's supper is not a converting but a sealing ordinance, &c., which I have proved by infallible demonstrations; therefore, &c.

Thirdly, That use of the sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the word, truly and faithfully preached in the name of Christ, is a profaning of the sacrament. But to give the sacrament to those who are known to live in gross sins without repentance, is an use of the sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the word, truly and faithfully preached in the name of Christ; therefore, &c.

I suppose no man will deny, that if we truly and faithfully preach the word, we may and ought to pronounce and declare such as live in sin, impenitent and unconverted, to be under God's wrath and displeasure as long as they continue in that estate. "Be not deceived (saith the Apostle), neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God," 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10; see the like, Ephes. v. 5-7. Whence it is, that doctrinally we warn the ignorant and scandalous, and all such as live in known sins without repentance, that they presume not to come and profane that holy table, of which ministers are appointed by the Directory to give warning. How then can we, by giving the sacrament to such as these, give the lie to the word? For what other thing shall we do, if those whom the word pronounceth to have no part in the kingdom of God, nor of Christ, shall be admitted, as well as the godly, to eat and drink at the Lord's table, while known to continue in the committing of their damnable sins, or while it is known that "they have not repented of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have committed," 2 Cor. xii. 21,-what is this but to absolve in the sacrament those who are condemned in the word, and to open the kingdom of heaven in the sacrament unto those on whom the word shutteth it?

1 Zach. Ursinus, Judicium de Disciplina Ecclesiastica, tom. 3, p. 806.-Hæc enim Dei voluntas non erit in æternum, ut ecclesia Christiani alicui gratiam Christi et remissionem peccatorem, annunciatione verbi divini deneget, et eidem exhibitione sacramentorum spondeat.

Fourthly, That use of the sacrament which strengtheneth the hands of the wicked, so that he turneth not from his wickedness, is an abuse and profanation of the sacrament. But the giving of the sacrament to any known profane impenitent person, is such an use of the sacrament as strengtheneth the hands of the wicked, so that he turneth not from his wickedness; therefore,

I appeal to the experience of all godly and faithful ministers, whether they have not found it a great deal more difficult to convince or convert such profane men as have been usually admitted to the sacrament, than to convince or convert such as have been kept back from the sacrament? No marvel that such profane ones as have usually received the seals of the covenant of grace, and joined in the highest act of church communion, live in a good opinion of their soul's estate, and trust in lying words, "Have we not eaten and drunken at thy table?" The sacrament, the sacrament, as of old, The temple, the temple. Mr Prynne thinks that the minister hath fully discharged his duty and conscience, if he give warning to unworthy communicants of the danger they incur by their unworthy approaches to the Lord's table, Vindic., p. 28, 29. But he may be pleased to receive an answer from himself, p. 43, "The things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts than the things we hear." The word preached is verbum audibile; the sacrament is verbum visibile. How shall profane ones be persuaded, by their ears, to believe that whereof they see the contrary with their eyes? They will give more credit in Mr Prynne's own opinion to the visible word than to the audible word.

Fifthly, If it were a profanation of the sacrament of baptism to baptize a catechumen, a Jew, or a pagan, professing a resolution to turn Christian, he being manifestly under the power of abominable reigning sins, and being still a profane and wicked liver, although he were able to give a sound and orthodox confession of faith, then it is also a profanation of the Lord's supper to admit unto it abominable and profane livers. But it were a profanation of the sacrament of baptism, &c. Augustine, lib. de Fide et Operibus, cap. 18, tells us, that the church did not admit whores, and such other scandalous persons, to baptism. Et nisi egerint

ab his mortuis operibus pœnitentiam, accedere ad baptismum non sinuntur: And except they repent, saith he, from these dead works, they are not suffered to come unto baptism. Divers arguments he brings in that book for this thing, as, 1. That Peter saith, Acts ii. 38, "Repent and be baptized." 2. That the Apostle, Heb. vi. 1, 2, joineth repentance from dead works with baptism. 3. That John preached the baptism of repentance. 4. That fornicators, adulterers, thieves, &c., shall not inherit the kingdom of God; therefore, such as are known to live in these sins without repentance, ought not to be baptized. 5. He argueth from 2 Cor. vi. 14-16, &c. Now, I offer this query, Shall an abominable wicked life, murder, adultery, swearing, cursing, lying, or the like, keep back a man from so much as entering into the visible church by the door of baptism, and shall not the like abominations keep back a man from fellowship with the saints at the Lord's table? Is there more evidence of saintship required in those who come to be baptized, than in those who come to the Lord's table? If there be, let our opposites speak it out, and open up the riddle; if there be not, then how can their tenet avoid the profanation of the Lord's table?

