a may to life as though we must get Salvation by our fulfilling of its conditions nor must we look upon its curse as lying upon as remedilessely This is as much as I assert or rather imply in that which I say that the Covenant of works is of no use to the attainment of Salvation upon which the Sacraments of that Covenant the see are laid aside with it we hear no more of a tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Rivet Exer. 40. on those words Lest he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life and live for ever Observes a resemblance between that proceeding of God and the Churches proceeding in keeping unworthy men from the Sacrament The l Quemadmodum nunc ex Dei instituto à Sacramentis arcentur indigni ne sibi Symbola sumant ad judicium condemnationem ita hac prohibitione usus est Deus tanquam ex communicatione minori quam abstensionem vocant ad hominem magis magis humiliandum ut se indignum agnosceret vita qui à vitae Symbolo arcebatur unworthy saith he are kept from the Sacrament lest they should eat of those signes to their judgement And so God made use of this prohibition as a lesser excommunication called suspension for the further humiliation of man that he might see himself to be unworthy of life being kept from the outward symbole or Sacrament of it But me thinks this is so far from resemblance of that kind of Excommunication which is called the lesser that it is a sentence in terrour farre above that which is highest and greatest And this it seemes my Author saw and therefore addes m Praeterea tale Sacramentum homini lapso non erat amplius aptum quia arbor vitae non data erat ut vitam restitueret mortuo sed ut viventem in statu vitae commodo conservaret Ergo Adamo per peccatum mortuo mutanda fuerunt Sacramenta Furthermore such a Sacrament was unmeet or unsuitable to fallen man because the tree of life was not given to restore a man dead to life but to preserve life in a living man therefore Adam being dead by sin and his condition changed the Sacraments were to be changed likewise Two sorts of men then are here fitly to be parallelled with Adam in this proceeding of God against him 1. Those that God casts out of Covenant taking away their Candlestick and his Kingdom refusing to be their God or to own them as his people God denying them his Covenant all must deny them the sign and seal of it 2. Those that cast themselves out of Covenant and apostatize from the faith of Christ Jesus Where there is no Covenant in which men may expect happiness where there is no profession of such expectation there is to be no Sacrament there the seal is put to a blank and these Sacred Mysteries are prophaned Therefore I cannot but marvel at those that deny the Church of Rome all being of a Church and affirm that they are in no Covenant-relation to God yet yeeld that they have Baptisme in truth among them explaining themselves that it is as a true mans purse in the hand of a theefe But the purse and the man stand not in that relation as Covenant and Sacrament the Covenant being gone the Sacrament hath no truth of being remaining Satans imitation of God in his precepts of worship to his followers Fourthly Let us yet see how forward Satan is to imitate God in prescribing a way of worship to his servants and how ready the world is to follow Satan in these things by him prescribed God appointed a tree of life as a sign and pledge of immortality in the due use of which man might have lived for ever and been preserved from the evils and infirmities of age and Satan among those in the world that are his for worship hath of old found out a fiction of certain meats called by them Ambrosia and certain drinks named Nectar and Nepenthe which the gods using to take were preserved from age and death It cannot be imagined how they should reach such a fancy but that the posterity of Noah had scattered some Divine light of this tradition among them Their gods who were but men and some of them the worst of men bringing all wickedness to renown by their example being supposed to have an immortal being must have some way or means to come up to immortality As they had their meats and drinks that made immortal so also their fountains found out by Cadmus to whom they ascribe the first invention of letters Aganippe Hippocrene Castalius near to Parnassus at which their Muses drunk which raised them in eloquence These they have borrowed from these symboles of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil dreaming of a Physical operation and not understanding any Sacramental efficacy God also instructed his people in the use of sacrifices which we know was with his people from the beginning and I cannot believe with some Jesuits that this was of the dictates of nature which as they say led them without any revelation to the use of sacrifices For in what sense soever we take sacrifices Nature could never teach man to give it unto God If we take it more largely for a gift tendred reason would tell that the Divine Majestie stands in no need of it And in case we understand it more strictly and make the destruction of that which is offered essentiall to a sacrifice how could this in reason enter into any mans thoughts that when a man had sinned a beast must dye And that of the Apostle Heb. 11. doth fully contradict it Abell offered by faith and faith is not of nature but above it This then was a worship of God by institution not commanded in the first but second Commandment and this Satan is ready to follow As there was scarce a Nation as the Orator observed but worshipped a god so there is scarce a Nation that did not sacrifice to those gods and the Apostle gives us to understand what those gods were The things that the Gentiles offer in sacrifice they offer to Devils and not to God 1 Cor. 10. It is his worship and he teacheth his the way of it As in duties of worship there is this imitation seen so in wonders and prodigies in like manner there is an emulation God had his miracles in Egypt and Satan his We know the general Deluge in the sacred Histories in which none were preserved from death but Noah and his family by an Arke prescribed of God Heathens must have a fable in imitation and tell us of drowning of the World onely Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha in an Arke preserved likewise And as Noahs Arke rested on the Moutains of Ararat upon the asswaging of the waters so theirs rested on the Mountain of Parnassus We have a narrative of Jonah cast into the Sea
wish we could as well agree upon a definition It would be an endlesse work to reckon up and it would no lesse then tyre the Reader to read all the definitions of a Sacrament which may be found among those that treat of this subject Bellarmine reckons up six severall definitions of those that either really are or at least he would have to be of his party Two of which he saies are gather'd out of Austin the third is from Hugo de Sancto Victore the fourth is from the Master of the sentences the fifth is the definition of the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent and the last he sayes is found with Gratian. Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere Cap. 11. And Cap. 13. he names two others one of Scotus and the other of Occam which he saies Chemnitius blames with the other yet Cap. 14. observing a great difference among us as he saith in our definitions of a Sacrament saith it is an evident argument that we are departed from the truth which is one when his own party can keep the truth and differences with it Whitaker confesseth that Luther Melanccton Chemnitius Martyr do differently define a Sacrament but all their definitions he saith come to one He rests in the definition that Calvin gives lib. 4. Institut Cap. 14. which he defends against the objections of Bellarmine who spends the whole sixteenth chap. of his book against it And a definition indeed singularly exact But seeing the Spirit of God himself hath furnished us with a definition of a Sacrament which either explicitely expresseth or virtually comprizeth all that according to Scriptures can be required in a Sacrament I suppose that will carry most authority and this the Apostle delivers Rom. 4.11 And he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith This Whitaker saies a Haec brâvis ac perspicua definitio Sacramenti est ut mihi videtur Primo enim ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã pro genere ponitur hoc est Signum externum aut ceremonia Deinde ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã hoc est sigillum justâtâae quae ex fide scilicet est rem Sacramenti finem usum d clarat Ut si possemus esse Scripturis contenti non meliorem definitionem desideraremus is a plaine and brief definition of a Sacrament and if we could be content with the Scriptures we should not desire a better Praelect de Sacram. Cap. 2. pag. 3. See Parcus on the words The adversaries quarrells he saith hath forced Divines to look out further but I think we shall best stoppe their mouths in holding fast to the letter of Scripture And this is therefore my Resolution And Peter Martyr on Rom. 4. sayes I Scarce think there is any place in which the nature of Sacraments is so briefly and explicitely laid down as in those words of Paul in which Circumcision is called a seal But before I come to the opening of this definition which may seem scarce full in case we look only to that which is explicitely delivered I must take out of the way some objections made against it First It is plausibly objected that this is a definition of Circumcision onely in particular Vix puto ullum extare locum quo tam breviter tam explicite natura Sâcramentorum proponitur quam his Pauli verbis quibus circumcisio vocatur signatum and therefore can be no definition of a Sacrament in generall The collection is not sound from the species to the Genus If man be defined by reason or risibility it will not follow that Animall every creature with life may be so defined First Objections against this dâfinition To this Pareus in his answer to the sixth doubt on Rom. 4 sayes b Quod omni Specâei ine st toti generi recte tribuitur Sicut igitur valet Homo Equus quodvâs animal sentit movetur sensus ac motus differentia sy statica generis recte dâcitur sic valet Circumcisio Pascha quod vis signum foederis est ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã addita foederi obsignation is causa Ergo omne signum foederis est ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã justitiae fidei hoc pro generica differentia Sacramentorum recte habetur That which belongs to every species is rightly applyed to the Genus that which belongs to every particular is justly applyed to all universally A man A horse and every other Creature of an animal life is sensible moves c. and therefore it is rightly said that every animal is sensible and moves so it is rightly said that the Passeover the Lords Supper and every other Sacrament is as a sign which adversaries confesse so a seal of this righteousnesse and therefore that which is said by the Apostle of this Sacrament in particular is true of all in generall Secondly I say the Apostle mentions there nothing properly to Circumcision as distinguishing it from other Sacraments all that is in the definition with equall reason belongs to all Sacraments as well as to Circumcision and distinguishes them onely from other Ordinances what is said of Abraham in this text might be applyed to the Eunuch or the Jaylour changing alone the name of Circumcision into Baptisme He received the sign of Baptisme a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith that he had being unbaptized Secondly It is further objected by Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacramentis Cap 17. and after him by others that Circumcision is not here said to be a seal universally to any faith but only a seal of the individuall faith of Abraham and then it can neither be a definition of a Sacrament in the generall nor yet a definition of Circumcision the distinct species of it which is cleere in that it is expressely said that it was a seale of the righteousnesse of the faith that he had being yet uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that beleeve But onely Abraham could be such a father and therefore Abrahams Circumcision not every mans is here held forth This I have fully answered Treatise of the Covenant Chap. 26. pag. 187 188. in my assertion of the purity of the Old Covenant and therefore I shall not now stand to repeat Thirdly It is objected this will ill agree to the Circumcision of others that after Abraham did receive this Sacrament It cannot be fairely said that Isaac received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised seeing he was not in the faith till after Circumcision and that is no definition of Circumcision that agrees not to all mens Circumcision that is no definition of the species that agrees not to every individuum Answ Neither is it needfull that that additionall particle which is proper to Abraham as a leading person in the Covenant to enter into it should agree to all mens Circumcision He was in the faith and had it sealed Isaac was
f Quo significat Dominum voluisse aptare suum sermonem ad captum auditorum ob id locutum in parabolis quod nudi sermonis nondum essent capaces at parabolas suas desumsiffe a rebus vulgaribus per quas idiotae utcunque induci parari possunt ad mysteriorum captum Hereby he signifies that Christ would fit his speech to the capacity of the hearers because they were not capable of naked truthes and he borrowed his speeches from vulgar things by which the most unlearned might be fitted for the mysteries of the kingdome of heaven Though some understand the words as they were worthy to hear and not to understand parables being above the common capacities and put for hard and difficult speeches As Matth. 13.10 Christ being demanded Why speakest thou in parables he answers ver 11 12 13 14 15. Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven but to them it is not given for whosoever hath to him it shall be given and he shall have more abundance but whosoever hath not from him shall be taken away even that he hath Therefore speake I to them in parables because they seeing see not and hearing they hear not neither do they understand And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which saith By hearing ye shall hear and not understand and seeing ye shall see and not perceive For this peoples heart is waxed grosse and their ears are dull of hearing and their eyes they have closed lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their eares and should understand with their heart and should be converted and I should heal them But blessed are your eyes for they see and your eares for they heare But these texts may be reconciled A parable or Similitude when men stay in the outward bark of it is as a riddle nothing can be more obscure Some mystery men know is hid under it but they know not what Therefore Christ having uttered a parable to the multitude Matth. 15.11 and Peter requesting Declare unto us this parable ver 15. saith Are ye also yet without understanding Parables explained are the plainest way of teaching shewing the face of heavenly things in earthly glasses and therefore the Lord to set out his dealing with his own people faith I have also spoken by the Prophets and I have multiplyed visions and used similitudes by the Ministery of the Prophets Hos 12.10 But the scope be not discerned onely that which is said of earthly things and no more is known Now what words are to the eares in similitudes and comparisons that Sacramentall signes are to the eyes by both the understanding is holpen the memory refresht and as may God willing be unfolded faith strengthened The cleansing from sin we find in Scripture held forth under the metaphor of pouring out water Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean from all your filthinesse and from all your Idols will I cleanse you To which the Apostle alludes Ephes 5.26 where he saith Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word Which was typified also in those divers washings mentioned by the Apostle Heb. 9.10 which the blood of Christ doth really work Purging our consciences from dead works to serve the living God cleansing us from all sin 1 John 1.7 and therefore it is called the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 1 Pet. 1.2 In Baptisme in a standing Ordinance this is held out The party interessed in Covenant is dipped in or washed with water and the reason of it given Acts 22.16 Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the Name of the Lord. Christ promises to his Church living bread and water whereof whosoever drinketh shall never thirst He further explaines himself The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world Joh. 6.51 My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed Joh. 6.55 Christ being to dye holds this out in outward signes and with his own Comment upon them Taking and breaking bread he saith This is my body Taking the cup he saith This is the cup in the New Testament in my blood shed for them and for many for the remission of sinnes In elements of frequent use ordinary easy to be compassed these high mysteries and singular mercies are shadowed SECT IV. A further Corollary drawn from the same Doctrine The necessity of explanation of Sacramental signes FOurthly Then there is a necessity that these Sacramental signes be opened explained the mystery cleared the thing signified held out and the Analogy and proportion made known otherwise the soul is still left in the dark and no benefit reaped either for the help of our faith or clearing of our understanding There is no Sacrament as Calvin well observes without a promise preceding The Sacrament is an appendant to the promise as a seal among men is to a Covenant an earnest to a bargain or a ring hath been to a marriage were there no promise there were nothing in those signes As where there is no Covenant there is nothing confirmed by a seal where there is no bargain nothing is ratified by earnest given where there is no matrimoniall consent the ring would be but an imposture the Word of promise gives being to the Sacrament according to that received speech g Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum The Word to added to the Element and it is made a Sacrament And there can be no improvement of the Sacrament to any spirituall advantage without understanding of the promise Were the signes such as did proclaime their own signification as a footstep the foot that made the impression or a shadow the body then the signes might stand alone and speak their own intentions But being creatures for civill uses and having only an aptnesse in them to hold out the thing that they signifie and as hath been said equally apt to other significations a further explanation is necessary Signes among men must have their significations known as well as founds in musical and military instruments otherwise as none could know in the one what is piped or harped nor upon sound could prepare themselves to battell 1 Cor. 14.7 8. so in the other none can know what is shadowed out or resembled There was a custome to ratifie Covenants by killing a calfe and the Covenanters passage between the parts of it as you may see Jerem. 34. He that understood not the meaning of that ceremony could know nothing of a Covenant by that means between parties to be solemnized none understand any more then by sight then many of us do now by the reading of it A garland at the door if custome did not give us a reason of it would speak no more to a passenger without
spoken of and that is before Baptisme I have answered that this is the weakest of all Arguments to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture and gave divers Instances not needful to repeat Upon which Mr. Baxter confesseth there may be an Hysteron Proteron and then if Hysterons and Proterons be any a thing to our present purpose it rests upon him to prove that here is none 2. I know not how this figure of Rhetorick came to be talked on I think no such thing is here to be asserted So I should say Baptisme doth alwaies lead and Faith follow I onely said that all that can be collected hence is that in Gods ordinary way of conferring salvation we must have both Faith and Baptisme though as our Divines have generally observed against the Papists there is not one and the same kind of necessity which they confirm by the words that follow If Mr. Baxter will contend for an exact order then he must say that Faith alwaies precedes and never followes after Baptisme against the common observation that sometimes it precedes sometimes it accompanies sometimes it followes and he must also say that without inversion of a Divine order no baptized man can be converted to a Faith that is justifying And then he may preach in England to build up Converts but not to convert or at least when he hath converted he must baptize his convert the seal is null that goes before a Covenant I gave instance in that place of Peter 1 Pet. 3.21 where the restipulation or answer of a good conscience followes upon Baptisme affirming that justifying Faith is that restipulation or at least a principall branch of it and therefore there is no necessity that it should precede but a necessity that it should follow In which I did not imply that a man before Baptisme may not believe as I gave instance in Abraham to the contrary but that it tyeth him to the faith at least to follow after Mr. Baxter saith I gratefully accept your Concession that justifying faith is that restipulation which is your Minor that is justifying faith professed and thence I conclude that justifying faith is essential to the Mutual Covenant and so without it God is not in Covenant with men It is very well worth our enquiry how this can follow which is thus made good Who knowes not that ever read Civil Law that there is no stipulation sine promissione which you call and so do other Divines Restipulation And that this Restipulation is an essentiall part of the Contract called stipulation This being past doubt it followes that justifying faith being our Restipulation is an Essential part of the Contract or Baptismall Covenant They onely it seems that have read the Civil Law can see a necessity of this Conclusion I and other Divines call this promise Restipulation and I though other Divines do not say that justifying faith is this Restipulation or promise And so the Promise being essential Faith is essential to our being in Covenant likewise But can Mr. Baxter think that it is the Promise or Restipulation strictly so called or that I so intended it then this is a true Proposition justifying faith is a Promise can any think that I ever intended so egregious a peece of affected nonsense Justifying faith with me is the thing promised or that to which we restipulate Who that hath read Rhetorick or heard any man speak doth not know that the promise is ordinarily put for the thing promised and then the Conclusion will follow the clean contrary way If you could prove out of the Civil Law or elsewhere that there is no Pollicitatio sine Praestatione that every man that enters Covenant eo nomine makes good his Covenant Then you hit the nayl on the head and till that is done you have done nothing Arg. 3. reviewed Mr. Baxters third Argument is That faith to which the promise of remission and justification is made must also be sealed to or that faith which is the Condition of the promise is the condition in foro dei of the title to the seal But it is onely solid true faith which is the condition of the promise of remission In what sense faith is the condition of the Promise Therefore it is that which gives right in foro Dei to the seal To this I have answered faith is not sealed to but remission of sins or Salvation upon condition of faith and when I come to speak of the sealing of Sacraments I shall God willing make this more evident that the Sacrament qua seal immediately respects our priviledges and not duties and I referre the Reader thither When I say a professor of faith may ingage to a lively working faith I am followed with this Dilemma You mean either a professor of that lively faith or a professor of a dead not working faith If the first it is a contradiction to say he professeth to have a lively faith and he onely ingageth so to believe hereafter For if he professe to have it already then he can ingage onely to the continuation and not to the inception of it If you mean the latter then I shall shew you anon that a man professing a dead not working faith is not in Scripture called to Covenant with God in Baptisme to believe lively for the future inceptivè and to believe for the future with a working faith I shall first second this dilemma with another of like nature and then answer He that thus professeth to have a lively faith either professeth it knowingly so that he is assured that he speaks the truth or with haesitations doubts and fears so that he questions the truth of all that himself saies The latter doubtlesse can give no title according to Mr. Baxter For a man to professe and remain wholly uncertain of the truth of such profession can give no such title as is required if the former be intended that every man professing must know the truth of his profession then none that are below assurance that in present they savingly believe have any right to Baptisme and then you see how high we are gone Some think it is too much to require a full assurance of Grace from all that enter or are allowed to possesse their places in the Ministery much more of all that enter into Christianity For a direct answer I therefore say It is not profession to say that we have this faith but a profession of our assent to the necessity of it with ingagement to it that gives this title There followes You suppose then such a professor as this coming to Baptisme saying Lord I believe that thou art God alone and Christ the onely Redeemer and the Holy Ghost the guide and sanctifier of thy people and that the world flesh and devil is to be renounced for thee but at present there are lusts so deare to me that I will not forsake them for thee
