sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis si forte ad celebrandum mysterium baptismi in angustiis temporum sufficere non potest Neque enim latro ille pro nomine Christi crucifixus est sed pro meritis facinorum suorum nec quia credidit passus est sed dum patitur credit quantum it aque valeat etiam sine visibili Sacramento baptismi quod ait Apostolus Rom. 10.10 Corde creditur ad justitiam ore autem fit confessio ad salutem in illo latrone declaratum est sed tunc impletur invisibiliter cum mysterium baptismi non contemptus Religionis sed articulus necessitatis excludit Again and again considering I find that not onely suffering for the Name of Christ may supply what is wanting in Baptisme but also faith and conversion of the heart if peradventure streights of time will not permit the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptisme But to hold the Reader no longer in this controversy in avoiding the Popish necessity of Sacraments for a more distinct understanding of this necessity of Sacraments I shall lay down some rules SECT II. Rules for a right understanding of the necessity of Sacraments Rules for a right understanding of the necessity of Sacraments 1. Sacraments are standing Ordinances FIrst that Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament are standing Ordinances to be observed of the people of God not barely in the generation in which they were set up but in all successive generations so that there is an abiding and lasting necessity in them This is in that punctuall way set down in Scriptures respective to each Sacrament as though the Spirit of God would let us know that he did foresee a generation ready to arise to throw them off and live above them or else to vilifie them as unnecessary indifferent and arbitrary For circumcision see Gen. 17.12 13. He that is eight dayes old shall be circumcised among you every man-child in your generations he that is born in the house or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed he that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant God layes there a necessity upon it a lasting necessity in all succeeding generations of that people to be observed and when Moses several generations afterwards did as we have heard omit it upon what reason we have nothing but conjecture We see Exod. 4.24 how much God was displeased at it And for the Passeover Exod. 12.13 we find a like lasting injunction This day shall be unto you for a memoriall and you shall keep it a feast unto the Lord thorowout your generations you shall keep it a feast by an Ordinance for ever repeated again ver 17. It was an Ordinance that no Jew in any generation might antiquate or put a period unto It must last as long as they remained a distinct generation unto God even till Christ in whose hands are times and seasons in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek should be the end of it As to New Testament-Sacraments the Scripture is as clear when Christ gave commission for discipling Nations and baptizing them for their encouragement in the work he promises his presence unto the end of the world The work is to continue as long as Christs presence in the work continues But Christs presence according to promise is to continue with them in discipling of Nations and baptizing them being discipled unto the end of the world I am not ignorant of the Critical observation that is made of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saeculi by reason of the various acceptation of it in Scriptures endeavouring to have it to be understood of the end of that age in which those lived to whom Christ spake But neither the parallel use of the word by Matthew nor the context will bear that evasion For the parallel use of the phrase by Matthew four places may be instanced in three in one Chapter Matth. 13.39 The harvest is the end of the world vers 40. As therefore the tares are gathered and burnt in the fire so shall it be in the end of this world vers 49. So shall it be at the end of the world the Angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just Matth. 24.3 Tell us when shall these things be and what shall be the sign of the coming and of the end of the world In all places the phrase is the same and the words can be understood in none of them with that limitation And that the context will not bear it enough may be gathered from that which I have said Treatise of the Covenant pag. 117. For a more clear discovery of the words we know that there is a double period of ages or generations in Scripture One at Christs first coming when an end was put to Circumcision and the Passeover of this the Apostle speaks Heb. 9.26 But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself at the end of that world Christ dyed The other is at his second coming and this is the end of the world here mentioned and upon this account Dr. Reynolds in this Sermons upon Hos 14. interprets that of Christ concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost that it shall never be forgiven in this life nor in the life to come Matth. 12.32 of the age in which Christ lived and now near to an end and the age that should follow from his death till his second coming neither under the Old nor New Testament or Covenant can that sin find remission Till Christs second return a Ministery and Baptisme must still remain For the Lords Supper Scripture-testimony is as clear 1 Cor. 11.26 As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew forth the Lords death till he come If we can believe a coming of Christ for a temporal Reign before the time of his coming to the general Judgment I shall believe that may be called the consummation end or finishing of this generation and then a period may be put to these and other Ordinances But howsoever that will answer or fail mens expectations certain it is that it is the mind of Christ that they shall stand till the time that he doth come and then his mind will be further known The practice of the Church hath hitherto answered these testimonies All ages of the Church as we know held up Circumcision till Christs time and in Christs time it was in use as Christ testifies Joh. 7.22 and he submits to it in his own person Luk. 2. and so we may say of the Passeover notwithstanding some disuse the godly ever knew it to be in force or else as piety broke forth they had not still reassumed it And Christ dying as we have heard at the end of that world
