a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
former as is concluded by Interpreters we must understand the like or somewhat much like it in the latter Man will have like immortality in sin as he had omniscience by sin Therefore he puts and keeps him out of Paradise that now being deprived of the thing he might not delude himself in the outward sign or Sacramental representation of it Sixthly It remains therefore that these trees were set apart of God from other trees of the garden for a Sacramental use having no more power of themselves to confer life or knowledge then water in Baptisme or bread and wine in the Lords Supper to conferre pardon of sin or spiritual life on the soul g Arbor igitur vitae non ab in sita vivificandi facultate sed à Sacramentali signifâ—câ—tione sic dicta est The tree of life was so called saith Wollebius not from any innate quickning faculty but from a Sacramental signification Paraeus indeed putting it to the question whether the tree of life be so called by reason of the effect that it had produced had man stood or by way of signification saith these two opinions in his judgment may be joyned and sayes h Sine dubio habitura erat haec arbor seu ut cibus seu ut medicina vim conservandi hominis sanitatem vitam ne corpora vergerent in senium aut sentirent defecâ—um donec in coelestem immortalitatem transirent Deinde data fuit homini in vitae Sacramentum The tree might give life as food or as physick and preserve from age till man should be translated into an heavenly immortality and then proceeds to shew how it is a Sacrament of life But sure these opinions are altogether inconsistent Sacraments are so signs that they are not physical causes of the thing that is signified If they had any such effect in nature then all mystery in the Sacrament ceased and there needed no word from God to clear it every man would know that food hath a natural tendency to life and physick to health if there were no Scripture If we were able to make it good that they were physical causes of life and knowledge then we must disclaime their Sacramental use but seeing that cannot appear and the contrary is evident This other must be asserted It may easily be made out that the tree of life was a Sacramen Man was to put forth his hand to eat of it as the Jewes did the Passeover and we do the Lords Supper i Voluit igitur hominem quoties fructum arboris illius gustaret in memoriam revorareunde vitam haberet ut se agnosceret non propria virtute sed Dei unius beneficio vivere Neqâ—e esse intrinsecum bonum ut vulgo loquuntur sed à Deo provenire And as often as he ate of it or had his eye upon it as Calvin well observes he was to remember from whom he received life and blisse and by whom he was preserved and upheld that he had no principle of life and blisse in himself but as he received it from God so by his favour and free Grace it was continued And to mind himself of his duty on what tearms he stood with God and upon what condition his life and blisse was continued whilest he sinned not he must not dye as long as obedience lasted he must enjoy a life in happiness Others add that it shadowed out Christ by whom both he and the Angels stood in happinesse but I have already spoke my thoughts to that particular But how to bring that other tree of the knowledge of good and evil so aptly to hold out the nature and use of a Sacrament is not so easie and I find many Interpreters asserting it but not any that I can meet with demonstrating it And it must be confest that this Sacrament did herein differ from all other Sacraments Those did consist in their use This in mans abstinence from it In this it is said thou shalt not eat In the Passeover and the Lords Supper the communitants must eat But God hath it in his power to institute Sacraments according to pleasure by way of prohibition as well as by way of injunction In other Sacraments in the due use men attain to the good that is promised In this by abstinence man should have avoyded the evil threatned In eating of the tree of life while man persisted in obedience he was assured of life that was a seal and pledge of it And while he abstained from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he had like assurance of freedom from death This alone was a negative Sacrament and it was proper to this Sacrament onely that not the fruition of good but the avoydance of evil was the thing signified The reason of the name is the enquiry of many why it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Some that would deny it to be any Sacrament say that it had the name from the natural effect that it was apt to produce being created to quicken or ripen man in the use of his reason conceiving that our first Parents were created weak in knowledge of an infant understanding And to know good and evil that is choose the good and refuse the evil in the Hebrew phrase setting out the use of reason as Esay 7.16 Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good They say this tree was to work them to this maturity in knowledge How false this is of our first Parents weaknesse in knowledge is clear by the names that man gave to all creatures upon sight as he had dominion over them so he understood the nature of them as also in that speech that he uttered concerning Eve when the Lord upon her creation brought her to him to give her in marriage The Wise man sayes that God made man upright Eccles 7.29 And this uprightnes comprizes mans whole conformity to God in all in which his image doth consist which was as the Apostle tells us in knowledge as in righteousnesse and true holinesse Col. 3.10 To avoid suspition of inclination to any such opinion some when they speak of mans first estate purposely avoid the word innocency and choose to use the word integrity And how unapt the fruit of a tree could possibly be in nature to produce any such effect that which was spoken concerning the tree of life being applyed hither may demonstrate And whence this opinion came but from the Devil I cannot tell who told our mother Eve that God did know that in the day that they eat thereof their eyes should be opened and they should be like unto gods knowing both good and evil Gen. 3.5 He was the first that vented it and she was the first that believed it when she saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eye and a tree to be desired to make one wise she did take and eat thereof Gen. 3.6 The taste