and how great an odium lyes upon that opinion what those be that maintain it and what interest they drive is very well known To this I answer The expression of a Converting Ordinance may be taken two wayes First As having power of it self In what sense and with what limit the Lords Supper may be called a converting Ordinance as a single instrument in the hand of God in his ordinary way to work a change in the heart or life In this sense the converting power of it is to be denyed Secondly As having some influence for that work as seconding and working with the Word so I doubt not but that it may safely be owned and easily justified I shall lay down my whole thoughts of it in some Propositions Explicatory Propositions Affirmat First In the Affirmative First This Sacrament carries the soul on towards conversion in doing the same thing as the Word does for conversion in holding forth Christ crucified in holding him out as our sin and as our Saviour made a curse for us and delivering us from the curse Secondly In further engaging the soul or the soul upon receiving the Sacrament engaging it self to that which the Word requires and calls for If Covenants in Israel entred by reforming Princes were judged to be of that force for obligation of the soul to a change in their wayes putting stronger tyes on their slippery hearts much more may we believe that the Sacraments in a due order received may have this efficacious power They serve saith Mr. Hooker as bonds of obedience to God strict obligations to the mutual exercise of Christian charity provocations to godlinesse preservations from sin memorials of the principal benefits of Christ Thirdly The Sacrament doth this in an ordinary way according to the revealed will of God in his Word as the proper intention of the work and not as any thing extraordinary Fourthly The Sacrament it self doth it in that relation in which it stands to the Word in its being and operation and not the Sacramentals onely as they have been called as the Word preached and prayer which yet have a mighty influence on the Sacraments for this work Fifthly It works as a second to the Word for habitual conversion as well as actual In the way that the Word doth work for the infusion of the first grace and not barely for the exciting and stirring up of grace in the soul Their way of working I shall God willing in due place further enquire into Negat Secondly In the Negative First The Sacrament converts none by the bare work done There is no such power by receiving to change the soul as Papists believe there is by consecration to change the elements There is neither reason for it nor promise of it I cannot believe for I see no proof of it any regenerating power in the water in Infants Baptisme much lesse can I have reason to believe such a converting power of grown persons in the Lords Supper He shall be alone for me that will appear in such Paradoxes Secondly The command given to take and eat of the bread to drink of the cup hath no such power to convert None can see the reason of the change of their wayes in any such injunction Conversion were an easie work in case this could do it Thirdly The Sacrament of the Lords Supper must by no means be parallelled with the Word in the work of conversion but the Word many wayes must have the preeminence 1. The Word may work to conversion without the Lords Supper There are many in saving grace that did never partake of this Ordinance Gods engagement by word and oath holds up the faith and is the ground of strong consolation to those that never enjoyed this seal But the Sacrament cannot convert or do any thing towards it without the Word A Covenant may convey an interest without a seal when a seal can never do it without a Covenant 2. The Sacrament does nothing of its own strength but by vertue from the Word It hath its dependance on the Word for being as a seal on a Covenant and also for the operation The Word may go alone in the work of conversion yet may have assistance from the Sacrament the Sacrament can never work alone without the Word but as an assistant to it 3. The Word must qualifie the soul for the Sacrament in laying open the nature and use of it and the soul must attend what the Sacrament holds out otherwise there can be no improvement of it for any spiritual benefit And these things being premised I wonder how any that seem to appear most on the contrary part can justly be offended that I affirm and as I think with so good reason prove that the Lords Supper may be assistant towards conversion in some and may work with the Word to carry the soul professing Christ up to it especially when it shall appear that I would have the door of admission to stand at least little more wide then they themselves And perhaps not so wide as according to the practice of many of their judgment it stands already Most of these acknowledge that knowing persons free from grosse errors and scandals may be admitted others say none but they that in the judgment of charity appear to be indeed in Christ may be received in which they yet confesse that men may be easily deceived Either of these confesse that many unconverted partake with them even when rules of admission according to their own mind are most tenaciously held And in case it appear that these may receive benefit by the Sacrament and their conversion possibly holpen on especially if well followed on by the Word why should they be troubled I confesse it is to me no small trouble to see godly Ministers of the opposite way so much ensnared in their own principles and necessitated to let in such where most of order is held and discipline exercised that of necessity further their damnation and are in impossibility according to their tenents to improve it towards salvation Thirdly It is yet further objected That in this doctrine we oppose the unanimous judgment of Protestant Divines who generally teach that the Sacraments are appointed of God and delivered to the Church as sealing Ordinances not to give but to testifie what is given not to make but confirm Saints simply denying the instrumentality of Sacraments that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not And that we concur with Papists who hold that the Sacraments are instruments to confer give or work grace ex opere operato But how unjust this charge is in both the parts of it might easily be made manifest In this we Symbolize not with Papists First For that charge of joyning with the Papists let any judge who comes nearest to their doctrine of the efficacy of this Sacrament Not to mention the opus operatum which is alike detested of both
in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a signe either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise then upon our believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Simon Magus had not Baptisme to signifie that all his sins were forgiven but that by faith in the Name of Christ he might be forgiven Mr. Cobbet sayes well Vindication pag. 54. The initiatory seal which holds true of the other seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather the seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumsion was not primarily a seal to Abrahams faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant yea to the Crvenant it self or promise which had believed unto righteousnesse hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. I confesse it is a symbole of our profession of faith but this is not the faith spoken to neither is remission of sins annext unto it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper supposeth conversion and faith The Minor is proved Mar. 16.16 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.36 37. ver 41. Act. 10.4.7 All which texts are spoken of Baptisme and not of the Lords Supper To that text Mar. 16.16 I have spoken fully Treatise of the Covenant pag. 243. To that Act. 8.36 37. I have spoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38 I have spoken pag. 396. and ther is no need that I should repeat what I have said For Act. 2.41 They that gladly received his Word were baptized It speaks no more then ready acceptation of the tender of the Gospel and whether this necessarily implyes saving faith let Ezek. 33.31 Matth. 13.20 21. Gal. 4.15 be consulted For Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as we it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title such gifts gave Judas a title not onely to baptisme but Apostleship such a faith may be had and sanctification wanting Thirdly That which gives us new food supposeth that we have the new birth and Spiritul life and that we are not still dead in trespasses and sins But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us new food Ergo. Ans 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into syllogismes 2. A difference may be put between ordinary food and living and quickening food It may be true of the former but not of the latter 3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food 1. Pet. 2.2 and yet presupposeth not new life If any reply that the Word is more then food it is seed as well as food and it gives not new life as food but as seed I answer that the Sacrament is more then food There is a Sacramental work preceding our taking and eating which some say may be done to edification and profit by those that are not admitted to be partakers where they divide I may distinguish and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin to carry on the work of contrition and compunction Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for believers and justified persons is no converting but a sealing Ordinance But this Sacrament is instituted onely for believers and justified persons The Minor is proved Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.17 much more then Baptisme and if Baptisme much more the Lords Supper Ans Upon this account it must needs follow that as Abraham was a justified man so Ishmael was justified also who according to the mind of God and in obedience to his commands was circumcised Gen. 17.23 yea every Proselyte that joyned himself to Israel and every male in Israel according to this Interpretation must be justified 2. Howsoever Abraham was a justified person yet his Circumcision in that place is not made a proof of his justification but a distinct text of Scripture Gen. 15.16 quoted by the Apostle ver 3. And that Scripture setting out his justification to be by faith and not by works the Apostles words onely shew that the Sacrament of Circumcision sealed the Covenant not of works but of faith so that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in answer to the first argument are a full answer here Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the Father of the faithful and whose justification is a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision Circumcision was not the cause but the sign of his justification Therefore no Sacrament is a cause of our justication Ans Though animadversions might be made on these words yet if any will put them into form I shall grant the conclusion when I say the Sacrament as an Appendix to the Word may have its influence with the word upon a professor offaith to work him to the truth of faith I am far from saying it is any cause of justification I look on faith no otherwise then as an instrument in the work and the Sacrament as an help and not the principal to the work of faith Sixthly There is an argument drawn from the necessity of examination which before hath received an answer Seventhly That Ordinance unto which none may come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings Son is an Ordinance unto which a man may not come without a wedding argument Ans 1. Arguments drawn from parables must be used with all tendernesse But in this Argument here is much boldnesse to make this Ordinance that marriage-feast 2. We shall find if we look to the scope of it that this feast is the fruition of Christ in his Kingdom as appears by those words that give occasion to the Parable of the Supper Luk. 14.15 And when one of them that sate at meat with him heard these things he said unto him Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God Now those that pretend a forwardnesse towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it according to the scope of the Parable shall be cast out from it This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances and yet remaine in their sins shall come to heaven But it no more proves that a man cannot get saving good by this Ordinance then it proves that a man cannot get saving good by the Word The VVord may lay as fair a claime to this wedding feast as the Lords Supper Eighthly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The Assumption is proved Rom. 10.14 Faith cometh by hearing hearing by the Word of God then not by seeing if by the Word then not by the Sacrament Ans If faith comes by hearing will
farre as I could learn that it did succeed and spread as little as almost any error that ever I knew spring up in the Church Plain Scripture proof of Infants c. pag. 294. so inconsiderable was the party that stood for it And Vorstius speaking in the name of Protestant Divines in general saith b Id potissimum quaeritur an Sacramenta sint signa tantum sigilla foederis gratiae sive externa symbola signacula foederi gratiae appensa divinitus ad hoc institura ut gratiam Dei salutarem in foedere promissam nobis significent atque ita fidem nostram suo modo confirment simul publice testaram reddant quae quidem communis est Evangelicorum sententia an vero preaterea sint causae efficientes hujus salutaris justificantis gratiae sive an sint effectiva gratiae ejusdem organa nempe ad hoc divinitus institura ut gratiam istam realiter instar vasorum in se contineant omnibus illa percipientibus candem vi sua imprimant reipsa conferant quae Bellarmini Pontificiorum omnium opinio est It is disputed whether Sacraments are onely signes and seales of the Covenant of grace or outward signes annext the Covenant and appointed for this of God that they should signify saving grace of God promised in the Covenant and signifying seal and after their manner confirm our faith and give publick testimony of it which saith he is the common opinion of Protestants or whether they be further efficient causes of this saving and justifying grace or whether they be effective instruments of this grace appointed of God for this thing that they should indeed containe it in them and convey it which is the opinion of all Papists Vorstius Anti. Bellar. ad Contro 1 Gen. And our men further judge that opinion of the opus operatum or of the outward Sacramental action as though without the faith and pious motion of those that use it it could justifie any to be evidently false and pernicious And they teach that all Sacraments by the ordination of God himself have onely a power to signifie and seal and not to conferre the grace of the Gospel it self And whereas several passages in the Liturgy of this Church did seem to favour the opposite opinion affixing adoption membership of Christ and inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven and regeneration to Baptisme we know how great offence it gave to many eminently Learned and pious putting them upon omission of those passages And also what Interpretation as with a grain of salt others put upon them that they were onely Sacramentally such And doubtlesse these either hit upon the meaning of the Church which was held to these phrases in imitation of many hyperbolical speeches in the Fathers or else the Church had mist the meaning of Scriptures so loth were the sons of the Church to be quarrelling with their mother and yet more loth with her to run into errors The Observation it self if heeded hath a caution or limit in it Affirming that Sacraments work no otherwise then as signs and seals and that they conferre no inward graces or priviledges further then they work upon the understanding and faith of those that receive them it implyes that they do conferre what an outward symbole or sign is apt to and of powder to convey and that outward priviledges in Sacraments are either conferred of infallibly evidenced This is clear the Apostle having so far undervalued Circumcision in the flesh as to make it Parallell with uncircumcision so that a circumcised Jew and an uncircumcised Gentile differed nothing as to their Spiritual state and condition inferres by way of objection What advantage then hath the Jew and what profit is there of circumcision And answers not that outward circumcision is altogether unprofitable but that it hath much profit and instances in one eminent one To them are committed the Oracles of God This is the inheritance of the Congregation of Jacob Deut. 33.4 as Moses speaks and carrying with it this great priviledge it conveyes with it all other inferiour Church-priviledges right to the Passeover upon this account was theirs Exod. 12.48 and not otherwise So it is with Baptisme men are taken into the Church at this door according to the Commission given to the Apostles Disciple all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Whatsoever they were and whomsoever they professedly served before they are this way taken in as the consecrate servants of the whole Trinity and added to the Church Act 2.47 When they had by the Covenant a precedent title in Baptisme they have a solemn inauguration By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 It is the Spirits work to shape the heart of unbelieving Corinthians to enter into one visible Church-body as that work of Gods power whereby he did perswade Japhet to dwell in the tents of Shem Gen. 9.27 And therefore when c Durandus docet characterem esse ens rationis id est respectum advenientem ex deputatione ad certum officium qualis est relatio in Doctoribus Praetoribus c. Quae sententia vix distinguitur ab haeresi hujus temporis Durand denyed that the Character which the Church of Rome speaks of was any quality in the soul but meerly a relation comming as by way of deputation to an office or duty exemplifying it by the relation that is seen in Doctors Praetors c Bellar. lib. 2. de Sacramen effectu cap. 14. saith That this opinion can scarcely be distinguished from the Heresie of this time d Haeretici non negant neque negare possunt quin sit aliqua relatio rationis in Ministris quae non est in aliis qui non sunt deputati ad ministrandum And further saith That Heretiques do not deny nor can deny but that there is some relation in Ministers which is not in others who are not deputed to the Ministery We do confesse indeed that there is that relation in Christians to Christ by the work done in the Sacrament of Baptisme which is not in Heathens And though we deny Orders to be any Sacrament yet we confesse there is that relation in Ministers to Christ by vertue of their Ordination that is not in those that are not called to the work of the Ministery There are those indeed that do deny it But those that Bellarmine had to deal with and that he charges for Heretiques as Luther Melancthon Calvin Beza Peter Martyr Chemnitius willingly yeeld it And in case this were all the character that they talke of to be imprinted in Baptisme yea in Ordination we should never contend about it And as these priviledges are conferred as to actual interest in the initiatory Sacacraments both of Baptisme and Circumcision so the same priviledges in the following Sacraments are infallibly evidenced as appears in that text 1 Cor. 10.17 The Apostle there making it
faith is not Sanctification Sanctification is inherent the righteousnesse of faith is imputed but circumcision is a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith And that Baptisme signifies and seals the same thing we find expressely in Peters words Ast. 2.38 Be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Remission of sins is by blood Heb. 9.22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission Baptisme is for remission of sins and therefore the water in Baptisme holds out the blood of Christ And I doubt not but Ananias had respect to this in his speech to Paul Act. 22.16 Rise and be baptized and wash away thy sins Somewhat it is to which these signs engage and that is all unto which a Christian in duty as duty stands engaged whether for his change in heart or life or in order to the pardon of his sin Baptisme engages to the first work of regeneration and to the first work of making all new within To this circumcision did tye as it signified it so it engaged to it Deut. 10.16 Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts and be no more stiffenecked If by vertue of their circumcision in the flesh God did not require it why is the want of it charged on Judah as their sin or how could it lay them open with other Nations to punishment Jer. 9.25 26. Behold the dayes come saith the Lord that I will punish all them that are circumcised with the uncircumcised Egypt and Judah and Edom and the children of Ammon and Moab and all that are in the uttermost corners that dwell in the wildernesse for all these Nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel are uncicumcised in the heart And that the first work is required as well as a further degree and progresse both in circumcision and baptisme is clear In baptisme we are explicitly dedicated as the Jewes were implicitly in circumcision to Father Son and holy Ghost and therefore engaged to be sincerely his in Covenant But this cannot be till a change be wrought and we be born again from above To this therefore we are engaged We are engaged to love the Lord with all our heart with all our strength but this cannot be while our hearts are in an unchanged condition and therefore the circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 is mentioned in order to this of the love of the Lord The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul what is it but the first work that is called for in that of the Prophet Make ye a new heart and a new spirit Ezek. 10.31 And in those texts of the Apostle Awake thou that sleepest and stand up from the dead Ephes 5.14 Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds Rom. 12.2 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man And be renewed in the spirit of your minds Ephes 4.22 23. Howsoever some of these Scriptures may be conceived to be directed to men in a state of Regeneration and therefore that they call not for the first work but for a further progresse in grace yet all of them cannot be so Interpreted And there is not any of them but implyes that where the first work is not done it must be done where the old man is not put off it must be put off and where the new man is not put on it must be put on where the spirit is not renewed it must be renewed Neither is it of force against this to say that the first work is out of our power and that in it we are wholly passive and therefore we do not in baptisme engage to it but God rather engages for it To which I answer Though it be out of our power yet it is within the command of God and is matter of our duty Gods command is no rule of our strength neither is it brought down to answer our weaknesse so a carnall man should be under no spiritual command but it is a rule of our duty what we once were and still ought to be it commands us for to be And though we be passive in the first work yet we are alwaies concerned to be active and assoon as we do receive power we are to act Dead Lazarus was commanded to rise and having power communicated from God he did actually rise and come out of the grave There is not any promise of God for inherent Grace nor any work of Grace but it comes within our duty and a command lies on us as instance might be given and consequently there is an obligation and engagement to it Gods command and his promises stand not in opposition but in subordination and to say that God is engaged and not man is dangerous then all that are baptized must be regenerate or else God fails in his engagement Somewhat it is that these signs seal and in sealing ratify and confirm and that is as the text shewes the righteousnesse of Faith and consequently all other priviledges whatsoever of like nature that are annexed to it Remission Justification Adoption Glorification Sacraments as seals have not as I conceive at least immediately and directly reference to graces or inherent habits but priviledges They are as Mr. Baxter hath well observed seales of the conditional Covenant and so they must seal whatsoever they do seal on Gods terms and conditions they ratifie mercies promised on those termes that the Covenant doth promise now graces are the conditions and termes of the Covenant and mercies are promised upon those termes and therefore the Covenant requires them but the Sacraments do not ratifie and seal them The Sacraments as signs shew us our wants of or wants in grace by the help of the Word and light received from it they point us out where supply may be found they engage us to this change to the whole of duty required from the people of God and upon answer of our conscience in this work they seal and confirm all promised priviledges to us The nature efficacy and operation of Sacraments would be better understood if that which is proper to each part or the particular office in each relation were better known The seal in a Lease as from the Lessor doth not ratifie the homage that is to be done by the Lessee or the service from him due but the inheritance or benefit whatsoever which upon condition of such homage or service is conveyed Graces are the homage and priviledges are the benefit or the inheritance the priviledges then and not the graces are directly in Sacraments sealed to us It is not sealed up to us either in Baptisme or the Lords Supper that we do believe or repent but that believing and repenting we have forgivenesse of sin and salvation But some say that the Sacraments seal all that the Covenant promises but the Covenant promises Grace and therefore the Sacraments
visible people of God and those that are strangers to him work no otherwise as to vitall and saving grace than hath been spoke let us take heed lest these dissimilitudes do not draw us to imbrace a cloud instead of Juno when it shall appear that they have not so much of elegancy but are answered with equal incongruity If they be such marks as these instances seem to hold out to us how are they then conditional means to communicate these blessings Upon what condition I marvel was it that Moses knew that God was in the bush Or the Inhabitants of Jerusalem that the Angel was in the water Or the Apostles that the Spirit was come down upon them These were undoubtedly to be lookt upon as unconditionate communications of the respective presence of God his Angel and his Spirit And how this stands with that which presently after we find in our Authour I know not unlesse many grains be allowed to abate the height of them that Sacraments are not Physical but moral instruments of salvation duties of service and worship which unlesse we perform as the Authour of grace requireth they are unprofitable For all receive not the grace of God which receive the Sacraments of his grace Moses undoubtedly did enjoy the presence of the Angel and the Apostles the presence of the Holy Ghost Let us then learn to use them as the Authour of grace requireth and that is as signs and seales as his chosen vessel to convey his grace here teaches I shall onely adde in this place If Sacraments work as signes and seales then they must be allowed to have that whole work on all that are Communicants which as signes and seales they can possibly effect either for the bettering of their understanding or farther engagements in wayes of godlinesse and that by the help of the Word they may help the understanding even of unregenerate persons and make discovery of strong engagements to wayes of godlinesse can scarce be questioned If the Word can teach the unregenerate by hearing then the Sacraments being appointed for visible teaching-signes by the help of the Word may also teach them by seeing and unregenerate men making profession of their relation to God may here see further engagements and provocations to godlinesse This effect cannot be denyed to be possible in Sacraments as signs at least upon some persons in unregeneration and when they further see all the glorious priviledges of the Covenant upon the terms propounded of God to be attainable may they not be of singular use as seales to put them on and stirre them up in all consciencious use of means to rise up to the answer of conscience And so as the Word as an instrument in Gods hand by instructions motives exhortations and other provocations is a means for conversion so may the Sacraments as appendents to the Word and by the help of it be herein serviceable likewise which is the whole that I do or ever did attribute to Sacraments so much as in a possible way of conversion CHAP. XII SECT I. The thing signified and sealed in Sacraments THe whole use and office of Sacraments we have seen Sacraments are suitable to Covenants which is to seal the gift and grant of God in Covenant as well as to signifie The thing sealed in them here comes to be spoken to which is the righteousnesse of faith There being a double Covenant given of God to man one in mans integrity whilest he was in spiritual life for preservation in life the other in mans fallen condition when dead for restitution to life There is a double righteousnesse answering to this double Covenant The one inherent in man to be wrought by himself and called our own righteousnesse The other wrought by a Mediatour in our stead and made ours by Faith and therefore called the righteousnesse of faith and sometimes the righteousnesse of God being wrought by Christ who is God And answerably to this double Covenant and double righteousnesse Sacraments of a double kind were instituted The first without respect had to any Mediatour confirming Gods engagements on the terms of perfect obedience The other with respect to a Mediatour and Faith in him confirming happinesse to believers The Sacraments of the Covenant of grace are of this latter sort They are signs and seales as were the trees of life and of the knowledge of good and evil and seales of righteousnesse as they were also but of righteousnesse of another kind The former were seales of the righteousnesse of works These are seales of the righteousnesse of faith Those were seales to assure a reward to our own righteousnesse These are seales to assure us of anothers righteousnesse made ours by faith From hence these two Observations follow one implyed the other in the words exprest The first which is implyed in the words is The righteousnesse of Faith is the great Promise of the Covenant of Grace The Apostle tells us of blindnesse that in part happened to Israel Rom. 11.25 and the blindnesse was this that they would not be brought to an acknowledgment of this righteousnesse But in an high zeal made it their businesse to establish their own righteousnesse Rom. 10.2 3. It do's not appear that they wholly denyed the concurrence of all grace for the work of this righteousnesse in which they confided The Pharisee who is brought in to personate those of this opinion saith God I thank thee I am not like other men He therefore did acknowledge some kind of discriminating grace But it was his own act thorow grace a righteousnesse inherent and not through grace imputed wrought by himself and not by another in his stead in which he confided This observation might have been pertinently and properly spoken to in this place being that on which the Sacraments are bottomed A flaw here must needs be the undoing of all The Jew mistaking here was at losse of all his pains in sacrifices Sacraments and all other personal performances When he had carried on this with the greatest vigour and alacrity he was still too short and this held him back that he look't not after any other righteousnesse and so perished without any such righteousnesse as was able to justifie I should not therefore have wholly past this by but that a long expected and greatly desir'd Treatise on this subject is sent to the Presse and will for a good space of time prevent this piece where the Reader I doubt not will find full satisfaction I shall therefore wholly passe it by and come to the Observation which the words expresly hold out The righteousnesse of faith is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace This enters we see the definition a Sacra-ment Propositions holding forth this righteousnesse and is expressely laid down in the text of the Apostle and for a right understanding of this great priviledge here sealed some Positions or explicatory Propositions must be laid Proposition 1 down 1. This is called the