Sixthly, That ordinance which is profaned by admitting infants and idiots, who can make no good use of it, is much more profaned by admitting abominable and known profane persons, who make a very bad use of it. But the Lord's supper is profaned by admitting infants and idiots, who can make no good use of it; therefore, &c.

Mr Prynne, p. 29, yieldeth that children, fools, and distracted men, are, by a natural disability, made incapable of receiving the Lord's supper, because unable to examine themselves, to which, saith he, notwithstanding, they have been admitted in some churches. In what churches fools and distracted men have been admitted to the Lord's supper, I should have willingly learned from him; for, as yet, I know not any such thing. Children, I know, were sometime admitted by the ancients, who did afterward discover their own great error in that particular. However, he yields, as I take it, children and fools to be incapable of the Lord's supper. And why? Because unable to examine themselves, in regard of natural disability. But where there is no disability in the natural faculties, may not a sin

ful disability, which a man hath drawn upon himself (as ignorance, drunkenness, corrupt and atheistical opinions, presumptuous excusing or defending of sin), make him unable to examine himself? Shall men that are unable to examine themselves be admitted to the sacrament, because not disabled by any natural disability? Sure this was far from Paul's thoughts, when he delivered that rule concerning examining ourselves before the sacrament. Whoever they be who are unable to examine themselves, whether naturally or sinfully, much more they who manifestly appear unwilling to examine themselves, if they be admitted and allowed to come to the Lord's supper, it is a high and heinous profanation of that ordinance. Wherefore, to prosecute my argument, Why do we exclude infants and idiots? Because

the Apostle saith, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup;" but infants and idiots cannot examine themselves. Now, a positive profanation of the sacrament is worse than a negative profanation of it: abuti is more than non bene uti. We know that profane impenitent sinners will not only make no good use of the sacrament, nor examine themselves aright, but will abuse it to the worst use that can be, even to flatter themselves in their wickedness, and to harden themselves in sin and impenitency. Mr Prynne will tell us, We know not but God may convert such at the sacrament; but there is not the least hint, in all the word of God, of any impenitent sinner converted by the sacrament. And, beside, it is as easy for God to give an idiot, or distracted man, his right wits, and to illuminate him with a self-examining knowledge and light, in the very instant of approaching to, or sitting down at, the table; and if a possibility, a peradventure it may be, and who knoweth but it may convert and do them good, be a warrantable ground for ministers to administer the sacrament to profane and scandalous persons, as Mr Prynne holds, p. 47, why shall not the same ground be as warrantable for admitting idiots?

Seventhly, If the temple was polluted and profaned by the coming of profane and abominable persons into it, then is the sacrament of the Lord's supper also profaned by such persons' participation of it; but the temple was polluted and profaned, &c. The reason of the consequence in the proposition is, because, as the temple had a sacramental

signification of Christ, and a certain ceremonial holiness, as well as the Lord's table, so it will be durus sermo (and, I presume, none of our opposites will adventure to say it), that such profaneness as did of old keep back men from the temple, cannot now exclude them from the sacrament.

The assumption is largely proved in the first book, both from Scripture and from Jewish writers. That one place, Ezek. xxiii. 38, 39 (beside divers others), cleareth it: "Moreover, this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths. For, when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it." You see the temple was profaned and polluted, not only by those that were ceremonially unclean, but by idolaters and murderers, when any such presumed to come into the temple.

Eighthly, I desire the scope of that place, Hag. ii. 11—14, may be considered. The Lord is teaching his people, that a thing legally holy, could not, by the touch thereof, sanctify that which, by the law, was common and not holy, yet he which was legally unclean, did defile whatsoever he touched, yea, though it were legally holy. "So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord, and so is every work of their hands, and that which they offer there is unclean." The legal holiness and uncleanness were significant ceremonies to teach the people the necessity of moral holiness, and the evil or danger of moral uncleanness. Hence God himself argues from the significant ceremony to the morality, so as the place holds forth, by necessary plain consequence, these three propositions: 1. The ceremonial uncleanness did signify the moral uncleanness, and the effect of the former did signify the effect of the latter. 2. Unholy persons are not sanctified by their approaching to, or joining in holy ordinances; but he that is filthy will be filthy still, and he that is unjust, unjust still. If God do not give them his Spirit to sanctify them, the ordinances cannot do it. 3. Yet unholy persons, while such, do defile holy ordinances, and that by moral as well as by ceremonial uncleanness; therefore the people themselves, and every work of their hands, being evil, the Lord, for that cause, reckoneth their sacrifices to be unclean. Did profane persons defile the sacrifices of old, and do they not defile our sacraments? Nay, I

should think this much more than that, there being more of the communion of saints in our sacraments than in their sacrifices.