to make use of some one according to their own will when this assertion of his is as inconsistent with his own doctrine as Austins can be that upon a manifold account as might be shewen 1. He scarce knowes how to make it out that Circumcision was any remedy at all against Original sin seeing that Sacrament did not conferre grace by the work done but by the merit or disposition of the doer which is not found in infants 2. He himself confesses that many infants dye in their mothers wombe and yet have no remedy provided either in the law of nature or the old Law or Law of grace that is neither before the Law under the Law or in Gospel-times 3. Water is not alwayes at hand as he not absurdly hints though a Minister with them is scarce wanting who set up Midwives for the work and then the infant dyes remedilesse All this he thinks to help with a distinction c Quanquam enim non de singulis in particulari provideret ut eis efficaciter applicaretur romedium generaliter omnibus provisum tamen quantum in ipso est omnibus providet Though saith he God hath not provided for each one in particular that the remedy provided in general for all should be applyed to them yet he hath provided such a remedy as far as in him lyes But foreseeing that there would be some impediment to hinder the application of this Sacramental remedy to some this he permits This is a speech beseeming a Jesuit that God provided quantum in se a remedy as though it had been above him to have avoyded these impediments If the Jesuites position must stand that God is so tyed up with these limits that he cannot take away Original sin from infants without application of somewhat that is sensible He could have made such provision as he forbade Sampsons mother whilest with child the drinking of wine or strong drink or eating any unclean thing and that respective to the infant because he should be a Nazarite to God from the wombe to the day of his death Judg. 13.7 so he could have enjoyned the mother to have taken that which might through grace annext have had that efficacy in the infant in the wombe to take away Original sin as they conceive water hath on an infant new-born yea God is so far from doing what in him lyes respective to many infants for provision of a remedy of this nature that he orders that such a supposed remedy shall not be applyed He with much ado makes Circumcision a remedy to deliver from Original sin Pag. 51. Yet God took order in his Law that it should not be administred before the eighth day and in that interim between the birth and the eighth day it must needs be that many dyed and so by the law of Heaven they were debarred of a remedy through grace provided But here he is opposed by divers of his own party who hold that the faith of the Parent is sufficient to take away Original sin from the infant for which opinion he quotes Bonaventure Dist 1. Art 2. Quest 2. Rich. art 1. 5. 9. 1. 2. And Chamier lib. 1. cap. 8. de Sacramentis in genere Sect. 6. quotes also Vasquez for the same opinion These place merit in the Parents faith to work to the justification of the infant a merit not ex condiguo but ex congruo and for merit of this nature a faith informed void of Charity is sufficient say they Here our Author takes two exceptions against his friends 1. saith he d Sed hi authores in hoc falsum supponunt quia revera ad meritum de congruo non sufficit fides informis praesertim ad merendam alteri gratiam sanctitatem praeterea non satis explicant vim radicem hujus remedii quia ut esset infallibile quod necessarium est ut esset verum remedium non satis erat meritum de congruo quia non semper infallibiliter effectum habet sed necessaria erat divina promiscio hanc oportet ostendere They argue from a false ground for faith informed will not serve for this kind of merits especially to merit grace for another And secondly they do not as he saith sufficiently set forth the force and efficacy of this remedy To make it infallible as it must be if it be a true remedy merit de congruo is not sufficient seeing it hath not alwayes infallibly its effects But a Divine promise is necessary and this promise saith he they ought to shew that maintain it So that one part gives too much to the application of a sensible sign to the infant and the other over much to the merit of the Parent Abuleusis on Matth. 