a memorial of a temporal mercy It is the Lords Passeover Exod. 12.11 that is a memorial that the Lord passed over them when he smote the Land of Egypt v. 13. But this is no concluding Argument that it sealed not Christ or the righteousnesse of Christ by faith as may God willing be made to appear when we shall have occasion to speak of the Cloud that guided Israel out of Egypt the Sea that they passed through and Manna and the rock whereof they ate and drank This deliverance celebrated in the Passeover was in and through Christ as is gathered from the blood that was to be struck on the two side-posts and on the upper door-post of their houses Exod. 12.7 But most clearly from the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.9 He there sayes they tempted Christ but they tempted him from whom they had defence and present deliverance And therefore the Apostle expresly calls the Paschal Lamb by the Name of Christ 1 Cor. 5.7 For even Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us And John Baptist had respect to it as well as to other Sacrifices of the Law when pointing out Christ he said Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world Joh. 1.29 This is so clear in the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord that proofs do not need By Reasons And the Reasons of it are clear Reason 1 First Sacraments are for power against sin and pardon of sin as appears by those frequent Texts produced for the working power of Sacraments which need not to be repeated But by Christ we have power against sin Without him we can do nothing Joh. 15.5 We can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth Phil. 4.13 In him we have the Circumcision made without hands which is the putting away the body of the sins of the flesh Col. 2.11 By Christ we have pardon of sin God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 Christ then is signified and sealed in the Sacraments Reason 2 Secondly Sacraments are for salvation that is their end in common with all other Church-Ordinances whatsoever Baptisme saves 1 Pet. 3.21 But salvation is through Christ He is the Authour of eternal salvation Heb. 5.9 Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved Reason 3 Thirdly Sacraments lead to the Covenant and confirm by way of seal all whatsoever that there in word is made over This is done in all seals which serve for ratification of grants When you see a seal you must find the use and latitude of it in the Covenant so it is in Sacramental seals God entering Covenant with Abraham to be his God and the God of his seed which was a Covenant for true blessednesse Matth. 22.31 32. Circumcision was instituted for confirmation of it and put as we see in the Text as a seal to it When Christ had promised his flesh for meat and his blood for drink being to leave the world he iustituted signs for memorial which are seals of it With this explanation or comment of his own upon them This is my body which is given for you this Cup is the New Testament in my blood And that Christ is the great Promise for blessednesse in the Covenant and that in him all Covenant-promises are made good needs not to be proved Christ therefore is sealed in the Sacraments 1. This we are so to understand The doctrine by rules explained that as all happinesse and true blessednesse is comprized under the righteousnesse of Faith even all that the Apostle looked after and made his ambition to compasse in lieu of all those priviledges which he once had Rule 1 made and false teachers his adversaries still did make matter of their glory Phil. 3.8 9. so every Sacrament that is a seal of this righteousnesse of faith seales all whatsoever is given of God in Covenant to his people If there be thousands of things made over in any grant one seal is the confirmation of all and though the seales be many as Amesius observes yet all that is passed in Covenant is made good in each Our Justification Adoption Perseverance Glorification and whatsoever else in order to these or any of these a people upright in Covenant may expect from the hand of God is under seal in every Sacrament confirm'd unto them So that whatsoever it is that the Word promiseth that the Sacraments by way of seal ratifie and confirm unto us Abraham had this righteousnesse of Faith revealed to him by promise the Gospel being preached to him Gal. 3.8 He had also the Land of Canaan given in promise as a special gift to his posteriry This was now confirm'd also to him in his Circumcision The righteousnesse of faith was as the marrow and substance of the gift and therefore the Apostle puts it into his definition yet the gift of the Land of Canaan which was onely an adjunct annexed as Chamier observes is confirmed with it Every baptized man hath the righteousnesse of Faith in Promise and ratified to him in Baptisme and whatsoever else is made over in promise by reason of any special calling or relation which is of God is confirm'd in Baptisme likewise When we are put of God into any way we have his promise Psal 91.11 to be kept in that way This promise is assured and confirmed in Baptisme Ministers are called of God and commissioned for their work in which we know they have many and large promises all of these in their Baptisme are confirmed to them Rule 2 2. Sacraments seal these blessings not onely universally and in the bulk but with particular application to every one that doth partake of them The Word holding this out indefinitely unto us that he that hath the Son hath life and that unto whom God gives his Son with him he gives all things that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ believers have eternal life here a particular tender is made of his body and blood in these visible Elements of water and of bread and wine The water is passively received in Baptisme the bread and wine actually taken eaten and drunk in the Lords Supper In either whole Christ and the whole of all the benefits of Christ is tendred and to be received So that what miracles extraordinarily were to particular promises as we read in Scriptures for the confirmation of those that beheld them and for whose sake they were wrought that Sacraments ordinarily are and serve for as to true blisse and eternal happinesse This Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen cap. 24. charges on his adversaries quoting Melancton and Luther for it and we are content willingly to own it and among many others which he charges as errours he sayes this is the chief and diligently to be refuted therefore he
purpose SECT III. A Corollary from the former Doctrine Circumcision no carnall badge THen it followes by way of necessary Corollary that Circumcision is no carnal badge but a seal of spiritual mercies given in promise The righteousnesse of faith is no carnal but a spiritual priviledge Circumcision is a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and therefore it is no carnal badge but a seal of spiritual mercies This might here fitly be enlarged to take off this shift which Anabaptists have borrowed from Jesuites But this is already done at large Treatise of the Covenant Chap. 26. And here nothing needs to be added SECT IV. A further Corollary from the Doctrine Sacraments in the time of the Law and dayes of the Gospel are of the same use and signification IT further followes that Sacraments in the time of the Law and in the dayes of the Gospel were of the same use and signification the Sacraments of Israelites and Christians are all one in substance This is clear Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and in case Sacraments in the dayes of the Gospel seal not this to Christians we must then leave the Apostles and seek a new way of happinesse Yea if then there were any Sacrament properly so called as some argue that Sacrament must necessarily be of the same and no other use and signification than these which followed after in the time of the Law and dayes of the Gospel seeing those Fathers were under the same promise of the righteousnesse of faith That was Noah's inheritance Heb. 11.7 This further appears from the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. opened 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our Fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the Sea And did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of the Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ The Apostle here first gives the very name of our leading Sacrament unto theirs they were all baptized unto Moses saith he in the Cloud in the Sea 2dly he declares that the thing signified was the same in theirs as it is in our Sacraments They ate the same spiritual meat and they drank the same spiritual drink and so from hence this Argument is obvious Where there is the same name and the same thing there is the same Ordinance in substance But here is the same name and the same thing as we have seen and therefore the Ordinances are in substance the same The Apostle gives no greater excellency saith Calvin to our Sacraments then to theirs when he saith that the fathers ate the same spiritual meat with us interpreting himself that that meat is Christ Bellarmine here finds severall difficulties as he calls them seemingly making for us against him and presses them further then he can find strength to answer 1. If the Jewes ate the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink as we do in the Lords Supper then there was the same vertue in Manna as in the Lords Supper To this he answers that they all are of the same meat one as others among themselves but not the same with that which we eat But I had rather follow the Apostles own Comment then Bellarmines and he interprets this meat to be Christ and unless we feed not on Christ we and they have the same spiritual food For as the Apostle tells us they fed on him 2. If it were spiritual meat spiritual drink wherewith they were fed it had the same efficacy as our Sacraments Ours have no efficacy above that which is spiritual 3. He saith we urge the state of the question which the Apostle there handles The Apostle there warns Christians not to rest too much in their fruition of Sacraments so as to think themselves safe because they were baptized and admitted to the Lords Supper seeing Sacraments like to these little availed the fathers that did not abstain from sin And lastly Austin is produced on our behalf who Tractate on Joh. 16. saith That the Sacraments of the Jewes and ours were different in their signes but the same in the thing signified They were different in outward visible appearance but the same in their divine vertue These he makes it his businesse to answer lib. 2. de effectu Sacram. cap. 17. Which answers of his are so fully taken off by Amesius Bellar. enervat tom 3. cap. 4. And by Whitaker praelect de Sacram. Quaest 5. cap. 3. that I need not cause this work to swell any bigger with it And this Text I doubt not is clear for it Col. 2.11 12. The Apostle makes Circumcision and Baptisme one and the same and calls Circumcision by the name of Baptisme Circumcision of the heart which is the putting away the body of the sins of the flesh was signified and in the right use of it effected in circumcision Deut. 10.16 Jer. 4.4 Rom. 2.28 And the same is signified and in the right use of it effected in Baptisme as appears in the text quoted as also Rom. 6.4 We are buried with him by Baptisme into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of life Reasons assigned This also appears in reason 1. Sacraments have their esteem and excellency according to promises They have no efficacy or excellency in themselves but as they relate to promises but the Fathers were under equal promises with us they were under the same promises as we may see Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee And the Apostle Heb. 11.16 speaking of the Fathers saith God is not ashamed to be called their God This promise is interpreted by Christ to include mercies for eternity Matt. 22.31 32. Temporal promises will not evince a resurrection But these promises as Christ lets us know do evince it Gospell promises are the greatest but they enjoyed Gospel-promises Gal. 3.8 Heb. 4.2 They were therefore our equalls in promises 2. Children of the same father are fed at his table with the Reas 2 same food at least so farre the same as to work to the same life But they were children of the same Father Rom. 9.4 To them pertained the adoption Ergo. Reas 3 3. Subjects of the same kingdome enjoy the same ordinances But they are subjects of the same Kingdome Matth. 8.11 I say unto you that many shall come from the East and West and shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdome of heaven The same Kingdome in which Abraham Isaac and Jacob were Gentiles that are called in Gospel-times are Ergo. Explicatory Rules This we must understand with these rules First
These Sacraments theirs and ours are not in that manner Rule 1 one but that there are many circumstantial differences between them 1. They differ in their outward signes appearing to us in several shapes That which was seen in Circumcision differed much from water in Baptisme and a Lamb whether of the herd or flock differs much from bread and wine 2. Ours are of greater ease then theirs There was pain and smart in Circumcision which the new Circumcised Shechemites felt to their cost Gen. 34.25 which happily might occasion the neglect of circumcision of Moses his sonne through the Mothers tendernesse as may be gathered from her words Exod. 4.25 Neither was the Passeover without cost and pains especially to them that lived at a great distance from Jerusalem 3. There is farre more light accompanying our Sacraments then theirs not in themselves for as much might be gathered if not more for significancy from their outward signs then from ours but by reason of the clear discovery of the promises and open full manifestation of their use 4. Ours were without blood theirs were accompanied with blood one of the person receiving the other in the sign received 5. Old Testament-Sacraments had their period and others follow in their place Ours must not cease until all time ceaseth Baptisme must hold to the end of the world Matth. 28.20 And the Lords Supper until Christ come 1 Cor. 11.26 But none of these make any substantial difference nor any more then that which is circumstantial or gradual The outward dresse in which they differently appear can make no difference in substance A seal is one and the same whether the wax be red green or yellow yea whether the impression be in wax or dough whether the signet have the Letters of a mans name or the Arms that he gives Men look at the grant to which the seal is put and not at these circumstances Neither matters it whether they be done with trouble or ease and where their worth is not known they are not therefore in themselves of lesse value And though they do not endure alwaies their efficacy is yet no lesse whilest they last If we eye circumstances of this nature ours may be advanced But if we eye the substantial work theirs will be equal Hereupon so different speeches are quoted from Austins pen Some highly advancing our Sacraments above theirs and others parallelling theirs with ours which with this distinction may be fairly reconciled and as we have heard the author himself thus reconciles them Secondly Those undervaluing phrases of Old Testament-Sacraments Rule 2 which are sometimes found in the Prophets and Apostles and brought by adversaries to put them at a great distance behind ours are either spoken as they were abused and misobserved by Jews in unbelief and impenitence and not according to their institution or lawful use in which case we might say the same of Baptisme or the Lords Supper Or else we must understand them as having an end by Christs coming in the flesh put to them and so in their use dead if not deadly to the observers Rule 3 Thirdly Though Bellarmine makes it one of the particulars wherein we and they agree that the Sacraments of the Jewes are types of ours in the daies of the Gospel Yet in case the word type be taken in that sense as it is ordinarily used we utterly disclaim it There are indeed very many and different acceptations of this word as may appear to any that will consult John 21.25 Act. 23.25 Act. 7.43 Rom. 6.17 Rom. 5.14 with Heb. 9.24 Phil. 3.17 Act. 7.44 1 Cor. 10.6 1 Pet. 3.21 And as it is used in that one place in Peter where Baptisme is said to be the antitype to the Ark which according to Interpreters implyes onely a similitude or correspondence we may well grant that their Sacraments were types that is theirs and ours carry a full resemblance but taking the word as it is ordinarily used for that which shadowes out somewhat that is to come by Divine institution whether person or thing as Adam Rom. 5.14 is said to be a type or figure of him that was to come and the holy places made with hands are types and figures of the true which doubtlesse our adversaries intend so it is to be denied and Protestant Writers unanimously deny them to be any such types wholly disclaiming that doctrine that the Sacraments of the Jews did onely shadow out grace and ours do conferre it And therefore when the contents affixed to the respective Chapters in our last translation seem otherwise singularly exact so that that great Critick Ainsworth who cannot be suspected to do it out of any humor of imitation in his translation of the Pentateuch and the Psalms very rarely differs from them it is wonder how that slip came into the contents affixed to 1 Cor. 10. thus exprest 1. The Sacraments of the Jewes 6. are types of ours 7. and their punishments 11. ensamples for us when it should rather have been 1. The Sacraments of the Jewes are the same with ours 5. their punishments are ensamples for us The four first verses making the Sacraments there mentioned to be of the same use with ours and the seven following verses to v. 12. shew that their sufferings for sin are our examples for admonition that we run not upon like practices See Ravanellus in verbum Typus Whitaker praelect de Sacram. quaest 5. cap. 1. pag. 109. Pareus in 1 Cor. 10.6 SECT V A third Corollary from the doctrine THen it followes by way of necessary Corollary that Christians should see All must see that they be rightly principled in the doctrine of this righteousnesse that they be rightly principled in this doctrine of the righteousnesse of faith as that in which the great mercy of the new Covenant and all that the Sacraments seal is comprized Ignorance of this being the undoing of the zealous Jew A mistake or flaw here must needs be of singular danger And here those of the Church of Rome may be supposed to be most of all secure seeing there is no imaginable righteousnesse but they hedge it in as may appear in a brief view of their doctrine That righteousnesse which must save either must be wrought by our selves and so stiled our righteousnesse or else it must be wrought by an other and made ours There is no righteousnesse of a third sort That which is wrought by our selves is either according to the command of God prescribed in the law or else over above and besides the Law assumed by our selves or received by tradition As Pharisees had an high zeal for both of these whereof Paul in his unconversion is an instance Phil. 3.6 Gal. 1.14 So it is at least pretended by these persons though their zeal for their righteousnesse of the law falls farre short of that for the tradition of the Church And for righteousnesse besides their own wrought by others they take in not onely the righteousnesse
I desire Mr. Baxter to take into consideration that Text of the Apostle Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weakned through the flesh c. And whether he understand it respective to sanctification which is not agreed upon among Interpreters to give his Reader satisfaction Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione Quid patitur ut fi at impotens et inefficax Quomodo haec impotentia inefficacia fuit in carne utrum eminenter an formaliter Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem And I doubt not but I may as easily answer his Queries in order to the vindication of my assertion as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apostle delivers Answering the last all is indeed answered Caro agit injiciendo obices remoras Quo minus Lex operatur in corde hominis Spiritus agit per fidem ut causa removens impedimentum E medio tollens obices remoras istas Incitando potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promissionis divinae I desire also his full Comment on the Apostles words 2 Cor. 3.6 Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life with a satisfying answer to all like Quaeries that thence may be made I suppose he will grant that they are able Ministers of the New Testament no otherwise then in preaching the Gospel and when the bare Scripture as Tremelius reads it is of power onely to kill we may demand how the Gospel suffers in receiving any such quickening power from the Spirit And indeed the Gospel suffers not but the soul in receiving power to answer the Gospels call whether to Justification oâ sanctification And that the Spirit makes use of faith in this quickening power I think will not be denyed seeing the Apostle tells us The life that I live in the flesh is by faith in the Son of God Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work and he addes Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof adding What though onely believers are justified by the Covenant doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie then either there are no conditions or causae sine quibus non or else they are all efficients and give efficacy and power to other efficients I confesse those words taken by themselves in that sense as he may fancy and the words in themselves may bear will not come up to a full proof Justification may be restrained onely to believers and yet faith have no hand in it but seeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work some of them speaking of it as Gods instrument Rom. 3.30 most of them as mans we may well then know that Scripture holds it not out as any such naked condition To others the Gospel-grant lyes dead to these through faith it is effectuall There is added Your terms of faiths giving power through the Spirit tell me that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel not at its moral act of conveyance or donation but at its reall operation on mans heart I do look at the act of the Gospel as its real operation on mans heart and yet I look at the right act of it The Gospel is an instrument to justifie by the intervening act of faith according to Protestants and by the intervening work of sanctification according to Papists and according to both there is a real work on the soul necessary to put into a posture for Justification All know that Divines distinguish between redemption wrought by Christ and the application of it Redemption is the proper work of the Son but Application they ascribe to the Spirit a Hinc Pater Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem istam perficiendam The Father and the Son are said saith Amesius to send the Spirit to perfect this application Medull Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture nor Divines use to say that the Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by inditing the Gospel c. Though I own not this phrase that is here put upon me and I might expect so much priviledge as to be Master of my own words yet I would have it taken into further consideration whether Divines use his language or mine or whether they judge not that tââe the right act of the Gospel for pardon of sin which I mention The Leyden Divines having spoke of the application of the righteousnesse of Christ Disp 33. Sect. 21. have these words Sect 24. b Haec applicatio in nobis fit à Spiritu sancto 1 Cor. 6.11 dono scilicet fidei Ipse enim eam per Ministerium Evangelii Quod Ministerium Spiritûs dicitur 2 Cor. 3.8 ingenerat ac verbo suo ac Sacramentis confirmat auget Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5.5 Unde Spiritus fidei dicitur 2 Cor. 4.13 quâ Deum ut gratiosum Christum ut redemptorem ejusque justitiam ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus Joan. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 This application in us is made by the holy Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 viz. by the gift of faith For he works it by the Ministery of the Gospel which is called the Ministery of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.8 and encreases it by his Word and Sacraments Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith 2 Cor. 4.13 whereby we apprehend God as gracious Christ as Redeemer and his righteousnesse and from it everlasting life Joh. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith Rom. 5.1 Acts 26.18 A parte nostrâ fide Rom. 5.2 Actor 26.18 ex fide per fidem Ro. 3.30 Justistficamur justificat nos Deus By faith and through faith Rom. 3.30 We are justified and God justified us with much more to that purpose And Ravanellus in verbum justificatio speaking of the instrument of justification saith it is either outward or inward c Causa instrumentalis externa verbum Dei Sâcramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11 ubi circumcisio appellatur s gillum justitiae fidei nam verbum Dei Sacramenta sunt organa per quae Deus nos vocat per quae operatur conservat ac auget in nobis fidem obsignatque in cordibus nostris gratiam justificationis atque adeo Ministri Ecclesiae alii qui docent nos viam salutis Dan. 12.3 The outward instrumental cause he saith is the Word of God and the Sacraments as appears from Rom. 4.11 where circumcision is called the seal of the righteousnesse of faith for saith he the Word of God and Sacraments are instruments by which God doth call and by which he works preserves and encreases faith in us and seals in