Levit. 25.42 they are born unto God Ezek. 16.20 they are the children of God Ezek. 16.21 they are holy Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Either then we must carry it out to all the infants of the visible Church or else we cannot assure it to the infants of invisible members And therefore the Schoolemen afore mentioned justly ascribe as much to a faith informed as to that which is formed respective to the good of the issue of such believers 5. All that is spoken in Scripture of the blessedness of the seed of the righteous may as fairly be extended to them through the whole course of their lives as to the times of their infancy promises being not put with any such restraint as to have an end when their infancy is expired The most ample of promises which we find is in Esay 59.21 There it is promised that the Spirit shall not depart out of the mouth of thy seed or thy seeds seed but this rather belongs to them of years then of an infant-condition If it be said that many infants of the righteous persevere not but cast off the seed of grace received I answer the grace of perseverance is necessarily required to make blessed and blessedness is promised we know temporal blessings are made over by promise to the seed of such His seed shall be mighty upon earth wealth and riches shall be in his house Psal 112.2 3. Psal 37.25 26. I have been young and now am old yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread He is ever merciful and lendeth and his seed is blessed The opposition that is found between the letter of promises of this nature and the event which the experience of every age observes hath wrought a great conflict in mens spirits how to reconcile them And this hath been the result of all that they are not to be understood without their due limits and several have been put I shall not stand to enter into the dispute onely I say experience doth as much oppose the literal meaning of true blessedness to all the seed of the righteous as of temporal prosperity one must therefore have its due limits as well as the other To wind up this whole discourse concerning Sacraments in that juncture of time God then had his Church in which there was salvation Henoch walked with God and yet without faith it was impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Noah was an heir of the righteousness of faith Heb. 11.7 a righteousness in which the Apostle desired to be found for salvation Phil. 3.8 yet in all that juncture of time there was no written Word in which the succeeding ages have everlasting life Joh. 5.39 God had other wayes of discovery of himself to his people for life So the Church might answerably be without Sacraments howsoever we judge salvation to be thereby either conveyed or sealed God that tyes us to Ordinances is himself free and in what way he pleases may communicate blisse and give assurance of it The likest conjecture that we can make of Gods ordering by providence that in this juncture of time from the fall to the time of Abrahams call there should be no Sacrament nor any such supposed remedy known to acquit infants from Orinal sin is â—o declare the freedom of God that as he pleases to ordaine Sacramental signes so he is not tyed to them or his hands bound up by them but as he saved without Sacraments before the floud and after to the time of Abraham and infants under the Law dying before the eighth day so he still saves in the want though not in the sinful neglect much lesse in the contempt of these Ordinances CHAP. IV. Of the definition of a Sacrament THe next consideration of Sacraments in mans fallen condition is from Abraham unto Christ in the time of the dispensation of the Old Covenant In which those known Sacraments Circumcision and the Passeover were of force and given in charge of God to his people and together with those Sacraments extraordinary or such as come near up to the nature of Sacraments The Cloud the Red-Sea Manna and the Rock Sacraments under the old new Covenant of one and the same nature 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. But intending to speak of Sacraments in general and there being no essential difference between the Sacraments under the Old and New Covenant One and the same definition containing whatsoever is essential to a Sacrament in any of them as many wayes might be made manifest Their names are promiscuously used the cloud that Israel was under and the sea that they passed through is called by the name of Baptisme 1 Cor. 10.2 and so also is Circumcision Collos 2.11 12. The thing signified and benefit received is in every one the same The Apostle comparing those that did eat of Manna and drank of the Rock in the Wilderness with believers in Gospel-times that partake of the Lords Supper saith They all ate the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ 1 Corrinthians 10.3 4. And we may say the same of those that did eat of the Passeover As Christ was that bread that Manna did typifie Joh. 6.49.50 so it was he that was held out and his death shewed forth in the Passeover 1 Cor. 5.7 I shall therefore wave this different consideration of them and make it my businesse to enquire what a Sacramen is and to make discovery of the generall nature of it which in case out of Scripture I can reach that will serve for a bottome on which all that I intend to speak may be grounded Bellarmine spends a whole Chap. in enquiry whether a Sacrament can properly be defined quoting severall Schoolmen for the negative That it cannot be defined because a Sacrament is not one of it self but an aggregatum one by accident or at least not ens reale no real being and those things that are but one accidentally or not really are below a definition He quotes others in the affirmative Some that it may be defined imperfectly others that it admits of a perfect definition After a distinction laid down very little to the purpose one member of the distinction being by his own confession not considerable by Divines he concludes that a Sacrament morally considered as it ought to be considered by Divines may be defined having a reall being and according to its own way of being it is one Morall Philosophers define saith he a Kingdome a City a Family though they be not one physically but by aggregation so do Divines define a Church a Councell or Sacrament which are one in being no other way Suarez agrees with him Disput 1a. de Sacramentis Sect. 4 ta which Whitaker praelect de Sacr. pag. 4. acknowledges to be true A Sacrament may be defined So that he observes it is agreed that they may be defined and I
whatsoever interest they may claim or on their behalf be claimed are justly debarred from it and in present denyed admission to it And on the contrary All that are in a present aptitude and capacity to improve it for spiritual advantages are regularly to be received and by no means to be denyed This is plain it must be administred to the Churches advantage and edification unto every members possible advantage They that are in an utter incapacity to receive benefit are in all reason to be denyed it and those of capacity to be received to it Some would have those debarred or at least to debar themselves that hopefully may profit and we may not plead for their admission that are in the judgment of all reason in an incapacity of profiting Those that stand in this present incapacity are of two sorts 1. Such that through inabilities cannot make any improvement of it 2. Such that resolvedly and obstinately will not Those that through inability cannot are of four sorts First Those that by reason of minority and non-age are not yet ripe for the use of reason as Infants and younglings Secondly Those that by providence are denyed it as natural idiots Thirdly Those that are berest of it as distracted persons aged persons grown children Fourthly Those that by their grosse neglect in spiritual things never made improvement of it First Infants These the Church as well Popish as reformed by an universall received custome denies to admit As the Disciples sometimes rebuked those that brought infants to Christ to receive a blessing so the Church now provides that none shall bring them to partake of this Sacrament