25. Quest 677. comes nearer to Bonaventure Richard Vasquez then to Suarez holding that infants before Circumcision were delivered from Original sin in that they were born of believers not requiring as Rivet observes Exer. 88. in Genes any application of faith in the Parents to the infants in any Sacrament for that work who might be dead before the Sacrament was administred to them The same opinion is undertaken of late in behalf of the infants of Christians to prove the infallibility of their salvation whether dying before or after Baptisme I have enough on my hands already and am not willing to launch out into this controversie I onely say 1. I find infants of believers not onely of the faith of the Elect but of visible profession in Covenant the Scripture is cleare for a Covenant in this latitude 2. That salvation according to Scripture wayes is within the verge of the Covenant and doth not go beyond it The Scripture leaves men out of Covenant in an hopeless condition 3. As there is salvation for all sorts and degrees of persons of age in Covenant but not to be extended to all of those sorts and degrees to reach every individual person so in a parallell way we may think of infants I know no text giving us universal assurance of their happiness in case there were I suppose there were much mare cause for believers to begge of God their infants death then with David in prayer to seek their life there being full assurance of their happiness dying and so much fear of their condemnation living to see the temptations to which in their growth they are subject We find salvation entailed upon qualifications of grace but not upon any age or period of life 4. There is as much found in Scripture giving us hopes of the salvation of the infants of all in Covenant as to their infant-state as to the infants of those that are most exact in keeping of Covenant As much is said for the honour of infants of Parents of a faith barely dogmatical as of the infants of those that are actually in grace and justified by faith The infants of all such yea of the worst of such are the servants of God
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 onely 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 onely the right or outward symbole of the Covenant He applies his distinction that that proposition That no reprobate is in Covenant with God is onely 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 onely holinesse of regeneration This is plain If the right be theirs alone that have their interest as in Covenant so also in Christ onely these must be baptized or else we must baptize without right And that they do not onely 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
neglected There is strength in that argument from the gift to the use Arguments evincing the necessity of Sacraments from the fruition of any thing from the hand of God as the servant the talent from his Master to the improvement of it These are instituted of God for his people and therefore for the use of his people That which the Apostle speaks respective to Gospel ordinances in general may be applyed to any one in particular We beseech you that ye receive not the grace of God in vain 2 Cor. 6.1 Secondly Frequent explicite commands are added as we have seen in the Scripture proofs respective to either of the Sacraments and though no other reason could be rendred yet the Soveraignty of heaven must be obeyed When the young Prophet that came from Judah 1 Kings 13. did eat bread upon his return expressely contrary to the command of God we know the judgement that followed when the like command is broke in refusal to eat there is the like danger God hath power in positives as well as negatives in commanding of eating as he hath in forbidding Thirdly As it is a duty so also a priviledg we obey a command when we receive a Sacrament and also take a gift And the sleighting of Gods favours equals the evil of disobedience to his commands What sin suffers more then theirs that upon call refuse to come to the wedding supper The gift is annexed to the duty Take eat this is my body they that do not eat have not the promise Fourthly Our necessity calls us to it we have proved the Supper to be an heart-breaking ordinance and there is none that deny it to be a soule strengthening ordinance Hunger will make haste to run to meat guilt to pardon and pain to ease and sorrow to comfort were we as sensible of our hunger or guilt we should make equal haste to Christ in each ordinance in this ordinance Those that are agreed about the necessity of Sacraments are yet at difference about the degree or kind of their necessity That distinction of necessity by precept or command of God and necessity as a means whereby salvation is gained is well known a Adversarii fatentur Sacramenta esse necessaria quia praecepta et etiam necessaira ut media utilia non tamen agnoscunt ullum Sacramentum necessarium simpliciter ut medium Bellarmine saies we yield to them the former that there is the necessity of a divine command upon them And they also yield to us that no other Sacraments of theirs are any otherwise necessary except Baptisme and repentance And we further yield that repentance is of necessity in the most absolute sense being understood of the change of the heart or conversion to God But not under any notion of a Sacrament As to their Sacramental repentance standing in confession in the eares of a Priest taking pennance and receiving absolution from him we do not so much as acknowledg any command of God concerning them All the dispute then is about Baptisme In which also we cannot grant that there is a command given of God concerning it but we must yield that it is necessary as a means whereby God in his ordinary way carries us on by his grace to salvation onely we deny such an absolute necessity of it as that no salvation can be obtained without it They yet yield that desire of Baptisme doth supply the want of it and we yield that those of years that neither have it nor desire it cannot be excluded from contempt of it This growing out of error as in Socinians The kind or degree of necessity in Sacraments and others we say it is dangerous but do not presently conclude it damnable But the want of it where there can be no desire of it as in infants they make damnable in which we wholly are dissenters and cannot yield a necessity of that height in it We have our reasons First Salvation was not tied