Moses Baptisme into him what Page 526 N. Names GIven by God not empty titles Page 12 Nature What meant by the times of the Law of nature Page 24 Necessity Of Sacraments asserted Page 285 c. Argumeats evincing it Page 288 c. The kind of degree of the necessity of Sacraments enquired into Page 289 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation Page 289 Objections answered Page 290 Explicatory Rules delivered in it Page 294 c. A greater degree of necessity in the initiatory leading Sacrament then in that which follows Page 298 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. O. Obedience MAns sin disobligeth him not from obedience Page 195 196 197 Obligation Mans Obligation of himself unto God implies Gods mutuall obligation Page 130 Oblige Mans inability for duty doth not disoblige from duty Page 197 Orders Their number in the Church of Rome and their divisions Page 538 Most of this number doubted by themselves whether they be Sacraments ibid. The Matter Page 539 Form Page 539 Effect Page 539 Minister Page 539 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. Ordinances All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto Page 189 Sacraments must have the Honour of divine Ordinances Page 68 Originall sin Asserted Page 363 Distinguished into peccatum originans orinatum Page 365 Originall sin not a meer want of primitive integrity but attended with unversall defilement ibid. c. Oyle Anointing with Oyle Jam. 14 15. What it means Page 536 537 Queres put to those that would revive this practice Page 537 P. Parables CHrist speaking in Parables what it meaneth Page â4 Pardon Closing with God for pardon is not to pardon a mans self Page 452 Passive Neither believing nor receiving are to be judged meerly passive Page 442 In what sense faith passive in justification Page 476 c. Pemble Not sole and singular in asserting the word to be a passive instrument Page 476 He is large in reasons of it Page 475 Penance The parts of it Contrition Page 531 532 Confession Page 531 532 Satisfaction Page 531 532 Papists agree not what that is in Penance that makes up a Sacrament Page 533 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. People Allegations for their power examined Page 252 264 Perfection Of the subject and perfection of parts respective to the universality of the object distinguished Page 586 Pighius A learned Papist with divers others joynes with us in the doctrine of justification Page 440 Pope He hath his visible pardoner as well as others Page 464 Prayer A necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 509 Priest The several functions of Christ as Priest King Prophet are to be distinguished but not divided Page 562 Priestly Levitical types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 Privileges A faith short of justifying entitles to visible privileges Page 161 Profession Men of a visible profession truly and really in Covenant with God Page 128 Profession of faith engages to a lively working faith Page 172 c. Promise That which is the condition of the thing promised is not the condition of the Seal Page 173 Exceptions against it examined ibid. Gospell promises are a savour of death unto many Page 469 Protestants Vindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 The author is confest to appear in the common cause of Protestants ibid. R. Rainbow DEfined Page 516 It had respect to a Covenant improperly so called Page 517 It was an instituted sign ibid. Correspondencies between it and the promise Page 518 How far it was Sacramentall ibid. How far it fals short ibid 519 Reall Covenants may be broke by men in Covenant Page 138 Common grace is reall Page 132 Men of a visible profession really in Covenant with God Page 128 Regenerate Duties of positive institution do not onely bind the regenerate Page 195 Repentance How prerequired in Baptisme Page 108 Repentance and Faith Are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Right Fundamentall and actuall distinguished Page 88 The distinction cleered In civill immunities Page 88 Ecclesiasticall privileges Page 89 They must be both written Page 90 Right unto a bar to detain from Sacraments not alwayes express Page 91 Righteous Men are so denominated really and not equivocally that imperfectly obey the Law Page 614 Righteousness Non reaâus is not righteousness Page 588 Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction Page 589 Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted ib. Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used Page 592 Righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law asserted Page 595 There is a partiall reparation of in herent righteousness in regeneration Page 611 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Righteousness Christ The naturall righteousness of Christ is not our justification Page 439 Whether the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous be given to us Page 453 Queries put concerning this gift of righteousness Page 454 Faith being terminated on Christ is terminated on his righteousness Page 455 To receive his righteousness for justification no fancy or delusion Page 456 Righteousness Faith The Righteousness of Faith is the great promise of the Covenant of grace Page 414 This righteousness is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace Page 415 Proved by Scriptures Page 417 Confirmed by reasons Page 418 Explained by rules Page 419 420 Bellarmines five objections answered Page 421 c. Propositions explaining the meaning of the righteousness of Faith Page 415 So called in opposition to the righteousness of works required in the Covenant ibid. It is the Synechdochically put for the whole of the Covenant that interests us in this righteousness ibid. c. All blessings and privileges flowing from and following upon this Covenant unto true blessedness are comprized under the righteousness of faith Page 416 Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant is the fountain from whence the blessedness of this righteousness comes ibid. Faith considered as an instrument receiving this righteousness ib. All must see that they be right principled in the doctrine of the righteousness of faith Page 429 Ignorance here was the Jews undoing ib. Papists mistake in this point Page 429 c. Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness Page 432 Rock How it was said to follow Israel Page 524 The Rock it self was not intended as a sign but the water flowing out of it Page 525 Of the nature of a Sacrament ib. No standing Sacrament Page 526 Rule See Law S. Sacrament THe word vindicated Page 2 3 The reason of the word enquired after Page 4 5 The various acceptations of it Page 6 7 8 Whether man enjoyed or was capable of a Sacrament in the state of integrity Page 9 No Sacrament instituted of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. A Sacrament may be defined Page 32 c. The definition of a Sacrament in generall Page
8 The Apostles definition Rom. 4 11 Vindicated Page 33 34 A full definition thence laid down Page 36 The sign and thing signifiâd in every Sacrament are Analogically one Page 49 50 No Sacrament without a promise preceding Page 56 Sacraments The distribution of them Page 9 God not tyed to Sacraments Page 30 31 They are standing Ordinances Page 294 Reasons evincing it Page 295 296 When they are dispensed they may not without weighty reasons be omitted Page 306 The being of them consists in their usâ Page 317 c. Arguments evincing it ib. The Sacrament of the Supper not exempted Page 119 Reasons given ibid. c. Sacraments have respect both to the change of of our nature and the removall of our guilt Page 368 We are to look for no more from Sacraments then God hath put into them Page 405 As the word teacheth by the ear so Sacraments by the help of the word teach by the eye Page 413 Men professing relation to God may see in Sacraments further engagements and provocations to holiness ibid. Sacraments are necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 508 Sacraments are seales entrusted in the hand of men Page 192 c. Sacraments seal the promise of the Gospell condionally Page 194 Gospell Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his priestly office Page 567 All Sacraments from the fall substantially one Page 424 426 Sacramentall Gods condescension in sacramentall signes Page 52 53 Sacramentall signes must be explained Page 56 Mens aptness to delude themselves in Sacramentall privileges Page 405 All ages have over-highly advanced Sacramental privileges Page 406 Sacraments Covenant All interested in Sacraments must come up to the terms of the Covenant Page 280 Sacraments annexed te the Covenant of works were without relation to Christ Page 10 11 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Sacraments are ever suitable to Covenants Page 413 All Sacraments must answer to the Covenant to which they are annexed Page 6 Sacraments without spirituall profit to them that live in breach of Covenant Page 18 A Covenant falling Sacraments that are annexed fall with it Page 18 c. Sacraments under the Old and New Covenant one and the same Page 25 The Covenant people of God the adequat subject of Sacraments Page 74 All interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75 c. Sacraments Number The way to find out the number of Sacraments Page 514 No express Scripture to determine their number Page 515 Two onely standing ordinances in the Old Testament of the nature of Sacraments ibid. Five suppositious Sacrments of Rome examined Page 528 Sacrifices Whether of the dictates of nature Page 21 Not Sacraments Page 529 How far Sacramentall ibid. How they differ from Sacraments ibid. Saint A title in Scripture not proper in the justified Page 149 Sanctification The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in it Page 452 Satisfaction How Christs satisfaction to God for us is received by us Page 457 Sathan His imitation of God in the wayes of his worship Page 20 Sea Israels passage through it of the nature of a Sacrament Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Seales Various acceptation of the word Page 326 Severall use of a Seal Page 327 For secrecy ibid. For warranty ibid. For distinction ibid. For security ibid. For ratification ib. c. Seal of the Covenant and the Seal of the Spirit not of equall latitude Page 141 Seals Sacraments Sacraments are Seales Page 326 Serving for ratification of promises Page 328 Objections answered ibid. c. The whole use and office of Sacraments is by way of signe and seal Page 352 Reasons confirming it Page 354 355 Humane authorities produced Page 356 Variety of opinions about the working of Sacraments Page 359 c. Propositions tending to cleer the truth Page 363 Texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments higher of two sorts Page 372 1. Such where no Sacrament is mentioned ib. 2. Such where faith is required to the attainment of the effect Page 376 Objections answered Page 380 Sermon Formally so called not essentiall to a Sacrament Page 61 Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be concionatorium or consecratorium Page 57. c. Scripture Must not be left to hunt after humane authorities Page 111 Scripture order of words no foundation for arguments Page 170 Scripture characters of men in grace are laid down for men to try themselves by Page 189 Signe What it is Page 38 c. Severall kinds of Signes Page 39 Naturall ibid. Prodigious Page 41 c. By institution Page 42 Rules for the right understanding of naturall signes Page 39 Remote causes are no signes ibid. Partiall causes are no signes Page 40 Natural signes when causes work unavoidably Page 41 Sacramentall signes Sacraments are signes Page 38 Sacraments are to be defined as signes Page 321 Objections answered ibid. c. Sacramentall signes Their properties Page 43 Externall and sensible ibid. Visible Page 43 44 Analogicall Page 45 Rituall Page 46 Distinguishing Page 46 47 65 c. Congregating Page 47 48 Engaging ibid. Remembrancing ibid. 49 Ratifying Page 49 Gods condescension in Sacramental signes Page 52 53 Sacramentall signes must be explained Page 56 Sin All sins are not Spirit-grieving sins Page 392 Notable sins in regenerate persons followed with many dangers Page 394 They cloud assurance of glory ibid. They bring an inaptitude on the soul to enter into glory Page 395 They bring under wrath and displeasure though they work not into a state of wrath Page 396 They are such an obstruction in the way of bliss that they bring a necessity on the soul to come in by repentance Page 397 Rules to discern the nature and quality of sins Page 399 The more of light the less of weakness and the crime more hainous ibid. The less of temptation the more of sin and the less of weakness ibid. c. The more of deliberation and conviction the more of sin Page 400 The more opportunity for duty the greater the neglect Page 401 Severall sorts of sins that are Covenant forfeitures Page 402 c. Sincerity Of heart in covenanting not of the essence and being of a Covenant Page 131 Spirit The seal of the Covenant and the seal of the Spirit not of equall latitude Page 141 Bloud and Spirit way be distinguished but must not be divided Page 367 The acts of the Spirit in a believing soul are ascribed to faith Page 463 The Spirit works not in us respective to Salvation after faith is implanted without us ibid. The Spirit hath a further hand in justification or pardon of sin then alone by enditing the Gospell Page 483 Scriptures and humane authorities produced for it ibid. The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in Sanctification Page 452 Lords Supper A privilege of the Church visible Page 187 It is not limited to
by his people on earth Concerning which I shall deliver my thoughts in several propositions God had his Church and people in that juncture of time First That God had his Church and People with a way of worship pleasing to and accepted by himself in those times This evidently appears out of the History Abell Henoch Noah Melchizedeck who without all doubt lived in those times and Job as it is commonly received spake so much and the Apostles Comment or observation of those times Heb. 11. makes it more evident Abell offered to God a more excellent gift then Cain and obtained witnesse that he was righteous Heb. 11.4 They both made Visible profession of the same God and both sacrificed to God and God put a difference between their gifts An embleme of the Church in all succeeding ages which is that great house where are vessels of honour and dishonour By faith Henoch was translated that he should not see death and was not found because God had translated him for before his translation he had this testimony that he pleased God Heb. 11.5 and as he affirms that it was by faith that be was thus translated so he proves it he had this testimony that he pleased God But without faith it is impossiblc to please him vers 6. Noah became heir of the righteousnesse by faith vers 7. God had his worship then as appears by Abells and Noahs sacrifice and in Melchizedeks function Gen. 14.18 Who was a Priest of the most high God taken from among men and ordained for men in things appertaining to God that he might both offer gifts and sacrifices Heb. 5.1 The Woman had all that time her seed and the Serpent his who kept up their mutuall enmity as Cain and Abell Noah and the men of the world Lot and the men of Sodom do give witness God had a people of Covenant-holiness those Sons of God that saw thc daughters of men that they were fair and took of them wives of all which they chose Gen. 6.1 He had a people truly holy Lot had that Epithete of just 2 Pet. 2.7 the name of a righteous man Noah had that witness of God that he saw him righteous Gen. 7.1 and of Abel the Apostle saitb that his works were righteous Secondly Scripture makes no mention of any Sacraments of Sacramental signs in that âime We read not of any Sacrament appointed of God for these times nor of any Divine Ordinance or sign that comes up to the nature of a Sacrament Those that may be instanced in with most colour are 1. That of sacrifice both before and after the floud and that of the Rain-bow immediately upon the floud That of sacrifice comes more near up to the nature of a Sacrament then that of the Bowe But how both come short of the nature of a Sacrament in the sense generally received and now to be spoken to I shall God willing in a more fit place make known Thirdly Sacraments in substance of the same naâure with the Covenant If there were any Sacraments in those dayes appointed of God for his people in Covenant they must be of the same nature as to the substance of them and thing signified by them with those under the Law and now in the dayes of the Gospel There was one common salvation ours and theirs one and the same Saviour theirs and ours we and they were under the same promises Their Sacraments then must seal these promises Noah was an heir of righteousness of faith These supposed Sacraments could then signe and seal no other thing then that righteousness Fourthly Though we do not rest upon that argument à non dici ad non esse Scripture silence a most probable argument that in those times there was no Sacrament because we read of no Sacarments in those dayes to conclude that there was none then appointed or in use yet we may conclude that it is an high presumption in any in this last age of the world to undertake to assert any Sacraments in those times This were indeed contrary to that which the Apostle warns to presume above that which was written 1 Cor. 4.6 Where Scripture is silent how dare we speak Scripture silence affords an argument of far greater probability for the negative that in those times there was no Sacrament in use then all the imaginary conceits which men can invent or find For the affirmative that there were Sacraments then appointed The old Rabbines had their traditions concerning Gods transactions with his people in that age Weemse in his Divine exercitations Exer. 16. pag. 61. tells us that the Hebrews say that before the Law was written God gave to Moses seven Precepts which he delivered by tradition to his posterity after him These they call the traditions of their fathers which he there reckons up but not any one concerning Sacraments It is then sure a vain labour for us at such a distance to have any thoughts of finding them out Many Jesuites bestirre their wits to conclude Sacraments in those times To save labour of further search for that which is of no greater necessity the Reader may find much of what they have said in Chamier de Sacramentis in genere lib. 1. cap. 8. which Chapter he entitles De Sacramentis in lege naturae Suavez will by all means conclude that there was then some Sacrament for the remedy of Original sin grounding himself on this which he puts into his margin Pag. 40. Colume 2. b Divinae providentiae est omni aetati providere That Divine providence is to take care of all ages taking it fot granted that providence is defective if a standing Sacrament in any age of the Church be wanting and that there is no way in Divine providence to save an infant from Original sin but the actual application of a Sacramental sign Election cannot obtain it nor Regeneration nor Justification by the Spirit and blood of Christ effect it without a Sacrament to make application of it The Jesuit might know and if Divines on our part might be heard they would make known that Sacraments are not the remedy against Original sin but Christ and the righteousness of faith in Christ which is the thing signified and sealed in the Sacrament and the people of God enjoying means in those times to attaine this righteousness Heb. 11.7 they were not without a remedy Himself ingenuously confesses there is nothing in Scripture respective to those times nor in tradition of any such Sacramental remedy nor do any of the Fathers as he saith mention it before Austin And Austin as he also acknowledges speaks of it doubtingly what he speaks by way of conjecture is not consistent as he observes with his own doctrine elsewhere In which the modesty of that Father is farre to be preferred before the Jesuites boldness in it who concludes there was such a Sacramental remedy though not instituted of God but left to the Parents liberty
confederate with him in Covenant and was upon that account to be circumcised which engaged to actual faith and upon actual believing it sealed this righteousness of faith to him This precedency of faith is a separable adjunct and comes not into the definition To make the definition full and clear the whole text of the Apostle is to be taken into consideration with the context and all that in the History Gen. 17. to which it relates hath relation to it all which is vertually in the words comprized where we may observe 1. The Person receiving or by right interessed 2. The thing received 3. The end or use 4. The thing signified or sealed The Person receiving or by right interessed is Abraham and giving and receiving being relatives as Pareus on the words observes if Abraham received it it is necessarily implyed that there is some one that gave it Christ sayes Joh. 7.22 Moses gave Circumcision to the Jewes because he delivered unto them a Law concerning it Levit. 12.3 but God gave it in charge to Moses as we may see there vers 1. as Gen. 17.9 10. he had before given it in charge to Abraham And therefore Christ saith that Circumcision was of the Fathers God is then the author as Abraham the receiver of Circumcision Abraham that thus received Circumcision from the hand of God may be considered 1. As a man so he stood in no other relation to God then barely as his creature and with others in the world was without God and not within the verge of his Covenant and for seventy and five years he thus continued 2. As a professor of the faith and worshipper of the true God renouncing the gods that he had worshipped in Charran and professedly serving the Lord Jehovah onely 3. As a man upright and sincere in the Covenant comming up to the termes proposed of God and walking perfect before him In all of these capacities Abraham may be considered as any other of the sons of Abraham that are sincere and faithful In the first capacity he had no right to Circumcision all that are in that condition are called by the Apostle Circumcision yet it was not of necessity to his interest in the Covenant or Circumcision the signe and seale of it to be sincere in Covenant though it be necessary to the attainment of the grace of the Covenant and mercy sealed in the Sacrament As others came into Covenant and were intitled to the initiating sign and seale so might Abraham but others came in upon a bare profession as those multitudes of Proselytes that joyned themselves to Israel One of which was Doeg an Edomite 1 Sam. 21.9 had he not been of Israel by profession he had not been detained in the Sanctuary before the Lord upon any religious account as we find he was ver 7. And had he been right in the Covenant he had not had so many things in charge against him neither had the Psalmist spoken in that language that we read of him The Eunuch as we have cause to think had an heart right with God but it was not so with Simon Magus as Peter expresly tells him Act. 8.21 Abraham then is considered as a man professedly in Covenant when he received this sign of Circumcision The thing received is here Circumcision which I shall speak to onely as of a Sacramental kind and not consider it in the individual nature of it as the initiating Sacrament of the Old Covenant held out under that external rite of cutting off the foreskin of the flesh The use of it is to be a sign and seal for signification and ratification to those that received it The thing signified and sealed is the righteousnesse of faith so it is also called Heb. 11. Elsewhere it is called the righteousnesse of God Rom. 10.3 being freely given to us of God and onely able to justifie us in his sight but chiefly because it is wrought by Christ who was not meer man nor barely a creature but the true God as St. John stiles him 1 Joh. 5.20 This righteousness of God is applyed to us and made ours by faith Phil. 3.9 and therefore as it is called the righteousnesse of God so also here and elsewhere the righteousnesse of faith This text being thus cleared a full and compleat definition of a Sacrament may be found The definition of a Sacrament A Sacrament is a sign appointed of God to be received of his Covenant-people to seal the righteousnesse of faith unto them I know there is somewhat put into the definition of a Sacrament by some that treat of this subject which is not here in words exprest and therefore upon that account this definition may be challenged as defective as 1. The Minister by whom it is to be dispensed from God to man But whether this be essential in a Sacrament or otherwise as afterwards is to be enquired into it is sufficiently implyed In case it must be received from God by his people in that way and from that hand that he himself in his Word hath appointed 2. The Sacraments contain as well a profession of our duty towards God as Gods tender and seal to man of which here is nothing said But this we shall find both in the sign and seal which are both mentioned necessarily included and as it appears that it is comprized so to make it more clear and explicite it may by the Reader be added CHAP. V. Sect. I. Of Sacramental signes I shall here purposely wave several Schoole-niceties as in what predicament a Sacrament is to be placed Taking it in the whole nature of it as consisting of a twofold matter the one outward and earthly which is the visible signe the other inward and heavenly which is the thing signified and of a twofold forme one outward which is the due participation of it according to the way prescribed of God the other inward consisting in the analogy between the signe and the thing signified it must needs be an Ens aggregatum and so not capable of any place in that series of being And signe and seale being clearly relatives I shall leave the Reader to informe himself from learned Keckerman in the third Book and eighth Chapter of his Systeme of Philosophy what is the Relatum the Correlatum the relation it self the foundation and the terminus in this Sacramental consideration and shall go on to lay open the several parts of this definition The whole of it being comprized in this text of the Apostle every part affords some doctrinal Observation In the first place I shall observe that Sacraments are signes The truth of this observation is so clear of it self that it needs no proof Taking the word Sacrament in the largest sense that we can speak of it in which it falls short of these Gospel-Ordinances known by that name it is yet Sacrae rei Signum the sign of an holy thing And might be made good by a particular induction not only in those
baptized the Reader can scarce imagine this I impute to haste or passion preventing or obstructing the use of reason He must then blot out Christian nomine tenus and insert instead of it an Heathen Jew or Pagan otherwise he is already a baptized person and in incapacity for baptisme by the power of the Word preached brought to renounce his way of Paganisme Judaisme and to professe and engage to a Christian faith and conversation These are the men that I would have baptized and if we must account them to be dogs and swine all Scripture-baptizers are within the lash they have given baptisme to them That repentance as well as faith was required in baptisme appeares saith he by the ages following the Apostles yea and in the Apostles time likewise A profession of both was indeed required they that renounced heathen worship renounced heathen conversation with it They engaged to a Christian faith and they engaged to a Christian conversation Mr. F. addes For those who would live in their lusts they deferred their baptisme knowing what that required I have read of the deferring of baptisme in those times and the reasons assigned why they put it off But I have not met with this reason Mr. Marshall in his defence of Infant-Baptisme hath given many reasons why some put off baptisme Some to be baptized at the age that Christ was baptized Some to be baptized in the river where he was baptized Some to be baptized by some special Bishop of eminent place Some which it seems was most common because they conceived that it takes away all sin and therefore they would have it delayed till sin was well over for which he quotes many authorities Tertullian it appears would have it delayed upon this ground seeing he would not have unmarried persons baptized but to stay till lust were extinguished and disswading from baptisme in younger years he hath these words Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum de baptis cap. 18. Yet perhaps some might delay it upon the account that he mentions though he quotes no authority for it but that Tertullian and Nazianzen intimate it one of whom was for delaying of baptisme in the place quoted the other against it as I find him cited But in case any did delay it upon the grounds by him mentioned might it not be their fault that did administer it in keeping the door too narrow as well as their sin who put off the time of it seeing Mr. F. himself complains of the rigour of some in New-England in holding men off from entrance into Church-fellowship by that door which is set up in the room and place of baptisme Mr. Firmin as well in his Serious question stated as in his Appendix against me vouches many authorities first Presbyterians instancing in his margine Lond. Min. Jus Div pag. 115. But in my book that page hath no such thing Gillespies Aarons Rod quoting many pages I can recompence him in setting up some of the Congregational way against him Mr. Gillesp will not have a known unregenerate man baptized But Mr. Cobbet saith John did and might lawfully baptize those multitudes albeit in the general he knew that many yea most of them would prove false and frothy And makes visibility of interest in the Covenant the Churches guide in application of Baptisme pag. 52. And how large a visibility of interest is is cleer and I have already shewen Let his words before quoted be considered and to these adde that which he hath pag. 54 55. The initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather The seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumcision was not primarily a seal to his faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and offered in the Covenant yea to the Covenant it self or promise which he had believed unto righteousnesse hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. Hence Acts 2.38 39. the seal of baptisme is put to the promise as the choyce matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it self Repent and be baptized for the promise is to you Not for you have repented as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptisme but the promise rather Appendix pag. 57. Mr. Firmin quotes in the Lump the Fathers Councels School-men out of Gregory de Val. as if all were of that mind In his Serious question he quotes Austin Alexander Hales Aquinas Gregory de Valen. In his appendix Justin Martyr Concil Naeocesar Concil Nic. Concil Elib as strict in admission of their Catechumeni concerning which I might have much to say First How would he like it in other things to leave the clear rode and track of Scriptures to hunt after humane authorities If we can but say From the beginning it was not so In case the authorities were more in number more eminent in honour we have sufficient The Scripture-way taking in those that the Word had brought to a profession of Christianity upon engagement to it is as clear as though it were written with a ray of the Sun Secondly For Fathers and Schoolmen their opinion about Baptisme on which they ground the necessity of praerequisites to it is known and as he may quote them against me so I can quote them against him and those of his party They maintain and as unanimously as they do the thing in debate that Sacraments confer grace on the receiver in case he put no obstacle on which account they expect not grace in the person for baptisme which they believe not to be possible seeing the Sacrament is to work it but a convenient disposition to grace which they call merit ex congruo Let Suarez speak in the name of the rest having laid down this Proposition d Ut alicui digne detur baptismus praeter voluntatem suscipiendi Sacramentum necessaria est dispositio conveniens sanctitati Sacramenti That Baptisme may be worthily administred besides a willingnesse to receive the Sacrament a disposition suitable to the holinesse of the Sacrament is required And then answering the question What this disposition is he answers e Resp Eam sufficere necessariam esse quae ad consequendum effectum Baptismi fuerit sufficiens ac necessaria quia cum per baptismum detur gratia si aliquis est recte dispositus ad effectum baptismi consequendum in instanti quo receperit baptismum perfectum recipiet gratiam Ergo cum sufficienti dignitate sanctitate recipit Sacramentum Quia cum hoc sit Sacramentum mortuorum non est ad illud digne suscipiândum prae exigenda gratia ad quam conferendam ipsum est constitutum Ergo sufficiet illa dispositio cum qua Sacramentum conferet talem effectum That is necessary and sufficient which is necessary and sufficient to attain the effect of the Sacrament and gives
