Chapter 5

CHAP. V.

The Fifth Argument Produced. That if the Lords Supper were appointed to be a Converting Ordinance, it ought not to be with-held from the Profanest Men in the World. The oddness of that Nation, that the Sacrament is appointed to be a Converting Ordinance to Church Members, and to no body else but a Church Member. Mr. Gillespy, Judgeth this to be an Irrational conceit. Church censure is appointed for the recovery of a fallen Brother, rather then for the Conversion of an Unconverted Person.

The Fifth Argument Produced. That if the Lords Supper were appointed to be a Converting Ordinance, it ought not to be with-held from the Profanest Men in the World. The oddness of that Nation, that the Sacrament is appointed to be a Converting Ordinance to Church Members, and to no body else but a Church Member. Mr. Gillespy, Judgeth this to be an Irrational conceit. Churchcensure is appointed for the recovery of a fallen Brother, rather then for the Conversion of an Unconverted Person.

Another Argument which is a clear Confutation of what Mr. S. affirms, is this, If the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance, then Profane Persons ought to be admitted to partake of it. For we may not withhold from the Profanest Person in the World that which is appointed to be the means of his Conversion. Nay, the more Wicked any are, the greater reason there is that the means of Conversion should be applied unto them. Therefore it is that the Gospel is to be Preached unto the worst of Sinners, yea, to Publicans the worst of men, and to Harlots the worst of Women, because that is an Ordinance appointed for Conversion, Mat. 21. 31. But such are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. Mr. S. ⟨p. 34⟩himself confesseth that. But then how do's he Answer this Unanswerable Argument? He has Excogitated a new notion and an odd one; viz. That the Sacrament is a Converting Ordinance for Church Members only, & not for other men. P. 27, 28. I think the honour of this Invention belongs to himself alone. For in my small reading, I have not met with it in any other Author. His alleging that it is an Ordinance appointed for the Conversion of Non-Scandalous Church Members and none others, is that which Logicians call Petitio Principij, or a begging of the Question. I should rather think as Learned Gillespy does, whose Words are these: If the Sacrament is a Converting Ordinance for known Impenitent Scandalous Profane Persons within the Church, (to make it a Converting Ordinance for Non-Scandalous Persons only, is a Phansy peculiar to Mr. S.) What reason is there imaginable why it is not also a Converting Ordinance for Heathen, Pagans, Turks, Jews, or have we the least hint in the Scripture that an Ordinance which may convert the Profanest Un-excommunicated Person within the Church, cannot Convert both Heathen and Excommunicated Christians? What rational Reply Mr. S. can make to this I know not, unless he will Pretend that a Church-censure, and why not a Sacrament,