And though the Disciples suffered a check from our Saviours mouth in the one Infants having title to and being in a capacity to receive benefit by that Church-priviledg as being Church-member yet we believe the Church is free from reproof in the other upon the ground laid down before viz. their incapacity to improve it to their spiritual benefit It is true that the practice in the Church for at least some Churches anciently was otherwise as those know that are verst in antiquity several quotations out of Dionysius Areo pagita Cyprian Austin the Councell of Tolet may be seen in Suarez disput 62. quaest 79. Art 8. sect 4. Though according to Thomas Aquinas Dionysius his words make not for it as may be seen part 3. quaest 80. Art 9. This custome Maldonate in Joh. 6.53 saith continued in the Church 600. years but he onely saith it and Suarez in the place before quoted saies it was never received of the whole Church and perhaps saith he the practice was not Common seeing there is no more mention of it among the Ancient and quotes the opinion of some that day The Fathers never observed this custome but onely tolerated it because they could not resist the multitude And one that speaks enough in favour of it findes the practice of it in Africk and Europe but can bring no testimony out of Asia for it onely he saies that he does not read that the custome was contrary in any part of Asia The Schooles have disputed infants capacity of it Thomas Aquinas in the place quoted is against it together with many others whose names Suarez mentions Suarez himself is for the affirmative that infants are in capacity of it as that which he saith is farre the more probable and hath most reason and authority for it And in the conclusion hath much ado to excuse the Church of Rome for the neglect of it as Jansenius hath for their Communion onely in one kind Harmon Evang. cap. 131. when the practice of all antiquity he confesses was otherwise and Bellarmine for their eating on fast daies before the evenning against all Scripture precedent Bellar de bon oper lib. 2. cap. 2. But the Church of Rome her self hath reformed this and hath not put our Reformers to the trouble of it though a man might wonder what moved them to it giving so much to this Sacrament as they do to conferre grace by the work done and to fortifie the foul against Satan But it is plain that the high reverence they gave to their transubstantiated elements moved them to it lest any thing unworthy of them should befal them upon the same account that they deny their cup to their laity they deny the bread to those that are in minority see Jansenius ut supra an eminent Writer of the Protestants appears much in favour of this practice not upon the reasons that moved those Fathers which was a supposed necessity of it grounded on those words of Christ Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you understanding it of Sacramentall eating at the Lords Table but on other grounds 1. Those that are partakers of the thing signified are not to be denied the sign 2. Infants are of the Church they serve to make up that body and Christ the Saviour of the body 3. Christ himself saith Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of heaven And from each of these he drawes up formal Arguments for infants admittance And he supposeth that that text which is brought as a barre to hold them back 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup may be easily answered that it is to be understood of those onely that are in danger to eat and drink unworthily and so to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ of which saith he there is no fear of infants These Arguments undoubtedly are of strength to conclude their fundamental right and title as to baptisme so to the Lords Supper but they are two weak to give them actual admission They conclude their jus ad rem but not their jus in re They have upon these grounds a first right but they must wait a further growth till they have a second Baptisme gives right in the face of the Church to all Christian priviledges and this is a Christian priviledg so also the hearing of the Mysteries of Faith the highest of Mysteries to be taken into debate of doubts of the highest nature are Christian-priviledges yet as every baptized person hath not forthwith these high Mysteries communicated to him nor yet is admitted to such high debates as Christ was at the age of 12. years which is recorded as a miracle so neither are they therefore to be actually admitted to the Lords Table And if that text of preexamination may be avoided yet sufficient may be said for a barre to their admission They cannot do that which is outwardly to be done at this Table they cannot take and eat see Whitaker pag. 373. And in case the bread be put into their mouthes it is more like to be cast out then eaten They cannot answer the end of the Sacrament to do it in remembrance of
Christ or to shew forth the Lords death in that ordinance And so no possible benefit can be conceived in reason to come to them by it In baptisme it is otherwise there is nothing required to be done by him that is baptized It is sufficient to be passive there is advantage by it the person whether infant or of age is enrolled into the society of the people of God is a member of the body of Christ visible mystical and upon that account interessed in the prayers and blessings of the Church is enrighted and upon that account as growth makes fit to be admitted to other priviledges and assoon as of any discretion to discern they know to what societie they do belong and accordingly to applie themselves And therefore infants have a bare fundamental right to the Lords Table but actual admission to Baptisme And where as it is objected that infants had not onely right to the Passeover but were also actually admitted to it they had not onely their jus ad rem but their jus in re and consequently infants have like right to the Lords Supper To this I answer 1. That infants properly so called did not eat of the Passeover being by reason of infancie in an incapacitie for such solid meats as Rivet observes 2. It no where appears that infants did partake otherwise then as they were involved in the houshould There is no Ordinance requiring infants to repair to the place that God chose for it It is for those males saith Ainsworth which were free-men perfect males in health able to go up to the place of publick worship quoting withal the Rabbies Authority That all men are bound except the deaf and the dumbe and the fool and the little child and the blind and the lame and the uncircumcised and the old men and the sick and the tender and the weak that were not able to go on their feet When we read of the pains that they took to go up to Jerusalem on these occasions through the valley of Baca Psal 84.6 we hear nothing of their pains to carry along their infants which must have been their care if by Divine appointment the Paschal Lamb as a Sacrament had been ordained for infants 3. The Passeover as Manna and the Rock is considered two waies 1. As common food and means of present livelihood and subsistance 2. As visible pledges of Gods abode among them and protectâ—on of them As common food and means of present livelihood infants did eate of the Manna and drink of the water of the Rock and