to Sacraments in the Old Testament not to circumcision in room of which we have baptisme and is by the Apostle called by the name of Baptisme Col. 2.11 This is clear by the delay of it according to Gods command to the eighth day If those perished that died in the mean space which was the case of Davids child their parents obedience of Gods command brought them to perdition And salvation being not tied to Sacraments but attainable without them in the daies of the Old Testament there is no cause to believe that in the New Testament there should be restraint The promulgation of the Gospel did not streighten grace or make the way lesse passeable to life and glory Secondly They that are in Covenant with God are upon that account in capacity of Salvation This is plain what advantage is gained by Covenant if salvation be denyed But such are in Covenant many such that never were baptized This is as clear I will be thy God and the God of thy seed assoone as Abraham had a child he had a child in Covenant which howsoever Jesuits and after them Anabaptists would understand of the spiritual seed yet God as we see through the Old Testament ownes them as his in a greater latitude Those to whom he gave the land of Canaan are his seed there mentioned But he gave not the Land of Canaan to the spiritual seed onely Therefore they onely are not the seed there mentioned The New Testament holds it out in as great latitude as I have abundantly shewed Thirdly As Abraham the Father of the faithful came into a state of justification and salvation so others may attain to it in like sort This is evident of it self But Abraham was in a state of justification without application of any Sacrament in his state of uncircumcision and not of Circumcision as the Apostle argues by computing the time when it was said of him that he believed the Lord and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Rom. 4.9 10. Fourthly If Baptisme be of this absolute necessity that regeneration is affixt to it and none can be saved without it then it is in mans power to save and destroy as is said of Nebuchadnezzar whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive Dan. 5.19 which was the highest pitch of prerogative in regard of the outward man so it may be said of man respective to eternity of blisse or misery according to them the meanest midwife may Baptize them ready to give up the Ghost and save them neglect them and damne them The Infant set out in type Ezek. 16. And Moses in the flags lay sadly at mans mercy for this fading life but thousands of infants are alike at mercy according to this tenent for eternity Joh. 3.5 vindicated The great objection which is made on the contrary and that onely which is worthy of consideration is drawn from Christs words in conference with Nicodemus Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born of water and of
of his Reign began to seek after the God of his Fathers and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places and the groves and the carved Images and the molten Images 2 Chron. 34.3 4. But it was in the eighteenth year of his Reign that he could reach to keep a Passeover Chap. 35.19 Hezekiah as appears hasted to keep a Passeover yet durst not be over-hasty he could not keep it on the day which originally in the Law was appointed But upon advice put it off to the second moneth because the Priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently 2 Chro. 30.3 Ezra kept a Passeover upon the return out of the Captivity Ezra 6.19 and the reason is given vers 20 21. For the Priests and Levites were purified together all of them were pure and killed the Passeover for all the children of the captivity and for their brethren the Priests and for themselves and the children of Israel which were come again out of Captivity and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the Land to seek the Lord God of Israel did eat Had not the Priests and Levites been thus purified and the people thus separated the Passeover it appeares had been longer delayed As these saw necessitating occasion for omission of this Ordinance which yet is not charged as their sin so may also the Ministers of Christ see like occasion for delay of administration of the Lords Supper And there is advantage on their part seeing there was a prescript time in the Law for the observation of the one but no limited time in the Gospel for the administration of the other Sometimes a Minister by providence is cast upon such a people that scarce three are able to discern what they have in hand when they are about this duty and therefore he sees no more reason to call them to it then Christ saw to call his disciples newly chosen unto private fastings or the Apostle to give meat to babes edification is their great businesse their whole businesse they may stay the time that they may administer it to edification sometimes it evidently appeares that the rent is in a way to be made so great by their administration through the observance of some working errour upon the judgment in others that are so principled that none but high Saints are for this Ordinance that they see danger in proceeding in it And though I do not doubt but that it is often forborn out of sinful neglect and by truly consciencious Ministers sometimes out of over-much indulgence of their brethrens weaknesse and their own over-rigid principles yet as I do believe that all consciencious Pastours who for some space of time forbear do judge that there is cause for such forbearance so I do believe that upon some occasions pro hic nunc it may justly be forborn And whatsoever exception is taken against Arguments drawn from Analogy as not concluding of which I need to say no more then I have