The ninth argument, which alone may conclude the point, shall be taken from Matt. vii. 6, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine." If the sacrament be a holy thing, and if profane, scandalous, impenitent sinners be dogs and swine, then to give the sacrament to such, is to profane and pollute the sacrament, and, indeed, no better, but worse, than to give pearls to swine. Mr Prynne's reply, Vindic. p. 39, doth not take off this argument; for, without any proof, he restricteth to certain particulars that which the text saith generally, both of the things and of the persons. First, for the things, he saith, The text is principally intended of not preaching the gospel to such, so that we must seclude them from the word, as well as from the sacrament. But I ask, Is it meant only of the word? He hath not said so, nor will (I think) say

So.

Erastus himself, p. 207, confesseth it is meant also of the sacraments. The text saith not, the holy thing and the pearl, but "holy things, pearls." It must, therefore, be understood respective. Some are so vile, and so abominably, prodigiously profane, blasphemous, mockers, persecutors, that I ought not to preach to such, but to turn away from them to others, according to Christ's direction, and the Apostle's example. Others are such as I may preach unto, yet ought not to pray or give thanks with them, nor to admonish them (and much less give them the sacrament). Others I may admonish and pray with them, yet ought not to give them the sacrament; and all these, by reason of that rule, "Give not that which is holy to dogs," &c. So that we are not bound up by this text, either to seclude men from the word, or otherwise from no holy thing. Next, the argument holds à fortiori from the word to the sacrament; for, saith Paræus, if Christ said this of the word, which is common to the converted and to the unconverted, how much more must it be said of the sacraments,

1 Explic. Catech. quest. 84.-Si enim Christus hoc dixit de verbo audibili, quod tamen institutum est conversis et non conversis vel convertendis: multo magis hoc dicitur de verbo visibili hoc est de sacramentis, quæ tantum conversis sunt instituta.

which are instituted only for such as are converted.

As for that sort of persons which the text speaks of, Mr Prynne (following Erastus, lib. 3, cap. 3) saith, that these dogs and swine are only such infidels and heathens, who refused to embrace the gospel, and harbour the preachers of it; or persecutors of the gospel, and of the ministers of it; or open apostates from the Christian faith, which they once embraced. And he citeth divers scriptures, which, he saith, do expressly determine it. But he observes not, that the most which those scriptures prove is, that such men as he speaks of are dogs and swine, which is not the question. That which he had to prove is, that the dogs and swine which Christ speaks of, are only infidels, or persecutors, or apostates from the Christian faith. This only he hath boldly averred, but shall never prove it. It is one thing to prove that infidels, persecutors and apostates, are dogs and swine; another thing to prove that there are no other dogs and swine. That which the apostle Peter saith of such as, having escaped the pollutions of the world, and known the way of righteousness, do afterward turn aside from the holy commandment, namely, that such do, with the dog, return to the vomit, and with the sow that was washed to the wallowing in the mire, 2 Pet. ii. 18, 20, 22, doth belong to all scandalous and backsliding Christians, whether they be such in doctrine or in life only; and is generally so applied by divines. Erastus himself, p. 207, understandeth that vomit and puddle, 2 Pet. ii., to be the sinful pleasures of the world, relabuntur (saith he, glossing upon the place) ad voluptates moresque hujus seculi. And Solomon saith the same thing generally of an ungodly wicked person, Prov. xxvi. 11, "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." Nor is it to be forgotten that the Apostle, using the words of Epimenides, calls the Cretians evil beasts, Tit. i. 12, because they professed to know God, but in their works denied him, being impure, disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Wherefore the precept, Matt. vii. 6, is rightly applied by Isidorus Pelusiota, lib. 1, epist. 143, to the denying of the sacrament to all persons of an unclean conversation, as well as to Jews and heretics. So Chrysostom doth apply this text to the excluding of known unworthy men from the sacrament, and this he doth, Homil. 1, de

compunctione cordis, as I remember. And, Hom. 83 in Matt., he hath these words to the same purpose, "If thou hadst a clear fountain committed to thy keeping, to be kept clean by thee, wouldst thou let filthy swine come and puddle in it, how much more the fountain of the blood of Christ ?" Where, by filthy swine, he understandeth all unworthy and scandalous persons whatsoever, as is evident by that which follows, and by that also which went before, where he gives instance of the scandals in life and conversation. And upon the text itself, Matt. vii., he applieth it to a suspension of all such as were not acknowledged for visible saints, not only from receiving, but from beholding, the sacrament. Hence was that in the ancient church, sancta sanctis, at which word all others were dismissed before the receiving of the sacrament, who were not accounted visible saints; hence came the distinction of duplex missa, that is, duplex dimissio.