so also did their cattel Num. 20.8 and young ones as soon as able to digest it of the Passeover when they were present with the rest of the houshold But as visible pledges of Gods abode among them and protection of them or remembrance of their present deliverances onely professed believers and neither infants nor bruit creatures could make use of it and in this sense onely it was a Sacarment so that we see infants title and also their bar to this Ordinance For those that by Providence are denyed the use of reason Natural Idiots Distracted persons are uncapable as natural Idiots their case is the same with infants as also those that are best of it as distracted persons and those that by age or disease are grown as Children Thomas Aquinas in the place quoted distinguishes of distracted persons some wholly want the use of reason and some have onely a weak use of it as some see not at all and some have a weak sight The latter in some case being restored in part to the use of reason he would not have to be denyed In this case prudence must judge in case before this stroke by the hand of God upon them they were judged meet for this Ordinance as they were for other civil employments and now upon recovery or upon their intervals as many times it happens are able in some good measure to manage their businesse as way is given to them in one so it is not to be denyed them in the other For those that never made improvement of their reason in spirituals but being men of years are still children in knowledge they have their title or fundamental right Grosly ignorant ones a rein an incapacity as I said before of infants but they are no more meet for this Ordinance then infants such I mean that for the time might be teachers and yet have need to be taught which be the first principles of the Oracles of God If I should demand why boyes and girles as soon as they can eat of the Bread and drink of the Cup be not received to this Supper but all in non-age by general consent exempted and therefore none offer themselves No reason to me imaginable can be given but their inability of improvement of it to their Spiritual advantage years of discretion are expected and then they are to be admitted and this is generally acknowledged to stand with reason And what reason is there that without any discretion they should be admitted at the usual year of discretion At one and twenty years men arrive at the age to enter upon their possessions yet when it may appear that at these years they have not abilities to manage it for their benefit the Law hath provided that they shall not be intrusted with it The ignorance before mentioned in the several kinds was ignorantia purae negationis They understand not because God hath denyed them understanding It is their defect or affliction but it is not their sin this that we now mention is ignorantia pravae dispositionis a withstanding of the light that is tendered and offered All of these are in an equal incapacitie of benefit by the Sacrament but these last in a sinful incapacitie And when the former whose ignorance is not their sin are confest to be uncapable I do not see how sin can put the latter into a better capacitie of it When a Covenant was entered in Israel Nehem. 9.10 all sorts and sexes having knowledge and understanding entered Nehem. 10.28 If any had sworn to the articles and had not at all understood them such an oath would have done no service therefore it was provided that onely they that understood subscribed and sealed They that receive this seal and consequently put to their seal when they know not the articles of it or any use of these Sacramental signes they see not themselves at all obliged when the Covenant of Israel was to be sealed understandingly the Covenant of the Gospel is not to be sealed ignorantly A book in the hand of the unlearned that cannot read is of as much use as this Sacrament to him that doth not understand It is to these as the painted frontispices that we see in many books without any key to open them they be full of mysteries but the ignorant beholder sees nothing but an outside He may gaze an hour together and be as wise as before Such
beares no relation to the cleansing of sin but washing with water and bread and wine no relation to the setting forth of the Lords death remembrance of him or life by him but the breaking eating and drinking Thirdly That which being removed nulls a Sacrament that is necessary to the being of Sacraments This is plain Nothing can destroy being but the want of that which is necessary to being But the removal or taking away of the use nulls and destroyes the bring of Sacraments Let not the foreskin be cut off nor the Lamb rosted and eaten the water not be applyed to the person nor bread and wine eaten and drunken there is no Sacrament therefore the use of Sacraments gives being to them Fourthly All benefit of and in the thing signified consists in the application therefore the Sacraments for their being use and benefit consist in their application likewise The consequence is grounded upon the analogy that is between the sign and the thing signified The antecedent is clear the blood of Christ the sufferings of Christ not brought home to the soul and interest obtained by application doth not benefit or profit Fifthly That which enters the definition of a Sacrament is of the being of it This none can deny But the use or office of a Sacrament enters the definition of it Ergo. The Apostle defines it to be a sign and seal which plainly speaks not the nature but the use of Sacramental elements Here is no Conroversie in this thing among parties save with the Church of Rome neither is there any with them save in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper They confesse that the being of Baptisme doth so consist in the use that without it it is no Sacrament Onely the Lords Supper for Transubstantiations sake though never used is still a Sacrament when they reserve it in a box carry it about for pomp hold it up for worship it is still a Sacrament The body of Christ is still there and if a mouse falls upon it the mouse receives a Sacrament knawes upon Christs flesh But when worms breed in it as they may by their own confession they are hard put to it They cannot breed upon accidents the shape the colour of bread cannot give being to worms And to say that the substance which remains there which is the flesh of Christ breeds them is no low blasphemy The generation of one is the corruption of another and God will not suffer his holy One to see corruption I remember an answer to this great difficulty when I first read Philosophy out of Conimbricenses Physicks That learned Society did determine that God by miracle did create matter and laid it by the consecrate host and that did putrifie and not the consecrated bread and so Worms were generated They sure believe that it is an easie thing to put God upon miracles Against this permanency of this Sacrament out of the use of it we say First If the use of this be instituted The Sacrament of the Lords Supper equally transient with Baptisme as well as the use of Baptisme and given in command then this Sacrament consists in the use as well as Baptisme This cannot be denyed for the institution and Comman of Christ must equally lead us in both But in the Lords Supper as