already spoken yet I shall conclude that this which is drawn from the Passeover which is rather from example then analogy is cogent If that of the London-Divines in their Divine Right of Church-Government pag. 20 21. quoted and approved by Reverend Mr. Jeanes pag. 21. of his Treatise be of weight That whatsoever actions were done by Saints recorded in Scripture upon such grounds as are of morall perpetual and common concernment to one person as well as to another to one Church as well as to another these actions are obligatory to all and a rule to after-generations then this Argument grounded on the example of such actions is not to be charged as not concluding yea though we had no such Example to lead us as perhaps they had none to be a precedent to them yet those reasons which led them or those that are equivalent may lead us likewise Fourthly 4. Rule There is no prescript for the time or frequency of the observation of the Lords Supper There is no definitive time in the Gospel for observation nor any precise determinate prescript for the frequency of the Lords Supper But when and how often Christian prudence must order yet being an holy exercise the day which we are to keep holy calls for it being the Lords Supper what time so meet as the Lords day The whole community of the faithful being interested in it it is to be observed at the time of their publick meetings which occasionally may be at other times but must be at that time And in case breaking of bread Act. 20.7 be meant of the Lords Supper as most affirm and I will not oppose it is out of question But yet I cannot think that every holy duty is alwaies to be the work of every holy meeting so the word should never be preached nor prayer publickly made without a Sacrament I believe there is somewhat extraordinary in a Sacrament comparative to other duties as there is in a Fast And though the Law for the Passeover and day of Atonement tye not us to annual observations onely of Sacraments and Fasts as it tyed the Jewes yet me thinks it speaks somewhat more then ordinary in them and that Fasts and Sacraments are not to be done in that frequency as daily addresses to God in prayer and our hearing from God in his Word And though I subscribe to Mr. Pemble and others that the Apostles words As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup implyes that it should be often A Christian should not seldome in his life partake of this Ordinance yet I suppose it doth allow if not imply longer intermission then is to be in other duties The primitive times perhaps in some places at least made this Ordinance over-common celebrating it as is said every day in other places every Lords day Mr. Pemble who religiously pleads for the frequent celebration of it sayes It is true that as in other so in this Divine institution Satan hath done much by his malicious policy to corrupt mens hearts in the observation of it When the Sacrament was administred often he brought it into contempt by the commonnesse of it Now that it is administred seldome through ignorance it is thought unnecessary How truly his observation is verified we see in two extreams into which different parties are run at this present time One part breaking bread almost at all their meetings and make no more of it then common bread looking after no Minister set apart for that work not so much as of their own making any one whom they will call a gifted disciple and such with them is every dipt disciple is set up for it They act it while some walk some talk in their presence with lesse reverence then befits grave persons at common meals I fear there was never more rudenesse in Corinth then may be seen here in Sacramental observations On the other hand the Sacrament is
or proper passive reception that it is therefore called receiving it self and it is therefore as I think called so because it is so and that it hath its concurrence and way of efficacy for possession I think few except Mr. Baxter will deny It followes Yet still I say if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase especially if some men had the same ingenuity that others have that say it is but Instrumentum Metaphoricum There is not I hope so much ingenuity desired as to smother or blind their reason If it be a metaphorical instrument there must be some real analogy between it and an instrument properly so called in doing that which is done by an instrument and when an instrument is as is affirmed an efficient An instrument without any efficiency at all is a strange kind of Metaphor It had been better to have held to the old dialect of Equivocal There followes But to say saith he that the act of Faith is the instrument of Ethical active reception which is that which I argued against is to say receiving Christ is the instrument of it self It will sure rather follow that Faith is the instrument of the soul in receiving Christ We say faith receives as we say the hand takes Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ That faith is the eye and hand of the soul are Scripture Metaphors or the sword kills but we mean the man receives by the hand and the hand kills by the sword and so we mean the soul receives Christ by faith I explained my self in giving instance in mens usual language concerning faith which is rejected with no little disdain affirming that these speeches Faith is the eye of the soul the hand of the soul are Metaphors of meere humane use forgetting it seems that ever the Scripture said that Moses by faith endured as seeing him that is invisible or that the promise of the Spirit is received by faith If I had added that faith is the foot of the soul they had all been Metaphors of Divine use I urge Scripture texts