Missa catechumenorum, et missa fidelium. When the catechumens were dismissed, then also together with them were dismissed all scandalous persons who had scandalized the church, except such penitents as (having now, in a great measure, satisfied the church discipline, and manifested their repentance publicly, according to certain usual degrees of public declaration of repentance) were permitted to behold the giving and receiving of the sacrament, after the catechumens were gone (which yet, themselves, were not admitted to partake of, till they had gone through all the degrees, and finished the whole course of publicly manifesting repentance, only in the danger of death, they were permitted to receive the sacrament, before that course was finished, if they should desire it). Then, last of all, after the sacrament, was the missa fidelium, the dismission of the faithful.

Augustine, lib. de Fide et Operibus, cap. 6, so applieth the prohibition of giving holy things to dogs, that he thence argueth against the administration of baptism to persons living in adultery (although such as have embraced the orthodox doctrine), which is also the scope of that whole book. Now, if persons of a profane conversation, though orthodox in their judgment and profession, be such dogs as ought to be refused baptism when they desire it, surely they are also such dogs as ought to be refused the Lord's supper.

Moreover, the only seeming advantage which Mr Prynne catcheth is from the word dogs (which yet is no advantage; for that is applied generally to wicked and profane persons in the Scriptures above cited, and so Rev. xxii. 15), but he shall do well to observe the word swine too; for (as Grotius upon the place, following Chrysostom, doth make the distinction) the dogs are such as bark and contradict, the swine such as do not bark and contradict, but, by an impure life, saith he, declare how little esteem they have of the holy things: which difference, as he conceives, the text itself doth hint; for it mentioneth not only the turning again to rend, which is the dog's part, but the trampling of pearls under feet, which is the swine's part.

Finally, This argument from Matt. vii. hath gained so much upon Erastus himself (lib. 3, cap. 3), that he restricteth himself to the admission of such only to the sacrament as acknowledge and confess their fault, promise amendment, and desire to use the sacraments rightly with the rest, so far as we are able to judge: which concession will go far.

CHAPTER XVI.

AN ARGUMENT OF ERASTUS (DRAWN FROM THE BAPTISM Of John) against the ex

CLUDING OF SCANDALOUS SINNERS FROM

THE LORD'S SUPPER, EXAMINED.

The strongest arguments of Erastus drawn from the Old Testament I have already discussed. Another argument of his which deserveth an answer (for I take him in his greatest strength) is this: John Baptist, saith he, did baptize all, none excepted, who came to him to be baptized; yea, even the Pharisees and Sadducees, whom yet he called "a generation of vipers."

Ans. 1. They that were baptized by John did confess their sins and profess repentance; and Erastus himself (p. 12) brings in John Baptist speaking to those Pharisees on this manner: I do not see into your hearts, but he that cometh after me hath his fan in his hand, and will separate the chaff from the

1 P. 107.-Sermo noster de illis est, qui crimen agnoscunt et confitentur: qui emendationem promittunt: qui sacramentis recte cum cæteris uti, quantum judicare nos possumus, desiderant.

wheat; so that, though ye may deceive me with a feigned repentance, yet you cannot deceive him. Hereupon Erastus concludeth that the ministers of the gospel ought not to deny the sacraments to those that profess repentance, and ought not take upon them to judge of men's hearts whether they do truly and unfeignedly repent. Now all this maketh for the suspension from the sacrament of all such as do not confess their sins, nor profess repentance for the same: the drunkard that will not confess his drunkenness, the unclean person that will not confess his uncleanness, the Sabbath-breaker that will not confess his breach of the Sabbath, are, by this ground, to be excluded; and so of other scandalous persons. We are not to judge of men's hearts, but we are to judge of the external signs of repentance, whether sin be confessed, and repentance declared, by some hopeful signs, or not.

2. Neither doth his arguments fully reach admission to the Lord's table, where some further and more exact proof must be had of one's fitness and qualification for the communion of saints. Even those that are of age when they are baptized are but incipientes, -when they come to the Lord's table they are proficientes. There is some more required in proficients than in novices and beginners, as there is more required to fit one for strong meat than for milk.

66

3. It is also a question whether those Pharisees that came to the baptism of John were indeed baptized of him. "Tostatus tells us some think they were not baptized, and they prove it from Luke vii. 29, 30, " And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." There is a controversy whether these be the words of our Saviour Christ, or of the evangelist Luke; but there can be no controversy of this, that the Pharisees and law

1 Medina in tertiam partem, quest. 38.-Verum cum non sit idem, agnoscere se peccatorem, et confiteri peccata sua, recte intelligimus eos sua peccata saltem majora indicasse, et confessos esse D. Johanni, sicut et Act. xix. multi credentium dicuntur venisse ad Paulam confitentes et annuntiantes actus

suos.

2 Tostatus in Matt. iii., quest. 64. So Salmeron, tom. 4, part. 1, tract. 5.-Narrantur venisse ad Johannem et ad baptismum suum. Non constat autem an baptisati fuerint: nam Luke vii. dicuntur sprevisse consilium Dei in semet ipsos, non baptisati a Johanne.