well as in Baptisme the use is within the institution and given in Command by Christ Therefore this Sacrament of the Lords Supper consists in the use as well as that of Baptisme Whereas Bellarmine replyes to this that Christ commanded the bread to be eaten but not presently after consecration therefore to delay eating is not against the institution To this we answer 1. Neither did he command water as soon as set apart for Baptisme to be applyed to the party to be baptized yet till it be applyed the party is not baptized water is no Sacrament and so the bread and wine in that interim still applyed still wants the nature of a Sacrament 2. He did command it then to be eaten by Bellarmin's confession though not instantly to be eaten and he gave the like command of the cup as of the bread yea with more exactnesse a note of universality added Drink ye all of it yet their Laity have a Sacrament and never drink of it 3. That which the Apostles did that Christ enjoyned as Amesius well replyes they understood Christs intimation as well as the most nimble-headed Jesuites but they did not reserve it but did eat it Secondly If there be no footsteps in all the holy Scriptures of any other way of dealing with the elements of the Lords Supper then the eating and drinking of them then according to the institution they must be eaten and drunken But there is no footstep there of any other dealing with the Sacrament then eating and drinking Therefore according to the institution it is not to be reserved but to be eaten and drunk Indeed Chamier quotes Croquet replying that some of the Ancient have said that Judas took one part of the Sacrament and reserved the other for scorn but this may be well reckoned among others of like nature in their Legends And I would advise all those that believe it if they be ambitious to be disciples of Judas to follow it Thirdly The promise in this Sacrament is not to be divided from the precept by any that will expect a blessing But where the promise is This is my body this is my blood in the New Testament in the institution There is a precept Take eat Drinke ye all of this therefore they must eat and drink that will have benefit in the promise It would little I suppose please the Reader to hear Bellarmine Suarez and other Jesuits to exempt this Sacrament from the common nature of Sacraments and to make it permanent when the other as they speak are transeunt Thomas Aquinas Part 3. Quaest 73. art 1. resp ad 3. makes this difference between the Eucharist and other Sacraments This Sacrament is perfected saith he in the consecration of the matter other Sacraments are perfected in the application of the matter to the person to be sanctified Suarez disp 42. Sect. 4. quotes it with approbation and Scotus in quanto Dist 8. quaest 1. as he is quoted by Amesius All the Sacraments except the Eucharist consist in their use so that in them the Sacrament and the receiving of the Sacrament is the same He that pleases may read Bellar. Arguments lib. 4. de Eucharistia Cap. 2 3 4. Suarez in the place named with Whitakers Amesius Vorstius in 3. Tom. Bellar. Thes 9. pag. 406. Chamier against them both with others of that party de Eucharistia lib. 7. cap. 4 c. I shall desire to take up the Reader with that which I judge more necessary Gerard in his Common places Cap. 4. de Sacramentis makes it his businesse to find out the Genus in the definition of a Sacrament in which the general form of Sacraments he sayes is to be
perish if we look unto the order in which he stands in respect of God that predestinates See the suffrage of the Divines of great Brittain art 5. part 2. thes 3 4 5 6. Davenants Epist prop. ult Burges on Justification pag. 240. The Assemblies confession of faith Position 3 3. Sins of this nature in an unregenerate man bring him under Gods wrath and present displeasure though they do not work him into a state of wrath or utter losse of his justified state They cause him to bear his Fathers frown though he shall not dye as a Malefactor He shall not enter into condemnation yet he is not taken out of the hands of discipline see Isai 57.17 18. For the iniquity of his covetousnesse was I wroth and smote him I hid me and was wroth and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart I have seen his wayes and will heal him I will lead him also and restore comforts to him and to his mourners These of whom the Prophet here speaks were a people of Gods everlasting love being those whom he heals and to whom he restores comforts They were yet overmuch carried out to covetousnesse and pursuit of creature contentments Gods wrath was upon them for this miscarriage of theirs he was moved here upon to appear in displeasure against them he smites them in his wrath and hides his face in displeasure from them having his eye open to their sin but his face withdrawn from their consolation Num. 20.13 we may find Moses and Aarons sin and the Psalmists observation upon it Psal 106.32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips Moses suffers from God for his sin when he suffered the people to provoke him to sin This Moses seems never to have done with Deut. 1.37 3.26 4.21 so that God punishes for sin and in anger punishes for it If love and wrath cannot consist as some would have it then Moses was none of Gods beloved 2 Sam. 11. we find Davids sin set out at length and how it took with God we find in the end of the chapter The thing that David did displeased the Lord and that it was no otherwise in New-Testament-times is clear As the onenesse and samenesse of the Covenant which we and they were under doth evince it so also Gods dealings with the Corinthians upon their prophanation of the Lords Supper is a proof of it 4. Sin thus committed is such an obstruction in the way of blisse Position 4 and salvation that there lyes a necessity on the soul to come in by repentance and by prayer to make application to the throne of grace in order to pardon and forgivenesse This is Gods way to bring his into the wayes of salvation and life when they have stept aside into the wayes of death To this end God keeps up Discipline with his own hand as we may see 1 Cor. 11.31 32. The Apostle having there reproved these Corinthians in a tart way for prophanation of the Lords Supper and disswaded them from it by the deadly nature of the crime they were herein guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and the danger they incurred eating and drinking judgement to themselves he farther sets before them present experiments of Gods hand For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep In this place he lets them know how they might avoid this judgement If we would judge our selves we should not be judged Our examination and sentence might avert the examination and sentence of heaven And then acquaints them with Gods end in this visit of his to correct as a Father and not condemn as a Judge But when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world The application here is easie They are the Elect of God and of saving Gospel interest that are kept from condemnation A way in sin would have brought them as others in the world into condemnation If they might have been saved in sin when the world was damned for sin this correction for that end did not need To avoid condemnation therefore for