it never came into the heart of any that is either grave A position by the Author disavowed and detested or godly to utter it and that there is scarce any so witlesse or gracelesse as to beleeve it and so Mr. Brs. volume of 31. Reasons five pag. 84 85 86. Twenty six pag. 94 to 107. are almost at one breath answered Few of them tending to oppose any thing that I hold but in the farre greatest part brought against his own conceit and no assertion or opinion of mine I suppose I could easily furnish him with a large addition of reasons to deny this fancy Faith is commanded in the morall Law Reasons evincing that a man unbaptized is bound to beleeve in Jesus Christ to justification as I have asserted Treat of the Covenant pag. 18. and I think no man believes that Baptisme doth first put a man under such obligation Some Papists do charge upon us that we maintain that Baptism delivers us from the morall Law and therefore the Councel of Trent anathematizeth those that hold it but never any I think were charged to say that Baptisme is our first obligation to it 2. An unbaptized man is bound to endeavour to avoid damnation but he that believeth not shall be damned 3. He is bound to endeavour to obtain Salvation but we must believe with the heart and confesse with the mouth to Salvation 4. Baptisme presupposeth the Covenant but the Covenant as I have often said engages to believing 5. None can be exempted from believing but they are withall exempted from repentance but unbaptised persons are to repent Act. 17.30 6. Faith in Christ hath been actually required of the unbaptized Act. 16.30 And therefore it is marvell that when Mr. Br. judgeth me to be overtaken in this folly he would spend so much time with me or so many words upon me transgressing the wise mans advice Prov. 26.4 Answer not a fool according to his folly When he thought I had no more wit than to think that no man is bound to accept Christ for justification before he be baptized I marvel that he would set his wit to mine But what is it that I have said to induce him to think that I am in that opinion I have said The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite in Baptisme and can any man imagine that I meant any more than that it is not required to the being of Baptisme Can any man think that I ever meant that it is not required of the person that is for Baptisme till after he be baptized and have I not in the next page cleared mine own meaning where I say that there is no necessity that justifying faith go before but a necessity that it must follow after Baptisme further explaining my self It is true that in men of years justifying faith sometimes goes before Baptisme as in Abraham it went before Circumcision but it is not of necessity required to interest us into a rite either of baptisme or Circumcision and doubtlesse I never thought that either Abraham or any other was justified by that work that was never required at their hand I say justifying faith or grace in the truth of it is no prerequisite in marriage and I further say that a Minister in times past might and a Magistrate at this time may lawfully marry persons void of justifying faith or grace and yet he is no better than a gracelesse man that thinks that persons unmarried are not tyed to faith and godlinesse Grace is no prerequisite to buying and selling A bargain of sail stands firm though there be no grace in them that make the bargain Men without grace may go to Kidderminster to buy hangings and curtains and those of that place may lawfully trade with them and yet both parties are before hand bound to grace and godlinesse But though my assertion is clear enough yet some may say my similitude darkens it I say No servant is tyed to do his work before he hath received his earnest no Souldier to fight before he be listed The Authors meaning in some mistaken expressions cleared or hath given in his name To this I say If my expressions which I thought were clear well knowing my own meaning yet to others seemed dark no candid man would draw them further then the proposition which my argument was brought to confirm which is That a faith dogmaticall or as I explain it a faith short of justifying entitles to Baptisme In my similitude I looked at the resemblance that is between a Souldiers listing a servants entertainment into his Masters service and a Christians Baptisme And as a Souldier is not bound in order to listing first to fight nor a servant in order to his entertainment first to work so a Christian is not bound in order to Baptisme first to believe to justification And thus I fully explained my self in the next page but one That faith which is the condition of the promise is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seales and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed To promise service and fidelity in warre is enough to get listed as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded So that any Reader I think might clearly have seen and I hope now will more fully understand my meaning Having taken notice of Mr. Baxters great mistake and upon it his injurious charge I think it most meet in this place to take notice of another though under another head that so at once I may vindicate my self from things of this nature I say in my Treatise of the Covenant chap. 16. pag. 111. Sincerity is said to be the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant To this Mr. Baxter is pleased to reply When I first read these words which you write in a different character and father on me I was ashamed of my nonsense for they are no better but it came not into my thoughts once to suspect a forgery in your charge Farre was I from imagining that so reverend pious and dear a friend would tell the world in print that I said that which never came into my thoughts and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine that I never wrote After many other words added If when we are dead men should read Mr. Bl. book that never read mine and there see it written that I said sincerity is the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant can any man blame them to believe it and report of me as from him and say what shall I not believe such and such a man that reports it in expresse words Can any man now think but that I father this upon him Mr. Baxter not injured by the Author as he is injuriously charged and that I report it to the world in print in
expresse words that he hath said it will it not be said on Mr. Baxters credit that I said it and wrong'd him in it But I desire the Reader to peruse the whole Chapter and in case he find not Mr. Baxters name there at all then he must needs conclude that this was spoken at least improvidè et inconsultè and some testimony of humane frailty given in it I recite indeed some passages of Mr. Baxters in that Chapter without his name being unwilling indeed to make it known that he was in any such opinion or that he had laid any such charge of intolerable ignorance upon learned Divines as there he does But of this he hath heard enough already from other hands How can he tell that I mean him in those passages seeing I never named him but that the words are his And when these words now in question produc'd at a good distance from the other are none of his who can say that I meant him much lesse can they say that I have expressely charged them uppon him If they be in any odde corner of his book as he saies he knows not but that they may be he then may be yet charged with them and therefore injuriously complains of any injurious charge upon him But to return to what we have in hand Though in Mr. Baxters five first Reasons there is much very well worth animadversion yet seeng there is nothing but that which hath either already been spoken to or else that tends to the overthrow of that senselesse sottish tenent which I professe to abhorre I shall passe them by For his additionall 26. Arguments which he sets I know not for what reason at a great distance from the rest the greatest part of them are brought and mightily fortified to beat down that which I think never any but himselfe set up I think his misconceit first hatch't it and I am well content to stand by and see him murder it For so many of them as look at all in opposition to any thing that I hold I shall take them into consideration His two first arguments drawn from Authority Arguments bowrrowed from humane authority examined the first of the Assembly of Divines and others of a number of Fathers are brought to prove that the profession of a justifying faith is required to baptisme and what is that to me who never denyed it but in plain words have often affirmed it It is sufficiently implyed where I require a dogmatical faith to Baptisme A dogmatical faith assents to that of Apollos Jesus is the Christ and when I say that this entitles I cannot mean concealed or denyed but openly professed If I say that a man hath six pence in his purse may dine at such an ordinary I do not mean with six pance concealed or denyed but produced and payed Have I not both the words professing and profession both in the margent and in the Index seeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me to declare my self further in this thing I do believe and professe to hold that he that upon hearing the Gospell preacht and the truth of it published and opened shall professedly abjure all other opposite waies whatsoever and choose the Christian way for salvation promising to follow the rules of it is to be baptized and his seed and that upon a right not onely coram Ecclesia but coram Deo It being the mind of God that such should be admitted The authority of reverend Mr. Gataker against Dr. Ward is onely worthy enquiring into citing Luther Calvin Bucer Whitaker as Mr. Baxter observes But Mr. Gataker himself understands not as he saies what Dr. Ward means by the initial faith and repentance which in the judgement of the Apostles gave right to those that desired baptisme and upon that account I cannot directly tell what that is that Mr. Gataker opposeth The authorities quoted by him reach not the thing that we contend about Luther saies He meaning Philip will not baptize him unlesse he beleeve I say the same Neither Simon Magus nor any of the Samaritans men or women could have baptisme before they believed Calvin saies He had not baptized him without true faith which is doubtlesse to be understood of fides quam not quâ credimus as appears in his words before There is no doubt but Ananias had first faithfully instructed Paul in the principles of godlinesse A beliefe of such principles then Calvin meanes Bucer speakes onely of profession of faith and requiring of men to believe Neither is there any thing in Whitakers testimony that comes up to our purpose For Mr. Marshalls Sermon of unity that is added I have it not and there is nothing quoted out of it Whereas it is said that an hundred might easily and truly be cited to this purpose I say if it be but to this purpose it is not to our present purpose If they be brought to prove that justifying faith is required of men before baptisme they may well prove that but as I have said so I do say I think never man denyed it Dr. Ward I believe never opposed it If they be brought to prove that no faith that is short of that which is justifying gives title to baptisme and speak no more than those already quoted they speak not home to the purpose And in case there be any that have said that Baptisme still presupposeth regeneration and that we baptize infants or men of age onely upon this supposition as regenerate As Mr. Baxter Append. pag. 71. saies that Learned Divines have given Papists great advantage in mistaking the nature of justifying Faith thinking that it consists in a belief of the pardon of my own sins So I may say that those whosoever they are that have confounded Covenant-holinesse with that of regeneration and inherent sanctification have given as great advantage to others yea to the Papists themselves And as the former doctrine ha's perplexed many a weak soul being not able to make good their assurance they conclude thereupon their want of Faith so these as much perplex the consciences of those that administer this Ordinance which I had rather expresse in Mr. Baxters words then mine own Append pag. 70 71. No Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man but to himself because he can be certain of no mans justification being not certain of the sincerity of their faith And if he should adventure to administer upon probabilities or charitable conjectures then should he be guilty of profaning the Ordinance and every time he mistaketh he should set the seal of God to a lye And who then durst ever administer a Sacrament being never certain but that he shall thus abuse it adding further I confesse ingenuously to you that it was the ignorance of this one point which chiefly caused me to abstain from administring the Lords Supper for so many years And I confesse as ingenuously that in case he can work me to his opinion I stand resolved for present
plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jewes as appeares Deut. 4.7 Psal 147.19 20. 148.14 Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Admission to this nearer relation Arg. 3 3. Those that God ordinarily calls his People and ownes as his openly avouching himself to be their God have right in the sight of God to the Signs and Cognisance of his people and are to have admission into the Society and fellowship of his people This is plain If God in Covenant will own Servants then his stewards may open the door to them if he will own sheep his servants doubtlesse may mark them But God owns all in visible Communion though short of faith that is justifying as his people and openly avouches himself to be their God as in abundant places of Scripture is evident see Deut. 26.18 these have therefore right to the signs and Cognisances of his people to admission into the society and fellowship of his people Arg. 4 4. Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision they had right in Gods sight to Circumcision and those of like condition have like right to Baptisme This I think is clear The Spirit of God doth not misname doth not nickname nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names But men short of justifying faith are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision as needs no proof Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 and he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Those then of a faith short of that which is justifying have right in the sight of God to Baptisme Arg. 5 5. Those that are the servants of God whom God owns as his servants have right in his sight to be received into his house and to be entitled to the priviledges of his Church This we think should not be denyed and that God will take it ill if any shall deny it But men short of that faith which justifies are owned of God as his servants as is clear Levit. 25.41 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the children of Israel and his children are called of God his servants and that as Israelites of which a great part were void of that faith which justifies Therefore those that are short of faith which justifies have right in the sight of God to be thus received This argument me thinks might be of force with Mr. Baxter when he had urged it for proof that infants are servants and ought to be baptized he adds pag. 18. Is not here then direction enough to help us to judge of the mind of God whether infants are his Disciples and servants or no Doth not God call them his servants himself What more should a man expect to warrant him to do so Men call for plain Scripture and when they have it they will not receive it so hard it is to informe a forestalled mind If God took such care upon that account that they should not be held in bondage under any of his people he takes like care that they should not be kept from the society of his people 6. Those that bring forth children to God have a right in Arg. 6 the sight of God to be of his houshold and to be taken into it This is plain especially to those that know the law of servants in families that all their children in right were the Masters and had their relation to him But those that are short of justifying faith bring forth children to God Ezek. 16.20 21. 7. Children of the Kingdom of God or those that are subjects Arg. 7 of his Kingdom have right in the sight of God to be received into his Kingdom This Proposition Mr. Br. hath proved pag. 21. therefore I may save my pains But those that are short of faith that justifies are children or subjects of this Kingdom Matth. 8.12 The children of the Kingdom shall be cast out into outer darknesse Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to be thus received 8. The children of the Covenant have right in the sight of Arg. 8 God to the seal of the Covenant This is evident the seal is an affix to the Covenant where a Covenant is made and a seal appointed there it is not of right to be denyed But those that are short of faith that justifies are the children of the Covenant Act. 3.25 The Apostle speaking to the people of the Jewes saith Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers 9. Disciples of Christ have right in the sight of God to Baptisme Arg. 9 as appears in Christs Commission Matth. 28.19 But many are Disciples of Christ that are short of a faith that justifies Therefore those that are short of faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptisme If all that I have said pag. 208. of the Treatise of the Covenant to prove this assumption be too weak as I think it is not Mr. Brs. proof pag. 21. of his Treatise hath sure strength sufficient there he proves that infants are Disciples because they are subjects of Christs Kingdom and what Kingdom he means he there explaines himself I speak not here saith he of his Kingdom in the largest sense as it containeth all the world nor yet in the strictest as it containeth only his Elect But in the middle sense as it containeth the Church visible as it is most commonly used And therefore by the way not aequivocally used Those then of this middle posture non-Elect are Disciples Arg. 10 10. Christians have right in the sight of God to Baptisme This is Mr. Brs. proposition in the page before quoted and in reason is plain Christians must not be kept out of Christian fellowship This is Mr. Baxters likewise in the place quoted he makes Disciples Christians and subjects of Christs visible Kingdom to be one and the same Therefore those that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Baptisme If he object that that particle in the sight of God is an addition they have no such right being but aequivocal Christians yet as is the Christian with him so is the Church or Kingdom as aequivocal Christians they may have right to an aequivocal Church or Kingdom Arg. 11 11. All that ought to be admitted visible Church members ought to be admitted in the right of God to Baptisme This none can question unlesse they charge it as Tautological and it is Mr. Brs. pag. 23. and the medium of that argument which he makes the chief of all he useth But those that are short of justifying faith are members of the Church visible Ergo those that are short of justifying faith are to be admitted to Baptisme The assumption is his likewise where he distinguisheth the visible Kingdom from the Elect and no man can deny it that grants the
and the bruised reed broke There have not been a few hungry sad souls that I have known that have born the terror of the Lord separate themselves for this reason But it will be replyed by those that give this warning that they mean not these they are not at all intended in their speech these they would tender and with all endeared affection of love encourage as those that have most need and are most fit to receive food for their strength But all of this helps not when this Proposition is laid down That no man in whom justifying faith and a new life by the Spirit is not wrought may dare otherwise then on the peril of his soul to draw nigh hither will not such a soul necessarily assume A new life through the Spirit is not wrought in my soul I am conscious to my self that I am carnal whatsoever endeavours I have used to believe yet how far am I from faith in strength and truth I find my self all over doubts and fears and plunged in unbelief And though I have made it my businesse to keep off from sin yet how far am I from a true change by repentance I find my heart hard obdurate even as an adamant yea the poor deserted soul will take to it self the state of Cain the condition of Judas If there be any other high in wickednesse they have matched yea they have exceeded them They are to put it to the question whether they are in grace or no whether they have a new life wrought or as yet are short of it This they must either determine in the affirmative that they are in grace at least there are those hopeful signs in present that they cannot but conclude it and then they safely may come upon sight of this they may with cheerfulnesse make their addresse or else they must carrie it in the negative all that is yet wrought is not life is not grace is not faith in its power is not repentance in truth as they can do no other that walk in darknesse and see no light that say God hath forgotten to be gracious and so they must keep off from the Ordinance and debar themselves from those cordials those apples those flagons that are there tendered and sick of love yet dare not intermeddle with the Lords tokens that are tendered to them or in the third place suspend and so sit down in doubtful fears whether they have grace or no and then that of the Apostle Rom. 14.23 He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin will soon come into their thoughts and so all that are short of fulnesse of assurance must in dreadful horror separate themselves Secondly This Sacrament in that it is a Sacrament hath the name and nature of a seal as we see in the text and God willing shall be shewn a visible seal intrusted in the hands of man and therefore must needs be of a more different latitude and large extent then that seal which God reserves in his own keeping the seal of the Spirit The Lord knowes them that are his 2 Tim. 2.19 But man is to seek who are the Lords God knowes how to put to his seal to his own man who hath not this knowledg must needs be here allowed a greater latitude either men entrusted with it must have the knowledge of God as to this particular who they are in whom a new life is and grace wrought or else they must be allowed a greater latitude to take in men that make profession of God and as members in Church-Communion may be edified by it I know this argument is carried another way and that we conclude the contrary upon a double account 1. These seales of God outward and inward should answer each to other Those that have the outward seal they are to have the inward those that take into their hand the seal of the Sacrament should have the impresse of the Spirit on their soules To which I answer That the writing of the Word with Inke and Paper in the Bible and the writing in the heart by the Spirit should answer each the other that is every Christian should make it his businesse to hide that Word in his heart that by the Ministery sounds in his ears and yet Christians are not warned not to take a Bible into their hands till the impresse of that which is there is put on their hearts The Word is delivered in a greater latitude and so also must the Sacrament 2. Some say this Sacrament seales Gospel-promises onely they therefore that can claime the promise and have their interest in it can claime the seal otherwise the seal is put to a blank there is a seal where there is no Covenant-promise 1. I answer this argument thus carried speaks sadly to the hearts of all dispensers of the Sacraments they must see there is a Covenant-promise or else they must not dare to put to a seal To put any mans seal to a blank paper where nothing is written is a vain use of that seal It stands there as a cypher Now to put Gods seal to a blank where nothing is written doubtlesse is as vain and an high taking of Gods Name in vain according to these the Covenant is written in non-legible and invisible characters This inward work is that white stone with a new name written which no man knoweth save he that receives it Revel 2.17 and so the dispensers too often against convictions of conscience allwayes at hap-hazard must deliver them any thing written or not written whether a blank or filled up they cannot tells but are all at uncertainties 2. I answer as is the seal so is the Covenant both of them external and one must answer to the other Now these in question as hath been demonstrated at large are in Covenant An outward Covenant is by few questioned and so the seal is put to no blank but given to one interested in Covenant It seals the grace of the Covenant and mercy tendred in the promise on Gods termes and propositions So that the different latitude of the seal of the Spirit and of the seal of the Sacrament do conclude that men of no more then visible Church-interest may partake of it 3. The Church de facto hath injoyed it in this latitude not to instance in some ages following the times of the Apostles in which the Pastors called all their people to daily Sacraments and the use of it in Austins time when wicked ones in the Church were so numerous that they durst not deal with Church-censures but look into the Scripture though we are kept much in the dark concerning their practice little mention being made of the administration after the institution yet we know that this Sacrament was the priviledge of visible members then in being and it is clear enough how far many even then were short of sincerity If that of 1 Cor. 11. be
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