We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance amongst them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 26.18 To which is replyed If by signifie an instrumental cause it is either alwayes or sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is alwayes if but sometimes why do you take it for granted that so it signifies here This I might well retort If it signifie and an instumental cause sometimes why is it not made appear that it does not so signifie here But I confesse that by hath not alwayes such signification Bartimeus sate by the high-way-side begging in which place by is no instrument but when the particle by hath reference to that which hath immediate reference to a principal cause and sometimes is put to the principal cause it self I suppose nothing else but an instrument can be intended when Christ is said to be set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 and that we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 I know not how the blood of Christ can be a principal cause and faith not denote an instrument I said why else is this righteousnesse sometimes called the righteousnesse of faith sometimes the righteousnesse of God by faith but that it is a righteousnesse which faith receives To this is replyed It is properer to say Credens recipit credendo the believer by believing receives it then to say faith especially the act receives it Here is an egregious subtilety It is more proper to say I receieve a gift by my hand then to say my hand receives it of the same stamp with another where it is said that Scripture sayes That we are justified by faith yet denyed that Scripture sayes that faith justifies But be it so that is properer does not Scripture speak as improperly Eye hath not seen Eare hath not heard It had been as much properer to have said No man hath seen with his eye or heard with his ear I quote Ephes 3.17 Christ dwells in us by faith and Gal. 3.14 We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith There I say Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus and to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus and I am answered You odly change the question we are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving a right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively and so we have a large discourse of Christs dwelling in us But is it not to the purpose to shew that the phrase by faith notes instrumentality which these texts make good and does not Christ dwell in us to more purposes then one Is it not to all purposes that by faith we receive him And then our receiving right to him is not here excluded I said the instrumentality of it in the work of justification is denyed because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwayes rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kind in moral actions To this is replyed I said 1. The action of the principal cause and of the instrument is but one action is not this true of moral operation as well as Physical To this I answer I think here some demurre might be put and scarce believe that it will be fully made good that the action of the principal agent and the instruments which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are alwayes exactly one though the act of the instrument may be in such cases Interpretatively called the act of the principal agent as David is said to have slain Vriah with the sword of the Ammonites Saul I am sure was of an other mind when intending the death of David he said Let not my hand be upon him but the hand of the Philistines 1 Sam. 18.17 But in case it be granted what hath he gained He adds 2. I say the instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo geneâ—e Demanding Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical Then yeelding that it is true Moral causes may be said to have a lesse proper causation then Physical c. And this lesse proper causation I doubt not but may be found in faith and as proper a causation as an instrument of this nature will bear I say The material and formal causes in justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvel then in case men mind to contend about it that some question is raised about the instrument c. To this there is much spoke telling me what he would have me to have concluded
other he threats and these we expect or fear according as we answer in Covenant-keeping or fail through breach of it Herein I explained my self Chap. 5. pag. 21. and this sure was your mind when you wrote your Aphorismes where you say Faith and Repentance are Gods part that he will perform in one Covenant and made our conditions in another The bestowing of them then is no condition of God in that Covenant where they are conditions required from us You say in a Parenthesis if I understand you that our action of believing is called Gods condition by the Querist though improperly yet in a language very common in Mr. Bl's Treatise I desire instances to make this appear that it is thus common in my Treatise You say Thus much being premised I reply more particularly 1. I will yet say that God hath such an absolute promise as well as a conditionall till you give me beâ—ter reasons of your deniall or your questioning whether Scripture will bear it Answ It seems you perceive that I do not plainly deny it Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant I have reasons so far preponderating at least that I dare not assert it I shall adventure upon one that makes towards a denial Meer gracious predictions or prophecies de eventu what God will do are no absolute promises how generally soever so taken This I think is plain There is a difference betwixt a meer prediction and a promise or a prophecie de eventu what God will do and a