sin God by his judgements lashes them out of it By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged and this is all the fruit to take away his sin So that the tendency of sin even in a child of God is to bring to condemnation and the care of God is by afflictions to take him off from sin that he might not be condemned To this end Church-discipline is also set up of God 1. Cor. 5.3 4 5. For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already as though I were present concerning him that hath so done this deed in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus How farre that sentence of giving up to Satan did reach I shall not stand to determine whether barely to cast him out of the Church and put him among those over whom Satan reigned or as consequent of it horrors and terrors from Satan by Gods just permission when the Church leaves him off from their communion God casts him off from his protection and consolation which as is said ordinarily followed upon this sentence in Primitive times The end is plain the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus If this mans former justification would have brought him on in his sin without step to salvation all this had not needed that his spirit might be saved See further 2 Cor. 7.9 the Apostles severe dealings with these Corinthians concerning this incestuous member had cast them down with grief and this grief raised the Apostles spirit with joy not that they had grieved but that their grief had so happy an issue Now I rejoyce not saith he that ye were made sorry but that ye sorrowed to repentance adding ver 10. For godly sorrow works repentance to salvation not to be repented of They were stepping therefore out of the salvation-way repentance brings them back This in reason is plain If new sins thus committed occasion no such obstruction as to bring a necessity of repentance as some would have it then the free grace of God gives a man full liberty to sin opens a gap to all ungodlinesse this will then follow which some have prophanely inferred from some Gospel-principles Live as I list and shall be saved What shall hinder if no way in sin either hath any tendency to condemnation or is any obstruction in the way of salvation Some I know to avoid this speak of that holy filial ingenuous disposition in a
worthily be rank'd in the first place amongst those that you thus honour As soon as he enters upon the dispute of justifying faith in answer to Bellarmines first question What that faith is that is required to justification he sayes in the name of Protestants (a) Hoc ipsum vel imperitè vel sophistice in quaestionem vocatur Nam 1. Multa ad justificationem requiruntur quae non justificant 2. Non tam quaeritur quae aut quid fides quae justificat quam quae sit ratio quâ propriè dicitur justificare This is either unskilfully or sophistically put to the question giving in his reasons 1. Saith he There are many things required to justification which do not justifie 2. It is not so much enquir'd into what that faith is which do's justifie as in what notion it is that it is said to justifie And giving answer to farther words of Bellarmine he saith in the same page that (b) Observandum est nos non restringere fidem illam quae justificat sed tantum quà justificat ad promissionem misericordiae Arguments evincing that faith in the blood of Christ only justifies Protestants do not restrain the faith which justifies but faith as it justifies to the promise of mercy Much more may be seen in this Author in his next Chapter Sect. 1. Sect. 8. which I leave to the Reader to consult at pleasure And together with it that which may be seen largely in Chemnitius enquiring into the proper object of justifying faith in his Examen Concil Trident mihi pag. 159. under this head Quid verè propriè sit fides justificans quo sensu scriptura velit intelligi quando pronunciat impium fide justificari I shall here take the boldness to give in my arguments to make good that faith in Christ quà Lord doth not justifie 1. That which the types under the Law appointed for attonement and expiation lead us unto in Christ our faith must eye for attonement expiation and reconciliation This cannot be denied These Levitical types lead us doubtless to a right object being School-masters to lead us unto Christ and shaddows whereof he is the substance As also to that office in him who is the object of faith that serves for this work But these types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office for the most part as Sacrificing sometimes as interceding John 1.29 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 1.18 A great part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a proof of it 2. That which the Sacraments under the Gospel setting forth Christ for pardon of sin lead us unto That our faith must eye for Reconciliation Pardon and Justification This is clear Christ in his own instituted ordinances will not misguide us But these lead us to Christ suffering dying for the pardon of sin Mat. 26.28 This is my blood in the new Testament shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Here is a confirmation of both these arguments in one The types of the Law and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper lead both of them to his blood for this reason of attonement and forgiveness There was an old Testament enjoyn'd of God in which the people in convenant were sprinkled with blood Exod. 24.1 c. commented upon by the Apostle Heb. 9.20 c. That blood and this cup lead to Christs blood for forgiveness and in them the death of Christ is remembred A broken bleeding dying Christ in the Lords Supper is received 3. As the Spirit of God guides faith so it must go to Christ for propitiation and attonement This needs no proof The Holy Ghost is the best leader But the Holy Ghost guides our faith to go to the blood of Christ for attonement whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Ro. 3.25 It is blood is our propitiatory or mercy seat We are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 And faith is our way of interest and thither the Spirit of God by the Apostle leads our faith as we see in the words mentioned I am checkt indeed by you because I say through faith in his blood not faith in his command quo jure nescio say you My reason or warranty is because I durst not adde to the Apostles directory when he leads us one way I dare look no other If he had intended to have led us to Christ as a propitiation without further direction under what notion our faith should have look'd upon him It had been enough to have said that he is our propitiation but distinctly pointing out his blood and faith in his blood I think I have warrant sufficient to lead souls hither and only hither especially seeing I find him still in the same language Rom. 5.8 9. God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of our sins Ephes 1.7 The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 For as much as ye know that we were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ as a Lamb without blemish You demand Will you exclude his obedience resurrection intercession To which I only say I marvail at the question If I exclude these I shall exclude his blood His shedding of blood was in obedience John 10.18 Phil. 2.8 His resurrection was