received If any such be detected seeing though the substance of religion be not in the Sacrament so much as in the Covenant yet a man of so low an opinion of this ordinance of necessity debarres himself of any benefit of it a diffident opinion of a medicine or conceit against it is said to hinder the working I am sure it will obstruct the working of the Sacraments which have no innate physical vertue nor any other efficacy further then our understanding and faith makes improvement For errors against Christ the summe and substance of the Sacraments as every error is some way against him who is the foundation and carries on the whole work of our salvation that which I have delivered Treatise of the Covenant pag. 232. where I made it my businesse to give rules concerning separation when we are to stay with a Church and when to leave it may here be taken into consideration weighing both the kind and degree of these errors and the place that they have got in the affections and resolutions Those errors that necessitate us to leave a Church when it is in the whole face of it tainted and polluted may justly give occasion to deny a member accesse in case he tender himself to this ordinance These as hath been said are either such that render Christ in an uncapacity to be our Mediator and Saviour or such that are inconsistent in whole or in part with his Mediatourship of the former kind are those that are against his person 1. Those that impugne the Godhead of Christ such that though they give him the glory to be above Angels yet will have him to be no more then a creature a God in title and place as are Magistrates not in nature or power an opinion that involves the Apostolique Church and all Churches in succession in Idolatry giving the honour of God the worship due to God unto him who by nature is no God a doctrine that will make Christ an impotent and not an omnipotent head too weak for his work to governe the world to bring under his enemies 2. Those that deny his manhood as having not taken our flesh and so no suitable head but a phantastique or seeming body Those that are against his Mediatorship are either such that obscure or some way eclipse it as every error doth that is any way considerable or such that rase if not utterly overthrow it in some of the necessary parts of it his Kingdome Priesthood or Prophetical office These are overthrown either directly in termes of full opposition or else by consequence and this either is immediate and evident the truth being confest they cannot be denyed or else the consequence more remote and not so easily discerned These things being premised we must bring it home to our purpose 1. Where fundamental truths are not onely questioned doubted and disputed but abjured and denyed errors directly Errors directly against the foundation or by clear consequence opposing fundamental truths tender the peâson uncapable of benefit by the Sacrament or by immediate cleer consequence introduced so that the fundamental truth cannot be known but the error must be seen Here is such a flaw in the Covenant that no improvement can be made of the seal to allude to that of the Psalmist Foundations are destroyed and what can the stewards of the mysteries of God do Such a soul hath framed to it self such a Christ as the Gospel never held out for his salvation These are such of whom the Apostle speaks Col. 2.19 that hold not the head from which all the body by joynts and hands having nourishment ministred and knit together increaseth with the increase of God and how can they then find any spiritual nourishment When they thus withdraw from Christ they are justly denyed to sit at his Table But when the error is of an inferiour nature as neither rendring Christ in an incapacity to be a Saviour nor yet wholly inconsistent with the work of his Mediatorship or at least not such directly but only by way of consequence and that not immediate and evident but more obscure and remote so that it may justly be hoped that in case the consequence were seen the conclusion that they draw would be best rather then the principle of truth denyed the case is then otherwise As we might live in such a Church in case doctrine of that kind were received and taught so we may not refuse such a member making his farther conviction our businesse where ignorance may stand with grace there errour is not wholly inconsistent with it And where there is any fair possibility that Christ may be there this Ordinance is not to be denyed And in case the opinion entertained and contended for be yet more soul so that we have just cause as the Apostle of the Galatians to say that their doctrine is inconsistent with grace yet being not as we can discern fixedly settled and resolutely received and concluded upon but with hesitancy and wavering their faith rather staggered then destroyed these should not hastily be refused But as the Apostle gives counsel respective as I take it to private converse After once or twice admonition reject so let it be here make essay to regain a brother rather then lose him It cannot be conceived that the Apostle when he wrote his Epistle to the Churches of Galatia would upon the account of their error how dangerous soever have discontinued this ordinance as long as he saw any hopes of their reestablishment though they were in eminent danger to be dischurched yet he would continue Church-ordinances Men of a resolved profligate course of life are uncapable of benefit by the Sacrament As for those that put a bar to their benefiting by the Sacrament by their vicious life or profligate course most mens verdict is soonest of all other against them with the Poets Peribomius Morbum gressu incessuque fatentur they have their faults written in their foreheads And certain it is that those men that are in their sin and resolved for sin in present can receive no benefit by the Sacrament First They that look upon Christ to receive benefit in the Sacrament look upon him pierced by their sins and that withall sorrow and grief of spirit The greatest grief in Family or Common-Wealth is borrowed to expresse it Zach. 12.10 11. They shall mourne for him as one mourneth for his onely son and shall be in bitternesse for him as one that in bitternesse for his first-born In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of Had adrimmon in the valley of Megiddon VVhich was the mourning upon occasion of Josiah's slaughter 2 Chron. 35.24 But these now look upon him suffering for sins with all pleasurable delights and content in sin they see him under all this burden for our trangression and in the mean time take delight to add to the weight of it and so stand at the greatest distance from
are not so inviolably joyned but that the work is done though unduly by him that is not called to it yet though the validity of the work be asserted the disorder must be opposed Entring upon Aarons work and never called of God as Aaron was with Vzziah officiating in that work that appertains not to him leaving scruples in the thoughts of those to whom in this disorder they have administred these ordinances This the Church hath never suffered save onely tha Papists and Lutherans dispense with Baptisme in case of necessity putting so much weight upon it and placing such efficacy in it which the Church of England also suffered after the reformation till King James his dayes and then as appears in the conference at Hampton-Court it was reformed Dr. Abbot in his Lectures read while it stood in power appeared publickly against it and as I remember for the book is not in my hands affirmed that zealous Ministers then generally did distaste and decry it The Midwife was usually employed in the work as nearest at hand to cast water upon the infant ready to dye in her armes though in no capacity of that function by reason of her sex and though the sex might have born it she was never called to it But they must first make that good that all perish without Baptisme or that the act of Baptisme assures us of salvation before they can justifie this practice Protestant Writers with irrefragable arguments opposing it produce as a dispensation from God for the breach of an order by him set up otherwise we shall conclude that from the time of the said conference it hath justly been put into the hands of the lawful Minister and notwithstanding Mr. Tombes his quibble it was upon just grounds concluded by the late Assembly in their confession of faith Chapter 27. Sect. 4. SECT XVIII A further Corollary from the former doctrine All that are interested in Sacraments must come up to the termes of the Covenant IT further followes that all those that interest themselves in Sacraments expecting benefit by Baptisme and comfort at the Lords Table must come up to the tearms of the Covenant They receive them as signes and badges of a people in Covenant with God They receive them as seals of the Covenant God puts to his seal to be a God in Covenant In their acception they engage as by seal to be his people in Covenant The obligation now is mutual in case man fail on his part God is disobliged If any tye be upon him it is to inflict the just merit of breach of Govenant upon them I have spoken to the necessity that lyes upon the Ministers of Christ to bring their people up to the termes and Propositions of it Treatise of the Covenant chap. 20 21. Here I speak to it onely as the interest in the Sacraments tyes to it And this obligation hath all force and strength in it When God entred Covenant with man in his integrity upon condition of perfect and compleat obedience and gave him as we have heard Sacraments for the ratification and confirmation of it when man failing in obedience and falling short of the duty of the Covenant those Sacraments were of no avail notwithstanding the tree of life man dyed and notwithstanding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man became brutish in his own knowledge It fares no better with those that are under a Covenant of grace and live and persist in breach of Covenant we see the heavy curse that God pronounceth against them Jer. 11.3 4. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this Covenant which I commanded your Fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the Land of Egypt from the iron Furnace saying Obey my voyce and do them according to all which I Command so shall ye be my people and I will be your God And to this Jeremy adds his Amen or So be it O Lord which assent of his though it may be referred to the Prophets duty in obedience of Gods Command when he had said to him ver 2 3. Speak to the men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem and say unto them Thus saith the Lord Cursed be every man that obeyeth not c. The Prophet in these words says What thou hast enjoyn'd me I will do it and so Junius and Tremelius understand it or to the Prpphets earnest desire to have the promise fulfilled which the Lord utters in the close of his speech ver 5. That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers to give them a Land flowing with milk and honey as it is this day To which the Prophet answers So Lord let it be that this people being careful to keep Covenant with thee may still enjoy that land which thou didst by oath bind thy self to settle them in as the last larger Annotations understand it or to Jeremies answer in the name of the people binding themselves to obedience as Diodati understands it yet doubtlesse it also comprizeth the Prophets acknowledgement of the equity that the curse should fall on those that obey not the words of the Covenant The Amen is of that latitude that it comprizeth the whole that goes before of the Prophets duty his desire the peoples obligation and the equity of the curse that lyes upon disobedience As the Sacraments in Paradise could be no protection to man in sin so the Sacraments under the present Covenant whether in the old dispensation of it in the dayes of the Fathers or new dispensation of it in Gospel-times can be no protection of those that lye in unbelief and impenitence Let not an unbeliever let not an impenitent person think to find shelter here as the Jewes did think to find in the Temple and say They are delivered to do these abominations Priviledge of Sacraments can help Christians no more then birth-priviledge could the Jewes who are checkt by John Baptist for making it a plea to this purpose and called to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance and amendment of life Matth. 3. I do not say that unlesse you are assured that you do believe to justification and repent in sincerity and unfeignednesse that you must not come to the Lords Table I have declared my self to the contrary but I say you must make it your businesse to believe your work to repent in truth and sincerity or else you shall never find here acceptation The Covenant of works was for mans preservation in life and Adam could have help towards immortality in the tree of life no longer then he made it his businesse to keep up to that which the Covenant required The Covenant of grace is for mans restitution to life none under this Covenant can find any help towards life in any Sacraments annext to it otherwise then in keeping up faith and repentance which are the termes and conditions of it Which way doest thou expect
adds The like figure whereunto Baptisme doth now save us by the resurrection of Christ The Arke did save those that entered into it Baptisme doth save those that are received into the Church by it And whereas an objection is obvious that Noahs Arke and New-Testament Baptisme doth much differ and that in the very thing in which the similitude is brought few entered the Arke and were saved by it but myriads of thousands are baptized This the Apostle answers in the Parenthesis there interposed that the parallel lies not between the Arke and the outward act of Baptisme as by man administred and there called the putting away the filth of the flesh so there is a vast disproportion the outward act as administred by man saves not but between the Arke and the inward work which is The answer of a good conscience towards God That of Tertullian which Beza sayes may serve as a Comment upon these words is elegant The soul is established by answering and not by washing And further to clear this text we must know that the Covenant hath a Proposition in it to which all in Covenant must give assent He that believes and repents shall be saved This assent is presupposed in all those that make actual improvement of the Sacraments Faith and Repentance being the terms of the Covenant And this Divines in their Treatises of Conscience call ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Now in case we have the benefit of salvation by Sacraments conscience must answer and a good conscience onely can answer But I believe I repent This Divines call ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Then and not otherwise Sacraments save Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25 hath these words Here I think the observation is easie out of the body of the text that the work done in Sacraments availes not to righteousnesse or salvation except the condition of the Covenant be performed by those that partake them first the condition then the Antithesis shewes it if thou be a breaker of the Law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision that is all one to thee as if thou hadst never been circumcised yea a gentile wanting the Sacrament having obedience is nearer heaven then thou that hast the Sacrament and neglectest obedience and weigh well that the Lord in promising or sealing binds not himself to performance but conditionally that we perform our restipulation and whence Sacraments should have their efficacy but from the promise and grace of God I see not Circumcision in the flesh engaged the receivers to circumcision in the heart Deut. 10.16 where these did concurre there was a man in Covenant and upright in Covenant And Jer. 9.25 wrath is denounced of God against several Nations and the circumcised and the uncircumcised in the threat are put in equipage together equally and alike to suffer And to take off all scruple or offence that might be taken there is a distinction brought of Circumcision in the flesh and Circumcision in heart Judah had Circumcision in the flesh to plead but remained uncircumcised in heart and therefore fares no better then those that were uncircumcised in flesh Jer. 4.4 The Prophet commands Circumcise your selves to the Lord and take away the foreskin of your heart ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem lest my fury come forth like fire and burn that none can quench it because of the evil of your doings On these terms the fury of the Lord is prevented Those Israelites that passed out of Egypt into the wildernesse for Canaan had the Cloud and the Sea of the same use as Baptisme And Manna and the Rock of the same use as the Lords Supper The two former are called by the name of Baptisme and the two latter Spiritual meat Spiritual drink All were baptized in the one and all did eat and drink of the other yet sayes the text with many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the wildernesse If you would know who suffered thus under Gods displeasure the text tells you Lusters after evil things v. 6. Idolaters v. 7. Fornicators v. 8. Tempters of Christ v. 9. Murmurers v. 10. And Heb. 3.17 The Apostle demanding But with whom was God grieued fourty years answers Was it not with them which had sinned whose carcases fell in the wilderness Further demanding to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest but to them that believed not These wanting the answer of a good conscience fell short of the Sacramental engagements and also came short of true happinesse Arguments evincing it 1. This might be further evinced with arguments 1. In this case where the soul answers not to Sacramental engagements Sacraments are but as outward shadowes and bare empty signs and set out by the Spirit of God in Scripture with all their Rites and Ceremonies as other Ordinances of like nature in the most low despicable and undervaluing words that is possible Baptisme in the letter is no better with the Apostle then putting away the filth of the flesh the cleansing of the hands the feet or face from dirt or filth is the same with it The Pharisees washing of hands yea their washing of cups platters as low as it is laid by our Saviour was as efficacious and as acceptable Circumcision also when it led not to but from Christ is called by the Apostle by the name of Concision Phil. 3.2 Any gash made in the flesh or rent in the garment as well pleaseth The Apostle therefore Rom. 2.25 saith Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law but if thou be a breaker of the Law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision If you understand the Apostle speaking the sense of the carnal Jewes with whom he had to deal then you must understand the keeping of the Law in its full perfection for to this Circumcision lookt upon as a leading Law-Ceremony did engage He that is circumcised is a debtor to the while Law if we understand him speaking of it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith then sincerity is intended If this be wanting Circumcision is uncircumcision where that of the heart is there Circumcision in Gods account is and where it is not there Circumcision is not Rom. 2.28 29. We are the Circumcision saith the Apostle that worship God in Spirit and truth when the cutting of the foreskin in those false teachers was no better then Concision the worship of God in Spirit in whomsoever it was was Circumcision Arg. 1 2. Sacraments in this case are onely aggravations of sin and heightning of judgements In case of uncircumcision in the time of the Law and Non-baptisme in these times sins were no more then transgressions of the Law but now they are breaches of Covenant Then they would have been meerly rebellion against Soveraignty but now they are Apostasie and treacherie In Sacraments we close with God and take his Name upon us as his servants in sin we depart from him and refuse to serve him Thus our bond
sets himself professedly against this use of Sacraments and will not have them to serve by way of seal for confirmation of our faith in particular And this he endeavours with five several Arguments SECT II. Objections against the former doctrine 1. IF Sacraments confirm our faith by way of seal or after the Object 1 manner of miracles then Sacraments must be better known and more efficacious to perswade to Faith than the Word But nothing can be more efficacious for perswasion than the Word of God and experience tells us that words are better understood than dumb signes and Sacraments compared to the Word are as dumb signes Answ 1. The assumption here should have been Nohting is Answ 1 either more easily known or more eminently efficacious than the Word But the former is left out lest it should give check to their doctrine of obscurity of Scriptures and instead of making the Word easily intelligible he contents himself to say that it is more intelligible than nods or dumb shews when yet dumb signs or such nods are better known and more easily understood as we have experience sufficient than the Word of God or any other word whatsoever in an unknown language 2. If this Argument be of force then nothing else in the Answ 2 world but the bare Word of promise revealed in Scripture is any way serviceable for more full assurance of the thing given in promise Not onely Gideons Ezekiah's and Ahaz his signs but the oath also made to Abraham was superfluous All these had the Word of God and unlesse the signs given them and the oath made to them were more efficacious then the Word which as he sayes nothing is according to him they are all superfluous 3. Comparison is not to be made between the Word and Answ 3 Sacraments whether of those considered apart is more efficacious Then the preheminence is to be given to the Word as Bellarmine sayes Luther acknowledgeth but enquiry is to be made whether the Word together with Sacraments annext to it be not more efficacious by reason of our weaknesse and inclinations to diffidence than the Word without any such visible ratification Nothing can be more firm than the promise of God seeing God cannot lye Tit. 1.2 His Oath is no more valid then his Word yet God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heires of promise the immutability of his counsel confirm'd it by an oath That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lye we might have strong consolation Object 2 2. The nature of Sacraments cannot any where be better understood than from his words that is the authour of them But in the Holy Scriptures they are no where called seales of Promises but instruments of Justification Ergo. Answ 1 Answ 1. If this Proposition stand then some at least of the Sacraments of Rome and most of their Sacramentals must fall seeing by Thomas Aquinas his acknowledgment they are not to be found in Scriptures Answ 2 2. There is nothing more false then this assumption as abundantly hath been declared and the Text in hand is a sufficient witnesse Object 3 3. If Sacraments be onely seales of the promise of grace then either they are superfluous or else of very slender use and benefit for we have more Testimonies far more efficacious Good works are better signes and testimonies of righteousnesse obtained then washing with water or taking of the Eucharist which may be received Hypocritically Answ 1 Answ 1. If this Argument be of any force then wheresoever there is one witnesse to speak in any cause all the other are vain and superfluous and so that of the Apostle will fall to the ground At the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established Answ 2 2. It is well that works are made a witnesse of assurance then this way at least assurance may be had which he and his party are wont to deny Answ 3 3. Works are not Testimonies instituted of God for this end as Amesius observes but of their own nature they evidence our fitnesse for glory and as fruits of our faith as Whitaker speaks And those which Bellarmine uses to make the best of works Almes Fasting and Prayer may be hypocritically performed likewise Answ 4 4. This witnesse or seal of Sacraments is not a distinct witnesse or seal from that which the Jesuit here produces but stands in co-ordination with it or rather in subordination to it It is upon the answer of a good conscience not otherwise that Sacraments give this witnesse 4. If Sacraments seal by way of particular application for support Object 4 Faith then it is in vain to baptize Infants But Lutherans are wholly for Infant-baptisme Ans 1. We may learn of Bellarmine that Protestants at least Answ 1 think that this doctrine and Infant-baptisme will well stand together 2. The Apostle was certainly able to have given a satisfying Answ 2 answer to this Objection seeing he tells us that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith and yet himself was circumcised the eighth day Phil. 3.5 It is of equal strength against Infant-circumcision as against baptisme 5. If Sacraments be seales of grace which in particular is conferred Object 5 upon any then oftentimes they are false viz. when the Sacrament is given to a man who pretends to believe and indeed doth not believe and so it were unlawful to baptize any lest we should cause God to give witnesse to a lye for we certainly know of none whether they believe truly or onely pretend it Ans Our Adversary here prevents us Answ and puts an answer into our mouthes Perhaps saith he they will say That the Sacrament is a seal or testimony of grace not absolutely but if he that doth receive the Sacrament do believe the promise And this indeed is their Answer as out of Amesius Whitaker Vorstius Pareus Dr. Reynolds Mr. Rutherford I have shewn to which may be added that full Testimony out of Dr. Slater before mentioned As for those that will have the Covenant to be absolute and the seales to be put without any respect had to any condition against the full stream of Protestant Writers I shall desire them to help us to any other satisfying answer to this Argument I must confesse that in case I be once convinced that the work of Sacraments is to ratifie Gods promise in an absolute way as the Rainbowe do's that God will no more destroy the World by water without respect had to any condition at all And that a seal is put to a blank in case any unregenerate person be baptized or admitted to the Lords Table I must either be holpen with further light than I can yet see or else I think I shall never more adventure upon Baptisme or the Lords Supper And Bellarmine supposing that this will be our answer can bring nothing more to avoid ãâã then two speeches of Luther and one of Melancton nothing at all to
such as we have heard 2. Sacraments are engaging signs with restipulation these are absolute nothing at all being called for from man much lesse from other creatures 3. The Covenant people of God are the adequate subject of Sacraments but here the whole world of mankind and all flesh is entitled 4. This is onely to be seen as it is set of God in the Cloud but Sacraments are to be received upon tender from God and not onely beheld 5. Sacraments are seales of the righteousnesse of faith appointed for ratification of spirituall and saving mercies but this is onely a ratification of a temporal deliverance As to this last dissimilitude perhaps some exceptions might be taken As the Rainbowe was immediately a signe and seal of a temporal mercy so it was with the Passeover in like manner The freedome of Israel in Egypt when the first born were destroyed seems to have no more spirituality in it then our security from a deluge And in case we make that of Egypt a type of a further deliverance in Christ so we may make this deliverance a figure of like mercy and so Zanchy indeed makes it And the last Annotations hint such a thing Though this Rainbowe say they be a sign of a temporal Covenant in the general extent of it to all creatures yet the Godly may look upon it with reference to Christ in whom all promises of what sort soever are Yea and Amen and who is represented sitting in his throne compassed with a Rainbowe in light like unto an Emerald Rev. 4.3 And in case this sign had been peculiar to the Church as was that deliverance in Egypt and given of God onely to his people in Covenant and in New Testament-Scriptures so applyed as that of the Passeover is it had been unquestionable but being common to the world all creatures in the world having like interest in it and there being no touch of it in New Testament-Scriptures it cannot be so conceived Onely we may safely yield thus much that as the godly may see a son-like title to every common mercy in Christ and not barely as they are to others a commmon providence and largesse so they may see the Rainbowe shadowing out a like mercy but in case this would conclude it to be a Sacrament every creature enjoyed by a Child of God would have the nature of a Sacrament likewise SECT III. Sacrifices not Sacraments THe next Old Testament-ordinances that offer themselves as of the nature of Sacraments are sacrifices These being of several kinds are usually ranked under four heads The Burnt-offering The Sin-offering The Trespasse-offering and the peace-offering Some of which also admit of several subdivisions Other distributions of them are also made by some under other notions which would be besides my purpose particularly to mention There is much agreeable to the nature of Sacraments in them 1. They had their institution from God as we may see in the Levitical Law and so had all sacrifices that from the beginning the people of God did offer By Faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice then Cain Heb. 11.4 And nothing can be done in faith without warranty of a Divine prescript 2. These were given in command of God to his people in Covenant Psal 50.5 Gather my Saints which have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice 3. Christ was held out in these Sacrifices and consequently the righteousnesse of faith signified as the whole body of the Epistle to the Hebrewes shewes Some therefore will have them to be Sacraments properly so called and are angry at that Divinity as they call it magisterially imposed by some that the Jews had but two Sacraments Circumcision and the Passeover and oppose against it the Cloud the Sea which Israel passed through and Manna and the Rock which were to them in stead of the Lords Supper and also the Sacrifices under and before the Law appointed to the people of God And doubtlesse they had much of Sacramentality in them being external rites appointed of God for his people in Covenant Leading them unto Christ and remission of sinnes by his blood and the Church as it appears for a long time had no other yet doubtlesse there are differences to be assigned between them 1. Sacrifices were received of God from the hands of his people being given to God by man they were accepted of him If the Lord were pleased to kill us he would not have received a burnt-offering and a meat-offering at our hands Judg. 13.23 But Sacraments as we have heard are given of God to be received of his people Abraham offered Sacrifice to God but he received Circumcision from God And the Passeover was to be eaten by those of the family Exod. 12.4 10. And though perhaps it may be proved that the people had liberty to eat of some of their Sacrifices yet that was not the proper end and reason of them as it was of the Passeover The people brought them to offer rather then to eat of them 2. These Sacrifices led men unto Christ for attonement by him to attain it Sacraments are to seal up an attonement made and already actually perfected upon Gods terms to be applyed to us in particular And so their difference from Sacraments properly so called is evident SECT IV. The Cloud the Sea Manna and the Rock were Sacraments extraordinary THe next that offer themselves to our consideration are those providences of God over his people as they passed out of Egypt and whilest they were in the Wildernesse and these are four The Cloud the Sea Manna and the Rock For the cloud we have the history of it Exod. 13.21 22. And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a Cloud to lead them the way Exod. 13 21 22. opened and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light to go by day and night He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night from before the people As also Exod. 14.19 20. And the Angel from God which went before the camp of Israel removed and went behind them and the pillar of the Cloud went from before their face and stood behind them And it came between the Camp of the Egyptians and the Camp of Israel and it was a Cloud and darknesse to them but it gave light by night to these So that the one came not near the other all the night Which is further enlarged in other texts of Scripture Numb 9.15 c. Numb 14.14 Deut. 1.33 with observations upon it Neh. 9.19 Psal 98.14 concerning which many questions are multiplyed of which some are not so needful to be answered 1. For the number Whether there were two clouds or onely one whether there was one onely Cloud or two The text quoted Exod. 13.21 seems to imply that there were two Clouds one dark and the other bright but the other text Exod. 14.20 as also Numb 9.21 rather makes it to be