promise But these that are generlly taken to be absolute promises are according to you meer gracious perdictions what God will do Aphor. pag. 9. Prophecies de eventu what God will do Append. pag. 44. Ergo. I shall adventure to second it with another Promises properly so called have some determinate object to whom they are made and who may receive consolation from them This appears Heb. 6.17 18. But in these absolute promises generally so called there is no determinate object to whom they are made or that possibly can receive consolation from them This is plain They are made as you say to the Elect and being made to them they are made as you further say to we know not who and so none can receive consolation from them No man can aforehand say as you observe that he shall have a new and soft heart because God hath promised it For he cannot know that it is promis'd to him Therefore these are no promises properly so called You adde I shall yet say that the giving of our faith and Repentance is the matter of that absolute promise Answ That it is the matter of that which you have called Gods prediction or prophecie de eventu what shall fall out and now do call an absolute promise I do easily grant And so according to your self it is not the matter of the conditionall proper Covenant of which we speak which is enough for me against you in the thing in question You further say my argument to the contrary hath little in it to compell you to a change Answ My argument it seems found you changed I cannot see you the same here as at least I thought I saw you in your Aphorisms Your Major say you is Whose acts they are his conditions they are In your reply you seem to grant it understood negatively but affirmatively you say the proposition holds not universally but put not in your exception But afterwards you put in an â—xcâ—ption as understood negatively Nor negatively do's it hold say you speaking de actione quâ est quid donandum Answ I think it holds nothing less then if there be quid agendum as well is quid dandum in case the action be matter of duty You say further to your Minor I could better answer if I could find it Expecting say you that it should have been this But our faith and Repentance are not Gods acts And observing that I say That this rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours leaving out all that to which the Relative This refers you know best for what reason Your Reader may suspect That it is to perswade that I deny which seems your great design here that God hath any hand in it I was censured before for giving too mâ—ch to the Spirit of God in the work of Sanctification when I would have the denomination to be given to him and not to man in that work And here I am brought in as ascribing nothing to Gods Spirit because I seem to say that Faith and Repentance are mans acts and not Gods Where you further except against me as over cautelous in speaking the two propositions copulatively It is enough you say to prove them Gods conditions and ours if they be Gods actions and ours Which will be I think a disproof if it be once made good of that which in your answer to your Querists you have said where you say That they are Gods part that he hath discovered that he will perform in one Covenant and they are made our conditions in another They are not then Gods conditions and ours in the same Covenant I am well enough content that you make them God's conditions and not ours in the improper unconditionate Covenant so that you will grant that they are our conditions and not Gods in the proper conditionate Covenant of which we now speak When I say that this rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours You say the word formally may do much to help me out And I say it is well that I have some help that way for I fear your great design here is to hedge me in or else you had not opposed me where my business is not to oppose but to defend you And here you come in with an objection to purpose It is hard to know whether your formally respect a natural or moral form Where we have Logick niceties enow But to let these pass I think no man but your self would have mentioned nature or morality here My meaning is only that formali modo loquendi they have their denomination from man and not from God You further observe that I say They are our acts c. God believes not c. Yielding that to believe is our act you object that to move us effectually to believe as a superior cause is not our work but Gods Answ Sure you do not think that ever I thought that the work of a superior cause above man is the work of man And you may plainly see that I speak as much in words that you leave out for God's more superior causality in this work as you do You say Let it be so to believe is our work and our condition It follows not that it is not Gods But me thinks this necessarily follows I never heard that in any bargain the condition of the one party was the condition of the other And your Reader will think that you have here much forgot