his freedom from the bonds of death and an evidence of our discharge by blood His intercession is founded on his blood He intercedes not as we by bare petition but merit He presents his blood as our high Priest in the holy of holies You tell me further that the thing I had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his commands but of faith in Christ as Lord and teacher I can no more distinguish Lord and command then I can blood and sacrifice it being the office of a Lord to rule as of blood to make attonement You yet tell me It was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connote both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what we are justified by ex parte nostri but the former principally To this I say If this were fittest for Paul then it is unfit for any to come in with animadversions and tell us of any other thing either ex parte Christi or ex parte nostri for justification I pray you rest here and we are well agreed Here is Christs Priestly office on his part alone and I am resolved to look no further 4. Our faith must look upon Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him by vertue of which we may appear before God as righteous But it is by his obedience as a Servant that we obtain righteousness and stand before the Lord as righteous Rom. 15.19 By the obedience of
into four heads 1. That as to the cutting off the foreskin and the smart suffered in it it was no injustice in Masters to compell them seeing they were their Money 2. That he best approves of their opinion That hold that the Law of circumcising of Proselytes was on that condition that they were willing to be circumcised 3. That Masters ought to make it their businesse to perswade them but not against heart to circumcise them 4. If that any think that a necessity lay upon Masters to circumcise all servants it is safest to be of Cajetans mind to deny it to be any note of profession of the Jewish Religion Secondly It is objected on the other hand that some in Covenant were denyed Circumcision as 1. Infants before the 8th day But that is unworthy of any answer A stated day for it is not any denyall of it 2. Females were not to be circumcised seeing the institution is onely for the males To which three things may be answered 1. For those that make use of this objection they have authors of their own namely Walafridus Strabo de rebus Ecclesiasticis as he is cited by à Lapide on Genes 17. affirming that they were circumcised 2. The reason of their exclusion from any actuall participation was their incapacity of it And thirdly they were circumcised virtually and so reputed of that number as appeares in that they were admitted to the Passeover when the law was expresse no uncircumcised person must eat of it Exod. 12.48 And Samson was charged that he took a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judg. 14.3 So that I say a Covenanting people of God and they onely are entitled to the right of Sacraments when they are given to a people out of Covenant a seal is put to a blank which must needs be an horrid prophanation of the seales of the Covenant of God And when they are denied to those in Covenant as not their right they are injured from whom they are thus detayned SECT II. FOr further explanation of this point several Propositions must be laid down Explicatory Propositions Proposition 1. First A Covenant properly so called is entred between God and his people God enters a Covenant exactly and properly so called with his people A Covenant in the true nature of it passeth between God and man I took this for granted in the introduction into the Treatise of the Covenant of God entered with mankind where in its proper place it might have been handled supposing that there had been none that had denyed it But since that time I have seen my mistake and among the many questions that have been moved and agitated about the Covenant it is questioned whether there be any such thing as a Covenant entered between God and any of the sons of men upon earth Commands and promises are confest but a Covenant is disputed The way to make it good is to prove from Scripture the name and the thing when these are proved all is clear The word Covenant proved The word we find in places above number Deut. 29.12 They stood that they might enter into Covenant with the Lord God God is often put in mind by his people of his Covenant Psal 74.20 and he promises Levit. 26.42 to remember his Covenant These are then such transactions between God and his people that are called by the name of a Covenant when this cannot be dâ—nyed the impropriety of the word is objected that the word of command given of God out of Soveraignty and the word of promise given out of mercy they are called by the name of a Covenant when strictly so called they are as is objected no Covenant at all But to avoyd this the thing it self may be as easily proved as the word The thâ—ng it self proved and when we have nomen and nominis rationem then we have a Covenant not aequivocally but truly so called And here I may deal liberally with any adversary and undertake to make proof not onely of all the essentials of a Covenant but the usual adjuncts not onely all that makes up the nature but all accessories usually added to the solemnity of Covenants For the essentials of a Covenant or real properties they are as Mr. Burges saith A mutual consent and stipulation on both sides In the essentialls of it Parties consent and mutual engagement is all that is required to the being of a Covenant when two parties agree and either of them both have their conditions to make good there is a Covenant or bargaine see it exemplified in several instances given Treatise of the Covenant Pag. 3. All of these we find in that one place Deut. 26.17 18 19. in the Covenant that God enters with his people Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his wayes and to keep his Statutes and his Commandements and his Judgements and to hearken to his voyce And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee and that thou shouldest keep all his Commandements And to make thee high above all Nations which he hath made in praise and in name and in honour and that thou maiest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God as he hath spoken There are the Covenanters God and his people There is consent on both parties Thou hast avouched the Lord hath avouched And there is a stipulation on both sides On Gods part to make them high above all Nations which he hath made in praise and in name and in honour On the peoples part to keep all his Commandements to be an holy people There are Covenant-mercies from God to his people unto which of grace he engages himself and there are Covenant-duties unto which man stands engaged Psal 103.17 18. But the mercie of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his righteousness unto childrens children to such as keep his Covenant and to those that remember his Commandements Let none say that this was a legal Covenant in which man had his conditions but is freed from all in the Covenant Evangelical Not to mention what I have elsewhere said Mr. Ball Treatise of the Covenant Pag. 102 103 104. Mr. Burges Vindiciae legis Pag. 224 225. have abundantly manifested the contrary and most amply of all others that I have read Mr. Cobbet in his Vindication Pag. 60 to Pag. 70. where he delivers this conclusion that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace making it good with twelve arguments and answering as many objections Gods engagements in Gospel-times none deny mans restipulation is all the question And this is as clear in New Testament-times as it was in the dayes of the Law that of Christ fully holds it out Joh. 8.51 If any man keep my sayings he shall never see death Christs engagement there is to keep from death and upon these termes that man keep