much for you as the most of those that are by you produced You may see that I distinguish of conditions serviceable to man in his return to God 1. For recovery of his lost estate of happiness 2. For the repair or new frame of his qualifications depraved and spoiled cap. 11. pag. 74. The condition immediately serviceable for mans return to God reconciled in Christ I say is Faith in the page quoted The condition respecting mans reparation in his qualifications to hold up communion with God I say is Repentance cap. 14. pag. 93. This then with me enters not the act of justification but is the justified mans way to bliss and glory And when Repentance is at the highest and obedience at the best it is not repentance nor obedience but the bloud of Christ in which faith alone interests us that must be our discharge So that if I may take the boldness to interpose my thoughts as to that multitude of quotations which you have produced for the interest of works in justification I think for the greatest part they labour of that Fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi Put them into Syllogistical form and the Reader shall find that they do not conclude the thing in question They very fully speak a necessity of good works to Salvation which is the unanimous judgement of all Orthodox writers and the question is about their interest in Justification Which two in the judgement of Protestant writers very much differ as you may see in Mr. Ball Treatise of the Covenant pag. 18. Whose testimony I have produced at large p. 434. c. and thither I here refer you Where you may see the sole interest of faith the instrumentall efficiency or causality of it with an utter deniall of any interest of works in this of justification So that he alone may speak for all that the acknowledgement of the interest of works according to the tenor of the Covenant as a way appointed of God for attainment of glory doth not argue any interest at all of works in the work of justification But to return to that from which these quotations have caused this short digression I think you might have spared those words If I were on one side and all the Divines in England on the other there is yet the same reason to prefer all the first Churches before all them as there is to prefer all them before me In a word I shall ever think him more culpably singular who differeth from Christ and his Apostles and all his Church for 1200. or 1400. yeers then he that differeth from any party now living and differeth not from them forementioned Unless you could make it better appear that Christ and his Apostles and the Church for this space of time were more cleerly for you It is the Churches Testimony that is now our business and if the Reader have no more then Chemnitius bare word affirming with so much confidence as we have heard that all ages have been against you it is enough against your bare word that all former ages have been for you You now see my thoughts how they stand upon the Reading of that part of your Apology in which I am concerned Though it be above my hopes to give you satisfaction yet others I doubt not wil be more flexible in their opinion What you wil please to do further I know not it is enough that I understand my own mind which is so far as I can before-hand resolve not to intermeddle further and whatsoever I shall hear from you to impose silence on my self You have drawn me out to speak what is here said in my own just defence If this will not do it I shall think it will not be done Let me request that Christian Candor that the Common cause may not suffer and that you will not dwell on literall mistakes or unaptness as you may conceive sometimes of the phrase but take that which you shall judge to be my full meaning which I have made my business as fully as I can to make known I have no more to make yours or the Readers trouble but shall leave all to your candid interpretation and his impartiall censure and not onely subscribe but with unfeigned resolution by the help of grace remain in acknowledgement of your manifold eminent graces Your true affectionated Friend Brother and fellow labourer THOMAS BLAKE An Alphabeticall Table relating to the chief heads handled in this Treatise A. Abraham WHether any Sacraments from Adam to him Page 24 The question discussed in severall propositions Ibid. c. Acts Of God are entitled to man and the acts of man to God in Scripture Page 451 Actions Are denominated good or evill from the Law onely Page 613 Adam Was not Created an infant in understanding Page 15 Admission Of men of yeers to Baptisme examined Page 101 The way of the Primitives in it laid open ibid. Admission by a Church-Covenant examined Page 102 Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page 253 Admission to the Lords Supper not to be exempted from cognizance of Church power Page 273. c. Rules for admission to Sacraments more explicite in the Old Testament Page 92 Antiquity Who they be that make the highest claimes to it as being on their party Page 652 Chemnitius his thoughts of the judgement of Antiquity concerning the Protestants doctrine of iustification Page 65â 653 Quere's put concerning Mr. Brs appeal to Antiquity in point of Controversie Page 653 c. Proofs from Antiquity for the instrumentality faith Page 628 c. Evasions of these testimonies examined Page 661 Proofs from Antiquity that faith in Christ as pardoning sin is the justifying act Page 633 Proofs from Antiquity against the interest of mans obedience in justification as consummate Page 665 Apostates Application of the Seales of the Covenant to them is a putting a Seale to a blank Page 20 Assent Essentiall in Faith Page 502 It must be firm Page 503 Vnlimitted ibid. Assurance Of faith is possible Page 496 What sins cloud it Page 394 Astrology Judiciall Astrology censured Page 39 c. Arminianisme The Author vindicated from it Page 158 c. B. Mr. Ball. HIs testimony of the instrumentality of faith in justification Page 434 That works do not justifie ibid. That the New Covenant hath its conditions ib. That repentance is a condition of the Covenant Page 435 No condition of justification Page 436 Baptisme Johns Baptisme in the whole of it of divine institution Page 436 Contempt and neglect of Baptisme censured Page 68 An emprovement is to be made of it Page 72 The sin of Covenant Parents destroyes not the Child 's right to Baptisme Page 97 Visibility of interest the Churches guide in admission to Baptisme Page 104. 110 How far Faith and Repentance antiently were required in Baptisme Page 109 Their grounds or reasons who delayed Baptisme in the Primitive times Page 110 Their way of admission of the Catechumeni to Baptisme
Page 111 Over much rigour in admission to Baptisme hinders the progress of the Gospell Page 112 The admission of some to Baptisme in prudence may be delayed Page 113 Papists expect not grace for but a convenient disposition to grace in the person to be Baptized Page 111 The restraint of right to Baptisme a breach in the Church of Christ Page 181 Baptisme a leading Church-privilege Page 161 In what sense Baptisme works what it figures Page 383 Babtisme engages to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The Bloud and Spirit of Christ are not alwayes applyed in it Page 381 Dangers attending the restraint of Baptisme to the regenerate Page 551 Baptized A man unbaptized is bound to believe in Jesus Christ for justification Page 144 The Author vindicated from a supposed assertion of the contrary ibid. Titles given by the Apostle to Baptized persons do not argue they were alwayes answered with inherent grace Page 149 Vpon what grounds Simon Magus was Baptized Page 160 c. Believers A title in Scripture not proper to the justifyed Believing What ordinarily meant by believing in the History of the Acts. Page 177 The distinction of believing Christ and believing in Christ groundless ibid. Bloud Faith in the bloud of Christ onely justifies Page 766 This assertion quit from danger Page 582 Bloud and Spirit may be distinguished but must not be divided Page 367 C. Call AN outward call asserted Page 169 Calvin Vindicated Page 118. 550 Catholick And universall in Authors use of them distinguished Page 155 Chemnitins His testimony for the instrumentality of the word and faith in justification Page 490 See Antiquity Christ The Covenant of works was without reference to Christ as Mediator Page 10 Whether the Covenant of works be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Faith in his bloud onely justifies Page 566 Faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship Page 562 Interest in him interests us in all other privileges Page 458 Scripture speaks of receiving Christ and not of the Species of Christ onely Page 459 The healing of our nature and the removall of our guilt is his work Page 366 Faiths instrumentality in receiviug Christ being granted it 's instrumentality in justification cannot be denyed Page 441 Communication of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448. 449 Christians Vnregenerates are reall and not equivocall members of visible Churches Page 153 Humane authority vouched for it ibid. c. Christian a title in Scripture not proper to the justified Page 149 Church-Membership What gives right to it Page 201 102 Circumcision How Infants were saved before Circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions for clearing of the truth Page 24 Circumcision and Baptisme engaged to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The right of Circumcision implyed the propagation of corruption Page 368 Circumcision was no earnall badge Page 425 Cloud Whether two or onely one Cloud with Israel in the wilderness Page 521 No ordinary one but supernaturall Page 522 The motion of it guided by an Angell ibid. The form of it in appearance as a pillar ib. The use of it twofold As Israels guide Page 522 As Israels guard ibid. It was of the nature of a Sacrament Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Communicants The Lords Supper must be administred for their edification Page 199 Communication Of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448 Conclusions Desperate conclusions often inferred from right principles Page 579 Condition The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite to the essence and being of Baptisme Page 143 44 The Authors meaning cleered Page 145 In what sense faith is the condition of the promise of remission of sin Page 171 Actuall existence not necessary to the being of conditions in a Covenant Page 462 One and the same thing is not the condition of both parties in a Covenant Page 632 Confirmation Preferred by the Church of Rome before Baptisme Page 528 Perfects what Baptisme begins ibid. The matter of it Page 529 The form Page 529 The fruit Minister Ceremonies at consecration at administration Page 529 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 530 The Apostles imposition of hands no proof of it Page 530 The ancient use of it degenerated Page 531 Consecration Respects not elements but participants Page 58 Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be Consecratorium or Concionatorium ibid. Contradiction The Author acquit from any Page 447 Conversion The Lords Supper with the word as an Appendant to it may be serviceable towards Conversion Page 200 Arguments evincing it Page 200 201 c. Whether the Lords Supper may be stiled a Converting Ordinance Page 211 Explicatory propositions ibid. c. The Lords Supper doth not necessarily suppose a through conversion Page 217 Covenant Law and Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Keeping Covenant failing in Covenant and forfeiture of it to be distinguished Page 392 The Covenant falling Sacraments annexed fall with it Page 18 c. Where God denies his Covenant there the seal must not be granted Page 20 The Covenant people of God the adaequate subject of Sacraments Page 74 All relation to God in tendency to salvation is founded in the Covenant ibid. Interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75 c. God enters a Covenant with his people exactly and properly so called Page 79 The word Covenant asserted ibid. The thing it self asserted Page 80 in the essentials of it Page 80 81 in the solemnities Page 81 Arguments evincing a Covenant between God and man in its proper nature Page 82 Covenant and seal are commensurate Page 120 Covenant outward and inward This distinction examined Page 83 The Author vindicated in it Page 124 The outward Covenant is most properly a Covenant Page 83 c. To it belongs the definition of a Covenant ibid. It usually bears the name in Scripture Page 84 Men enjoy privileges of Ordinances and interest in Sacraments upon account of the outward Covenant Page 86 Scripture characters of men in Covenant Page 115 Covenant God Gods Covenant with his people not equivocall Page 80 Men of a visible profession timely and really not equivocally in Covenant with God Page 128 Covenant of works Passe between God and man in an immediate way without any reference to Christ as Mediatour Page 10 11 Whether this Covenant be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Covenant of Grace Righteousness of faith the great promise of it Page 414 Duty and condition in it are one and the same Page 641 643 It requires and accepts sincerity Page 637 Arguments evincing it vindicated Page 639 Mr. Cramdons Arguments against Mr. Br. herein answered Page 645 Covenant absolute Conditionall Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant Page 626 Faith and Repentance are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Covenant Old and New Sacraments under the old and new Covenant one and the
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
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
So that in case any will contend still that it is an inward Covenant that Scripture usually mentions and honours with that title yet being here in as for a great part we seem agreed that priviledges of Sacraments are annext to the outward Covenant or outward administration we have what we desire When this was almost ready for the Presse Mr. Baxters Apologie came forth in which pag 103. I am challenged for this distinction of an outward and inward Covenant as though I had been the Author of it when all know that it is a distinction that of a long time among Divines hath been in common use and in case it had not been commonly received I should have forborn the use of it As I heard Mr. Ball once in discourse say that he denyed any such distinction of an outward and an inward call to the Ministery all calling being external unlesse the man called were a Prophet That which men terme an inward call being onely qualifications fitting for the work so I deny in exact propriety of speech that the inward Covenant is any Covenant but the answer of the soul unto that which the Covenant requires And whereas Mr. Baxter saith It is apparent that Mr. Blake distinguisheth ex parte Dei between the outward and the inward Covenant It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised whereof some are inward and some outward for though he explain not himself fully yet I know no other sense that it will bear I thus distinguish them to apply my self to the Readers understanding that hath been accustomed so to call them and I say indeed that men that barely Covenant and keep not Covenant have onely privlledges that are outward they are visible Church-members and they have visible Church-priviledges And those who answer to Covenant engagements which usually is called the inward Covenant have priviledges both outward and inward A Jew outwardly had outward priviledges A Jew inwardly that is he that answered to his outward profession that worshipped God in his spirit hath both those that were outward and inward It is there said It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no seal for it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis If therefore it have a seal it is either the same which is promised or some other What he meanes when he saies it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis I am to learn If he mean that the seal followes the Covenant and is put to after the Covenant so it is in all Covenants whatsoever He saies they no where tell us what is the seal of their outward Covenant me thinkes we had no need to tell what the seal of that Covenant was that the Jew entred was it not Circumcision and did there not another follow viz. the Passeover Now I tell him that Circumcision and the Passeover were and Baptisme and the Lords Supper are seales of this Covenant The Nation of the Jewes were in Covenant as Mr. Baxter though he would yet must not deny they were in no inward Covenant and yet they had these seales Mr. Baxter sayes we are bound to give the seales to such Apolo 88. Vocation which is effectual onely to bring men to an outward profession of saving faith is larger then election and makes men such whom we are bound to baptize And such we say have right to Baptisme And to help Mr. Baxter those men that he saies the Church must baptize though without right we say are truely in Covenant and have right when he knowes what child he is to baptize he knowes who we say are in Covenant and have Covenant right to Baptisme so that a second Covenant of which he speakes to give right to a first is a strange fancy But of this I shall have further occasion SECT IV. Proposition 3. Fundamental rihgt and priviledge of actual admission to be distinguished VVE must yet distinguish between a fundamentall right and title to the Sacraments and the priviledg of actual admission between a first and second right in them between jus ad rem jus in re In civil titles this distinction holds A child in non-nage upon his Fathers death is entitled to his inheritance A post thumus child whose Parents death prevents his birth which was the case of Asher the son of Ezron 1. Chron. 2.24 upon the first instant that he sees the light stands thus entitled yet the law suffers not his admission to an actual personall managing of it till he be able to improve and employ it to his own and the publique benefit The leper whom the Priest had pronounced unclean so that he must dwell alone without the Camp in a several house severed from all company which was the case of Vzziah King of Judah 2 Chron. 21.26 according to the law in that case provided Levit. 13.46 had in the mean space title to his house and his whole inheritance and upon his cleansing was to be actually received unto it There is a Sequestration and there is a confiscation and proscription Men that are held from their estates upon just reasons are not yet totally and finally outed This distinction also holds in Ecclesiasticall immunities in that Passeover held in the Wildernesse by Gods appointment the fourteenth day of the first moneth there were certain men that were defiled by the dead body of a man that they could not keep the Passeover on that day and they came before Moses and Aaron and said unto them We are defiled by the dead body of a man wherefore are we kept back that we may not offer an offering to the Lord in his appointed season Numb 9.6 7. They stood equally entitled with the rest of the children of Israel to that Ordinance yet there was a barre in the way that they saw to keep them back They therefore plead their priviledg and hold it as a matter of grievance that there was any obstacle in their way This puts Moses to a stand he cannot deny their right yet by reason of the barre in the way dares not give them admission therefore he saies Stand still and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you ver 8. And the Lords order upon it was If any man among you or your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or be in a journey a farre off yet shall he keep the Passeover unto the Lord the fourteenth day of the second moneth at even shall he keep it ver 10 11. Their right is there confessed by the Lord himself and the present barre also acknowledged A physicall barre is confest when being distant in place they cannot come A legal barre is also confest when in their present condition they are not fitted for it And when some that were under this law of suspension in Hezekiahs time came to the Passeover otherwise then was written having not cleansed themselves even many of Ephraim Manasseh Issachar and Zebulon Hezekiah prayed for them 2
his reason seeing by baptisme grace is given If any one be rightly disposed to receive the effect of baptisme in the instant that he receives perfect Baptisme he shall receive grace therefore he receives the Sacrament with sufficient dignity and sanctity further adding Seeing this is a Sacrament of the dead grace is not praerequired for the receiving of it being ordained to confer grace that disposition is sufficient upon which the Sacrament confers such an effect Suarez in tertiam partem Thom. Tom. 3. Q. 68. Dis 24. art 4. Sec. 2. p. 250. Our opinion being otherwise of the work of baptisme it is otherwise concerning admission to baptisme when men are willing to be received into the number of Christians and will engage for Christian wayes which necessarily implies a profession of repentance of all unchristian practices we judge them to have right of admission Thirdly How far rules laid down by some Fathers and Councils for the way of discipline did exceed in rigour hath been the complaint of many not admitting those that had been overtaken by temptation to Church-fellowship notwithstanding any evidence of repentance till after many years space of humiliation In which time how much advantage might be given to Satan let men of experience judge Mr. F. himself dislikes their long deferring of their Catechumeni from baptisme and may not others have liberty to manifest their dislike as well as he Fourthly Let it be taken into due consideration whether such rigour in holding converts off so long a space and requiring such an height in preparatory graces were not a great remora to the progresse of the Gospel and gaining in men to Christian profession How speedy a progresse the Gospel made in the Apostles times we may see in the Acts of the Apostles and Ecclesiastical Story Dr. Andrewes in his Preface to his Work on the Commandements quotes a testimony of Egesippus That by the diligent instructing of the Church there was no known Common-Wealth of any part of the world inhabited but within 40 years after Christs Passion received a great shaking off of heathenish Religion But how slowly it proceeded after some time is over-plain May not the difference of their way that thus swerved from the Apostles and men in Apostolique times be assigned as a great reason We find them facile in admission but in the mean time exceeding plain in making known what was required of them in order to the end of their professed faith their everlasting salvation that were admitted Fifthly If it may be granted which according to Scripture rules can never be denied that men wrought off from Turcisme Paganisme Judaisme and brought to a profession of Christianity and a professed engagement to Christian wayes have their right and stand in title to baptisme If then upon observation of inconveniences arising as jealousies conceived that they may offer themselves out of design to work themselves into a fairer opportunity of persecution as was suspected in Paul the Church in Prudence for some space shall delay their admission I shall not contend Onely I assert their right and justifie their practice that proceed accordingly and unlesse some great cause appear to the Churches prejudice tendring themselves they are actually to be received A Digression for Vindication of Chap. 32. of the Treatise of the Covenant from Mr. Baxters Exceptions touching the Faith that entitles to Baptisme HEre I am put upon it to take into consideration The occasion of this Digression that which Learned Mr. Baxter in his Apology hath been pleased to oppose against me Though he be large I shall make it my businesse if it may be to be more brief I entitled the two and thirtieth Chapter of my Treatise of the Covenant in this manner A dogmatical Faith entitles to Baptisme being a Corollary naturally as I yet think inferred from the Doctrine that I had before delivered of the latitude of the Covenant explaining my self that I meant such a faith that assents to Gospel-truths though not affecting the heart to a full choyce of Christ and therefore short of that Faith which is justifying and saving ratifying it with several arguments In which I might well have thought that I should have found my ancient friend my Second rather then an Adversary considering what he had delivered pag. 224. of his Treatise of Infants Church-Membership This opinion Mr. Baxters concession that the Covenant of grace which Baptisme sealeth is onely to the Elect and is not conditional is one of the two master pillars in the Antinomian fabrick and afterwards If any shall think that this affirming that Christ hath brought the reprobate also into a Covenant of grace conditional be any part of the Arminian errors as the whole scope of Scriptures is against them so Mr. Blake hath said enough to satisfy He that will deny reprobates to be so farre within the Covenant of grace must not onely denye infant Baptisme but all Sacraments till he be able infallibly to discern a man to be Elect. I did never rise so high in words for my opinion as the Reader may here see my adversary hath done for me and I shall have more occasion to observe his concessions in this thing But how to reconcile all with that which pag 327. of the same Treatise he delivers I know not If men be taught once that it is a Faith short of justifying and saving faith which admitteth men to Baptisme as having true right in foro Dei it will make foul work in the Church This he asserts with five several arguments to which in the Chapter quoted I gave a brief answer not once naming the Author that if it might be such contests with a man that I so much honour might not have been observed and yet the truth not deserted Before he enters upon any refutation of my arguments or vindication of his own he is pleased to spend nine full pages to shew how farre he takes unregenerate men to be in Covenant and to discover as he saies my mind in this point Neere to the close of that discourse he saies that what I mean by Covenanting he despairs to know which surely will be the Readers wonder that knowes what he hath said pag. 224. before mentioned I speak impartially according to my judgement I think there is more true worth in those two or three leaves of Mr. Blakes book in opening of the Covenant then in all c. And as he despaires to know my meaning so I as much despair ever to make it known to him He quotes very many expressions of mine and knowes my meaning in none of them and some that I borrow from others as Dr. Preston and Pareus and he knowes neither my meaning nor theirs in them And in case I should make attempt if it might be to make it further clear he hath still an art to render it obscure He observes that I say that which I think all say that the accepting of the word preacht