your self having in this very page said The condition is his that performeth it not his that imposeth it And I am sure that God imposeth and we perform the conditions of Faith and Repentance therefore they are not his conditions but ours You say There are sufficient reasons why God is said not to believe though he cause us to believe If you please to produce these reasons I shall he artily thank you I have said plainly enough that God causes us to believe denâ—'d that he is properly said to believe Your reasons then must needs be acceptable You tell me of Praedeterminants and their Adversaries Jesuites Arminians All of which acknowledge God to be the cause of uâ—â—acts And I acknowledge the same and so far there is a â—aire and â—â—iâ—ndly accord Bâ—t you say I adventure a step farher and say that faith and repentance are mans work and not Gods To which yâ—u reply 1. What meane you then to yeeld afterward that God worketh all our works in us Those which he worketh are sure his work Answ What need you to aske that question when I there explaine mine own meaning Your â—râ—uâ—ent à conjugatis What God worketh is his work must have its due limits or else you will run into many absurdities God works our motion from place to place and yet he himself does not move The text it self by me quoted gives an answer Having asserted that God works them the denominâ—tion is still given to man God workâ— all our works in uâ— when he has wrought them they are yet said to be ours I freely subscribe to that of Eâ—â—ius upon the words Deus omne bonum ac totum ab initio bonae voluntatis usque ad consummationem boni operis in nobis efficâ—citer operatur ordine sc causalitatis You â—dde I never met with any Orthodox Divine but would yeeld that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit and the Spirits work is doubtleâ—s Gods work Farther telling me If you go the Common way of he Praedeterminants you must acknowledge that God is the Physicall Efficient Praedeâ—ermining Principall Immediate cause of every act of every creature and therefore doubtlesse of our Faith and that both immediatione virtutis suppositi So that it is more properly his act then ours Here you furnish me with an answer Though in the highest way of Praedeterminants I should ascribe all in every act to God yet they are not Gods works or acts in a rigid proper sense but by a Metonymie of the cause He works them because he work us for the acting of them and so I explained my self We are his workmanship fitted and prepared for good works Christ was the principall efficient when he raised Lazarus yet it was Lazarus and not Christ that did rise Concerning acts of this nature that we are upon I believe that Quod voluntas agit liberè agit interim ex naturâ non est libera ad bonum sed per gratiam liberata libera in radice non in termino Homo denuò natus vult perficit quod est bonum Deus autem operatur velle perficere ordine sc causalitatis You professe your self of Bp. Davenants mind who saith As for the predetermination of mens wills it is a controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuits with whose Metaphysicall speculations our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains or at least should not Declaring your self that you take it to be a poynt beyond the knowledge of any man which way God works on the will in these respects I much marvaile then that you will so much trouble your Reader about it You tell us that if you must incline to any way it would be rather to Durandus for stronger reasons then you find in Ludovicus à Dola who yet you say hath more then you have seen well answered And yet perhaps à Dola in case he had seen your arguments would have judged his as strong as yours Notwithstanding your great abilities to give answer to them when all others that you have seene have been wanting So farr as I have looked into the Author I see him a man of much modesty and one in whome reason is not wanting though I will not undertake to declare either with or against him When I say Our dexterity for holy duties is from the frame into which grace puts us and so still the work is ours though power for action is vouchsafed of God You reply Both velle and perficere are the gift of God and not only posse velle perficere To which I say I had thought that Power for action had included that wnich you say and not denyed it namely a powerfull inclination of the will to the work Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Psal 110.3 The will is still mans when grace has wrought him up to it I had thought there had been no such danger in Paules words Phil. 4.13 I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me You conclude that I have not confuted your answer namely to your Quaerists question when indeed I never intended it and if I would now go about it I need not finding it as I think done to my hand You give in your reason 1. That I have not disproved the absolute promise of the first speciall Grace Answ You say no more of this in your reply to your Querist that I can find but Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise is a great doubt and that you think we may call it an absolute promise when you had said before that they are meer gratious predictions 2. These supposed promises as you say in your answer are not within the proper conditionall Covenant and therefore I had nothing to do with it 2. You further say that I have not disproved God to be the Author of our faith so as that it is his work Answ I do not find that in all your answer and you most unfairely make the title of this Section to be Whether Faith and Repentance are Gods works My businsse was against your Querist affirming them to be Gods conditions not ours 3. You say If I had yet Believing which is our work is not the same with giving faith or moving us to believe which is Gods work Answ This I confesse You did not affirme it before that I know and I yeeld it now The former is ours viz. to believe the latter Gods viz. to give Faith or move us to believe A mighty proofe sure that your answer is not confuted if it had been intended because I have gainsayed what your answer never asserted For that wich I intended not against you but as I thought for you That Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods I thus further argue Arguments evincing that Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Those conditions that are not mentioned in the proper conditionall Covenant