his sayings Here is a full tender of a Covenant and Covenant-termes on Christs part he that accepts of Christ as his Lord and professes to keep his sayings enters Covenant he that hath in him such an heart as God wished in Israel To feare him and keep all his Commandements alwayes Deut. 5.29 keeps Covenant Gospel-Preachers hold out Christ in Covenant and they do not onely tender mercies but engage to duties Act. 5.31 Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and remission of sins and this duty of repentance is in order to the priviledge of remission of sins as we find from Peter Act. 3.19 Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the duty of the Covenant is neglected the mercy of the Covenant is lost This caused them in their Ministery to be so zealous to urge men to it Testifying both to the Jewes and also to the Greeks repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Christ For the usuall solemnities of a Covenant In the usual accessories on solemnities These are found in the transactions between God and his people as well as the essentials of it 1. Covenants used to be written for memorial for posterity and so is the Covenant between God and man as in Old so in New Testament-times These things are written that you might believe and that believing you may have everlasting life Joh. 20.31 2. Covenants used to be confirmed with outward visible signes as the killing of beasts Jo. 15. Jer. 34 This was done in the old administration Exod. 24. Half of the blood was sprinkled upon the Altar to denote Gods entering of Covenant vers 6. The people also were sprinkled with blood to shew their voluntary entering into Covenant vers 8. And in the new dispensation a new and unheard of ratification was used the blood of the Mediatour of the Covenant Matth. 26.27 28. This Cup is my blood in the New Testament which was shed for you and for many for the remission of sins This latter is a plain allusion to the former in which you may find 1. A threefold agreement Either of both these were Covenants 2. Either of both these had their ratifications and confirmations 3. Either of both were confirmed with blood 2. A threefold difference 1. The former was the Old Covenant which was antiquated This is the New 2. The former was ratified and sanctified with the blood of beasts This is ratified and sanctified in the blood of Christ 3. That blood could never take away sin Heb. 10. This was shed many for remission of sins Thirdly Covenants use to be confirmed by seal so is this Covenant between God and his people as remaines to be spoken to As the being of a Covenant is thus plentifully proved by Scripture-testimony so we might as amply prove it by arguments drawn from thence Arguments evincing a Covenant in the proper nature of it The Churches of Christ are espoused unto Christ Hos 2.19 20. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever yea I will betroth thee unto me in righteousnesse and in judgement and in loving kindness and in mercies I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulnesse and thou shalt know the Lord. 2 Cor. 11.2 I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you to Christ and Spouses are in Covenant with their Bridegroom The Churches of Christ are married to Christ Esay 54.5 Thy maker is thine Husband the Lord of hosts is his Name and thy Redeemer the holy One of Israel the God of the whole earth shall he be called And wives are in Covenant with their husbands Their sins against God are branded with the names of Adulteries Whoredomes and these are not barely disobedience of a Command or neglect of a favour but breaches of Covenant The Churches of Christ are servants of Christ Levit. 25. houshold servants Ephes 2.19 and servants are their Masters by Covenant Their sins in this relation are not barely obstinacy stubbornness or ingratitude but they are charged with treachery falsehood dealing falsely in Covenant and their hearts being not stedfast in Covenant It is above me to conceive how man can be a Covenant-breaker not alone respective to man but God as he is frequently charged when there hath past no Covenant between God and man They may question whether there were ever any such thing as a Covenant in the world SECT III. Proposition 2. SEcondly Whereas there is an usual distinction almost in all that write or speak of the Covenant of a double Covenant between God and his people one external and the other internal one passing outwardly and the other inwardly kept and observed Or as Doctor Preston expresseth it a single and a double Covenant which I shall forbear to examine seeing I know there is a right meaning though I much doubt whether there be in the Reader a right understanding My second Proposition shall be that it is the external Covenant not the inward that exactly and properly is called by the name of a Covenant and to which priviledges of Ordinances and title to Sacraments are annext This Proposition occasioned by this received distinction is of three heads which in case the Reader please he may subdivide into three distinct Positions 1. The outward and not the inward Covenant is most exactly and properly called by the name of a Covenant The outward and not the inward Covenant is properly a Covenant which I thus make good That Covenant to which the definition of a Covenant doth belong hath exactly and properly the nature of a Covenant this none can deny The definition sets out the nature of the thing defined But the definition most actly belongs to the outward Covenant not to the inward this is plain An agreement of parties on tearms and Propositions is the definition of a Covenant Now the outward Covenant is an agreement on tearms and Propositions as elsewhere I have abundantly declared In that Covenant God engages himself to man for his happiness and man engages to faith and obedience The inward Covenant hath no tearms or Propositions at all for man to make good upon account of his Covenanting seeing the performance of the conditions of the Scripture-Covenant is his very entrance into the inward Covenant He that believes and repents keeps Covenant nothing more is expected of God or promised by man But believing and repenting is the first closing with God in Covenant according to them that speak of an inward Covenant A Covenant to perform conditions is a Covenant properly so called But the outward Covenant not the inward is a Covenant to performe conditions is plain The conditions in the inward Covenant are the Covenant That which confounds entrance into Covenant and keeping of Covenant is no Covenant properly so called In a Covenant properly so called these are distinct But the inward Covenant confounds entrance into Covenant and keeping of Covenant and therefore in exact propriety of