is the note of the Church and gives his censure that that is a more laxe and ambiguous terme then the former And seeing that I am not able to satisfie him with any notions that I can reach I shall endeavour at present to help his sight in pointing out to him men in Covenant with God that when he lookes upon the men and the character given of God himself of them he may if he please guesse at the Covenant it self Scripture-characters of men in Covenant Do's Mr. Baxter know what Covenant that was that the Captains of tribes Elders Officers with all the men of Israel little ones wives strangers from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water entred into Deut. 29. and what kind of men they were that avouched the Lord to be their God and whom God avouched to be his peculiar people Deut. 26.17 18. Do's he know who those be that throughout the Old Testament-Scriptures the Lord calls his people his inheritance his portion his sonnes and daughters And who those kinsmen of Paul according to the flesh were to whom pertained the Adoption the glory and the Covenants Rom. 9.4 Do's he know who those were in New Testament-times that were converted by thousands myriads of thousands then he knows who God lookes upon as his in Covenant and to whom Covenant priviledges appertain And doubtlesse those hearers that Isaiah describes and from him all the Evangelists of fat hearts dimme eyes heavy eares whilest God had not removed his Candlestick were included They were in Covenrnt with God If it be said that these are said to be in Covenant equivocally I answer 1. I dare not charge the constant language of the Spirit of God in Scripture with equivocation 2. I am sure that they upon that account really enjoyed the priviledges under dispute were called by the name of a Church Acts 7.38 and had that elogy a people near unto the Lord. And to say that these were in Covenant with a quatenus aliquo modo sic aliquo modo non when God testifies that they avouch him to be their God I think is too great boldnesse That those that rose no higher then these mentioned have no right to the great blessings of the Covenant as Christ pardon Justification Adoption glory upon that account that they come not up to the faith called for in Covenant I freely with Mr. Baxter grant Those are too high Favours for Covenant breakers yet I say as all Israel did de facto enjoy so all of the like faith in foro Dei have their right of his free bounty to all those Church-priviledges that serve to fit for glory He is pleased to say Mr. Bl. had done better if with that moderate reverend godly man Mr. Stephen Marshall he had distinguished between those two questions who are Christians or Church-members and whom we are to judg such and use as such and to bring in the latter rank onely I know not where Mr. Marshall thus distinguishes If he speaks of members of the Church invisible it is not at all to our purpose we are not speaking to them And if he mean members of the Church visible I know no use of such distinction we can well enough know such members otherwise they were not visible Let Mr Baxter look upon those notes of a Church-member which he mentions where he intended a confutation of my 31. chap. in case I had not spoken to his mind and the same things with him and then see whether such cannot be known I think those of the Worcestershire combination may know who those be whom they take into Communion In a parenthesis he is pleased to tell me that herein I joyn with Mr. Tombs To which I reply what animosity soever he hath against me I shall not leave any one truth to shunne agreement with him when Mr. Baxter himself affirms that Mr. Tombs and he are agreed in that particular that he there mentions pag. 92. though most Divines as he there saies are against them both sure I may boldly joyn with him when most Divines are for us He tells me Those that professe to fear God and love him we must love and honour as men that do fear and love him yet in different degrees as the signs of their graces are more or lesse probable In some common confessing Christians we see but small probability yet dare we not exclude them from the Church nor the number of true believers as long as there is any probability Others that are more judicious zealous diligent and upright of life we have far stronger probability of and therefore love and honour them much more All this is true in case we were to enquire after the fear of God in its power or the image of God renewed in sincerity But when it is applyed to visible Church-membership I know not what to make of it Must I more or lesse honour a man accordingly as he appears more or lesse visibly in Congregations After a long discourse about the Covenant and faith dogmatical which I shall have occasion further to touch upon he concludes thus The words which Mr. Bl. questioneth I confesse are mine against Dr. Ward The Author vindicated from singularity and I did not think in so grosse an opinion Dr. Ward would have found any second to undertake that cause How this passage fell from his penne may well be to every intelligent Reader matter of admiration not that he chargeth an opinion from which he dissents to be so notably grosse which is not very unusual but that a man of such multiplicity of reading should think that Dr. Ward in this opinion would not have found a second when if he hath perused our approved Authors about the question especially since it came to a punctuall just debate he may soon see that he hath almost every one to appear for him if this which he mentions be his opinion unlesse perhaps he hath been so held in reading the Fathers and other Writers for the first thirteen or fourteen hundred years in which few will I think come out and vye with him that he hath not regarded what hath been said this hundred and fifty years in this corner of the world when his book came first out I received a letter from as learned an hand as any I have to converse withall noting this as a singular tenent and when upon occasion I have mentioned it that Mr. Baxter holds that no faith that is short of that which justifies gives title to Baptisme it sounded so strange that I could not gain credit to the report of it He that hath spent so much pains in that Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 cannot be ignorant of that usual distinction of Covenant holinesse and holinesse habituall and personall The former according to Divines and Mr. Baxter himself is an holinesse of relation to God and separation for him which was found in all the Nation of the Jews and now is in all professed believers and their
seed The latter is an inherent quality infused by regeneration by which the man is brought into conformity with the Law of God The former according to them and him in that Treatise gives title to Baptisme even where the latter is wanting Those words therefore were more then needed If men be once taught that it is a faith short of that which is saving and justifying which admitteth to Baptisme seeing it is in reformed Churches generally and universally taught Mr. T. very well knowing as all do know that in these last ages it is a doctrine generally received and setting himself to oppose it saith that he can derive its pedigree no higher than Zwinglius but he hath heard of those that were Zwinglius his seniors to be of the same mind as the Reader may see in my answer to his letter The Jesuites generally charge it upon Calvin and Beza and those of that party and well they may as their opinion but not as their invention As to that charge they stand acquitted by their adversaries Suarez in Thom. part 3. tom 3. q. 69. art 8. dis 27. Sect. 1. speaking of this opinion saith It is ancienter then Calvin as appears by Waldens tom de Sacram. tit 3. cap. 53 54. yet Calvin saith he either encreased or revived it as appears by Ruardus Lindanus Prateolus and others This easily may be yielded and if Chamier may be heard all Protestants embraced it Mr. Baxter in the words before may see the opinion of that Divine whom he so deservedly magnifies Mr. Cobbet full against him notwithstanding he lives where the greatest strength of that party is that are his opposites Let the Reader observe his fourth conclusion pag. 52. The Church in dispensing an enjoyned initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace looketh unto visibility of interest in the Covenant to guide her in the application thereof nor is it the saving interest of the persons in view that is her rule by which she is therein to proceed And compare with it the close of his whole discourse upon it in these words And I the more wonder that any which confesse that it 's not to be denyed that God would have infants of believers in some sense to be accounted his to belong to his Church and family and not to the Devills as true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis c. yet do oppose us in this particular now in question If he please to peruse Pareus 1 Cor. 7.14 as he shall find Stapleton in objections there produced his friend so Pareus fully his adversary And I shall adde one testimony that carries many more in the belly of it in which the Reader may see that Dr. Ward in this thing now in agitation hath the generall vote of reformed Churches for him and against Mr. Baxter Apollonius speaking to the question Quaestio quarta An infantes quorum parentes proximi solenni Ecclesiastico foedere alicui particulari Ecclesiae sese non adjungunt in Ecclesia non sint baptizandi sed ut baptismi in capaces privilegiorum Ecclesiae expertes sint aestimandi Resp. Existimant Reformati quod federalis quaedam sanctitas qua jus habent illi qui hoc modo sancti sunt ad media salutis Sacramentum Baptismi qua ab Ethnicis Turcis similibusque aliis infidelibus separantur 1 Cor. 7.14 toti nationi seu populo communicetur cui Deus tabulas sui foederis ita impertit ut easdem suscipiant profiteantur quos ad statum visibilis Ecclesiae suae vocat ducit Rom. 11.16 17 18 19 20. Haec foederalis sanctitas transfertur ad posteros non per proximorum parentum sanctitatom inhaerentem qui sua fide vel infidelitate eam posteriis proximis vel tollerent vel stabilirent sed misericordi Dei voluntate qua foederis illius privilegia externa parentibus etiam remotioribus promissa extendit constanter impertit in multas generationes posteris fidem profitentibus etiam iis quorum parentes proximi impii in foedere Dei perfidi fuere Whether infants whose immediate parents do not joyn themselves by any solemn Ecclesiastical Covenant to any particular Church are not to be baptized in the Church but are to be esteemed incapable of Baptisme and void of Church priviledges answers the question in these words The reformed hold that a certain foederall holinesse whereby those that are in this manner holy have right to the means of salvation and whereby they are differenced from Heathens Turkes and other like infidels 1 Cor. 7.14 is communicated to the whole Nation or people to whom God do's so impart the tables of his Covenant that they receive and professe them whom he calls and brings to the state of his church visible Rom. 11.16 17 18 19 20. This foederall holinesse is transmitted to posterity saith he not by the inherent holinesse of immediate parents which either their faith or unbelief should take away or establish to their immediate posterity but by the good and gracious will of God whereby he extends and constantly bestowes the outward priviledges promised to more remote parents for many generations to posterity professing the faith even to those whose immediate parents have been found wicked and false in their Covenant quoting these texts Ps 106.35 36 44 45. Isa 63.10 11.51.1 2 3. Ezek. 20.8 And confirming this assertion with severall arguments the last of which is this c Quia adulti omnes in Novo Testamento à Johanne Baptista Apostolis sunt baptizati telonarii milites quicunque ex Judea circumjacentibus regionibus ad Baptismum devenerunt absque longiore examine si modo fidem profiterentur peccata confiterentur et si hypocritae genimina viperarum homines malae frugis iter eos essent proinde infantes eorum ad baptismum admittendi Causam hanc pro praxi Ecclesiarum Reformatarum multis disputat Cl. Walaeus in locis communibus operum in Folio pag 494 495. Because all of years in the New Testament were baptized by John Baptist and the Apostles as Publicanes Souldiers and whosoever out of Judea and the regions round about came to Baptisme wit hout any further tryal provided that they professed their faith and confessed their sins though there were many Hypocrites generations of vipers and men of dissolute courses amongst them and therefore saith he their infants are also to be admitted unto Baptisme adding that learned Walaeus largely defends this cause for the practice of reformed Churches in his Common places pag. 494 495. adding yet further d Rejicimus igitur Antitheses eorum qui denegant Baptismum filiis eorum qui impie vivunt vita sua improba efficatiam baptismi sui irritam erga se reddunt Hisce opponimus judicium Leydensium in Synopsi Theol. ubi sic disserunt disput 44. thes 50. We therefore reject the contrary opinion of those which deny Baptisme to the children of those who live wickedly and by
their wicked life render the efficacy of their baptisme to themselves as null and vain To those we oppose saith he the judgement of the professors of Leyden in their Synopsis of Divinity dis 44. thes 50. If the Reader please to consult this quotation from these Authors he shall see it very full to the purpose as also Walaeus in the place before mentioned So that Mr. Baxter may see that he hath not onely me to oppose together with the ashes of Dr. Ward whose memory yet is to be had in reverence but ancient Writers within these 1300. years together with the concurrent voice of Divines in the generality of them in these 150 years last past which in other Points he confesseth are his adversaries on whose side the truth is whether on his few or the Churches many is further to be enquired A Vindication of several Arguments in the Treatise of the Covenant Chap. 32. of my Treatise of the Covenant I bring severall Arguments to evince this Proposition that A Faith which is short of Justifying and saving admits to Baptisme The first of which refers to that which I had before spoken at large concerning the latitude of the Covenant expressing my self in this manner Argument vindicated 1 All that hath been said for the latitude of the Covenant may fitly be applyed for the like latitude of Baptisme To this Mr. Baxter replies Therefore did I say the more of the Covenant before Covenant and Seal commensurate to shew your confusion and mistake in that It is not every Covenant or Promise that Baptisme is the seal of I desire no more of the judicious Reader but to reflect upon that which I have spoke Chap. 27 28. of that Treatise together with that which he hath been pleased to speak so largely against me His distinctions of Covenants and Promises The severall wayes that according to him men may be in Covenant How unregenerate men may be in Covenant and how not together with his multitude of Positions most of which look not at all towards the businesse and then consider whether he or I stand more guilty of mistake or confusion and whether he hath brought any thing home after so tedious a discourse for satisfaction or to give any colour to it that unregenerate men are not so in Covenant as thereby to have interest in Baptisme which must be done if he speak any thing in opposition to me My businesse being to prove that they are so in Covenant that they have upon Covenant-right title to the seal and if the Reader can find any thing tending that way let Mr. Baxter consider whether it be not in full opposition to himself who reckoning up Mr. Tombs his errors makes this the fifth in order that he holdeth That the Covenant whereof Baptisme is the Seal Mr. Baxters Concessions of the latitude of the Covenant is the absolute Covenant of Grace made onely to the Elect. Did not Mr. Baxter then believe that those that are non-Elect were comprized in it The conclusion of his large discourse is laid down by himself pag. 63. in these words Though wicked men have many Promises from God especially the great conditional Promise of life if they will repent and believe and though they are also by their imperfect equivocal covenanting with God yet God remaineth still unoblig'd to them But how this stands with that which he hath in dispute in the place before mentioned let him also take into further consideration where he chargeth this as his adversaries fourth error That every right administration of Baptisme is not Gods sealing Actually God sealeth not but when it is administred to a Believer It may be called a right act of the administrator according to Gods appointment but not Gods sealing Against which he thus disputes pag. 222. If the Sacrament rightly administred to an hypocrite have all that is essential to Gods actual sealing then it is his actual sealing But the Sacrament rightly administred to an hypocrite hath all things essential to Gods actual sealing Ergo. The Minor he proves at large as I may have occasion hereafter to make known And whereas he so peremptorily determines that though wicked men oblige themselves yet God still remains disobliged let him consider God stands obliged to all that he doth avouch his people whether God be not some way obliged to all that he avoucheth to be his people If this be denyed there will be found no great happinesse to a people to have the Lord for their God But God avoucheth those to be his people Deut. 26.17 who are yet in an unregenerate estate And if we look into Scriptures we shall see that this is Gods ordinary language Are there many worse to be found in any visible Church-state then those with whom God holds contest Psal 50 Yet to these he sayes verse 7. Hear O my people and I will speak O Israel and I will testifie against thee I am God even thy God Together with those Isa 1. to whom he addresses himself under these titles Rulers of Sodom people of Gomorrah yet we see verse 2. what language he speaks of them Israel doth not know my people do not understand And whereas he states the Question as though the whole of the dispute turned on this hinge Whether these men be in Covenant with God as to Gods actual engagement to them so far as that Gods promise is in force for conveying actual right to them as to the promised blessings and so whether it be a mutual Covenant and both parties be actually obliged And thus I say that wicked men are not in Covenant with God that is God is not in Covenant with them Neither have they any right to the main blessings given by the Covenant viz. Christ Pardon Justification Adoption Glory I know no man that hath spoke so much as himself towards the proof of it in the affirmative So long as they break not the Covenant-engagement in which he confesseth they have oblig'd themselves God stands engaged to them for the greatest spiritual blessings But according to him they break not Covenant untill they arrive at final impenitence and unbelief He very well knowes that I hold that every wicked man in the Church lives in continuall breach of Covenant and is therefore under the curse and penalty of it and that I should think that God were actually engaged to give Christ Pardon Justification Adoption Glory to them in that state and condition were more then strange These may know by vertue of their Covenant-priviledges upon what terms they may attain the mercies mentioned and upon what terms God stands engaged to give them and they enjoy the power of Ordinances to work them up to the said terms which they do not who are without Covenant and therefore are afar off when men in Covenant are near Did ever man speak of an absolute tye in a conditional Covenant whether the conditions are kept or no That therefore before mentioned which
he calls the great question between him and me is no question at all It were madnesse to affirm that which with these limits he thus denyes Yet still I say that the Covenant which Baptisme seales is made with the unregenerate as well as regenerate persons which as we have heard he makes Mr. Tombe's error to deny And because the Covenant belongs to them Baptisme in like sort belongs to them and as upon that account we must baptize them so in foro Dei according to the mind of Jesus Christ they have right to Baptisme Which in case Mr. Baxter shall deny I shall desire him to reflect upon the afore-cited passages of his own together with that which pag. 65 of this Treatise he delivers If it be the whole matter of Christianity that is professed but dissembledly then as he is equivocally or analogically a believer or Christian so I yield he is a member of the Church visible And Church-membership is one of his own mediums to prove a right to Church-entrance by Baptisme and here is a Faith not above dogmatical At least short of that which is justifying and yet such a faith as is real having reall fruits and effects and sometimes reall miracles If the argument hold when it is thus enfeebled how much more when it is put in its full strength Such an one is univocally in Covenant whose dissimulation is no other then necessarily attends an unregenerate estate in case there be any thing in Scripture above equivocation They remembred that God is their Rock the high God their Redeemer Psal 78.34 And whereas I stand charg'd in this discourse by Mr. Baxter with several uncouth if not wild opinions and assertions about the Covenant and Mr. Baxter despairs as we have heard of understanding of my meaning I shall here endeavour as to vindicate so to explain my self in like manner that the Reader if not Mr. Baxter may be brought to a right understanding avoiding as much as may be both nicety and multiplicity 1. It is said that I suppose certain Promises to go before the great Law of Grace Those that suppose such saith he are of two sorts 1. The Arminians and Jesuites 2. Such as Mr. Bl. about Church-Ordinances And having spent many lines upon the Arminians to shew his dissent and assent so that the Reader may well have forgotten both me and my charge he saith 2. The Author vindicated from a fiction imposed The second part of promises before the great Covenant of Grace is feigned by Mr. Bl. and if there be any other that go that way as some do and that with some difference amongst themselves and that is a promise of Church-priviledges upon condition of a faith not justifying nor saving One that Mr. Baxter will not deny to be eminently learned and I think as well vers'd in his Writings and mine as any man alive Far better I believe then he in mine or I in his upon observation of this passage replyed as by addresse to him You rather feign this of Mr. Bl. then find it in him And I professe I know no man whose brain ever either hatch'd or vented such a crotchet Neither do I know how this mistake was ever entertained for I believe it was a mistake unlesse it be that taking for granted that there is no Covenant of grace entred with any out of the state of grace and finding that I assert that Church-Ordinances appertain to unregenerate Christians and those that are short of faith that is justifying he here fancies a promise of these made to a faith of this kind Whereas that which I say is That every acceptation of a Gospel-tender which tenders a man a Christian outwardly actually vests him in right to these Ordinances as it did the Jew outwardly Rom. 3.1 And that these Ordinances are necessarily requisite to bring men up to the fruition of those happy priviledges of Pardon Justification Adoption Glorification So that I conceit no promise of these Ordinances made to such a faith but an actual investiture of every such believer in them Neither do I know any promises preceding the Covenant of Grace Such must be made to meer Heathens or those that are in a parallel estate aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel Unlesse perhaps some such promise to some such upon some particular account may be found Yet if he can work me to be of his mind that Election Regeneration and the Covenant of Grace are commensurate so that no non-elect man is in Covenant then shall I say that there are Promises made before the Covenant The Apostle speaking of the Jews that for the generality of them were neither elect nor regenerate saith To them appertained the Covenants I may therefore charge it upon him with better reason then he upon me Those stand vested in promises that he sayes are out of Covenant The Promise is said to belong to those Jews Rom. 9.4 on whom yet the Word took no saving effect verse 6. Hence by opposition to the Gentiles they were those that were not strangers to the Church but of it They were not strangers to the Covenant of Promise but in the same Eph. 2.11 12. Hence God saith he maketh his Covenant with them all Deut. 29.10 12 13 14 15. speaking there of that solemn renewal of the Covenant of Grace as Deut. 30.6 10 12 13 14. compared with Rom. 10.6 7 8. evinceth So Ezek. 16.8 he made a Covenant with that Church and people many whereof proved very base as that Chapter sheweth Cobbet just vindicat pag. 46. Where much more to this purpose from many Texts of Scripture may be seen The Authour further vindicated I am farther charged that my common phrase is That they namely unregenerate men are in the outward Covenant with this note upon it what that is I cannot tell Who would not now think but that here were a phrase peculiarly mine Upon which the same learned hand as before expresseth himself in these words I do not see that that phrase is common with Mr. Bl. He rather useth it as from others which any may evidently see if they consult pag. 189 190. of my Treatise of the Covenant But of this I have spoke before and therefore his guesses upon it that he believes that it is called outward by reason of outward blessings annexed to it might have been spared They that use it expresse their own meaning The Covenant they say is but one and the same but all are not in the Covenant after one and the same manner Some are onely in it by outward profession to the present participation of outward priviledges but some by cordial acceptance to the enjoyment of saving benefits by means of these priviledges He sayes in the place quoted I should have thought it but reasonable for Mr. Bl. 1. To have told us what those outward blessings are that this Covenant promiseth But what need I to tell him when pag. 61. he hath told me that it is a
the one hand as it puts upon profession on the other And in case any such thing be though the Covenant is perfidiously broke yet as I conceive not totally cast off as long as any open profession is continued What shall we say of those that take their sons and daughters to give them to Moloch this can be no low crime and an high departure from the true God yet these bring forth children unto God and they are his children that they thus sacrifice Ezek. 16.20 21. So also Psal 106.35 c. Israel was mingled among the Heathen and learned their works and they served their Idols which were a snare to them yea they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto Devils and shed innocent blood even the blood of their sons and daughters Yet this as appears casts them not out of Covenant God notwithstanding remembred with them his Covenant ver 45. This was therefore doubtlesse but a partial apostasie taking in the worship of Idols they did not totally cast off the worship of God God was not totally cast off in Judah neither did cast off Judah Ahaz was of the worst of Kings and yet his posterity was reckoned among the people of the Lord. Had the Jews then been as severe disputants against a Covenant-state as are risen up now the Church of God had wanted an Hezekiah he had never lived much lesse wrought so happy a Reformation in the Church of God Propos 2 2. Those that are look'd upon by men as in Covenant with God and so ordinarily judged as the people of Israel were by the name that they bear their abode in the Church and profession that they make and so accordingly styled they are truly and really in Covenant A man may know a man to appertain to such or such a person because he sees him in his family hears him call him Master sees him sometimes at least in his work and knowes him to have the repute of his servant Though to know him to be a faithful servant requires more diligence of enquiry and a stricter scrutiny So a man may be as easily known to appertain to Jesus Christ The same Characters make him known For all that is required to being in Covenant is visible open evident but sincerity of heart in covenanting is invisible and secret And therefore the Jew outwardly Rom. 2.28 is called by the Vulgar Vatablus Tremelius Arias Montanus and Castalio Judaeus in manifesto by Calvin Judaeus in aperto by Beza Judaeus in propatulo the Jew inwardly Judaeus in abscondito or occulto Their Church or Covenant-station giving them those great advantages after mentioned was open and manifest Those that say Lord Lord as Matth. 7.21 are of those that avouch God to be their God and God avoucheth them to be his people And therefore when they come with their sacrifices though in their sins and God upon that account testifies against them yet he sayes I am God even thy God It is confess'd by Mr. Baxter that we must judge those that make profession to be in Covenant with God we must give them the name of Christians and men in Covenant with God and we must use them as Christians in works of charity and Ordinances and Church-communion and so must use their Children as Christians children And seeing reason to judge so according to Scripture-character of men in Covenant they are so Either in this we judge right or else we proceed upon mistake If we judge aright then all is well If we mistake then all in these proceedings is null Water hath been applyed to the child of such an one but no Sacrament dispens'd And according to a mans hopes thoughts or fears of his fathers regeneration are his hopes thoughts and fears of his own baptisme and consequently of his interest in Church-communion for this stands or falls according to his fathers interest or non-interest in the Covenant When Mr. Baxter is urged with this he uses to refer to his Treatise of Infant-Baptisme where he layes us down a grand Rule or Maxime and out of that extracts many others His grand Rule is That a serious Professor of the faith is to be taken for a true Believer and this being laid down he proceeds on If this Proposition were a Scripture-Maxime then it would have born a farther superstruction but being neither found there nor any proof made that it is any way deduced thence mother and daughters may all justly be called into question and seeing he cannot but know that very many as to the thing for which it is produc'd which is in order to admission to Ordinances will utterly deny it he might have done well to have made some essay to have proved it I do yield that charity is to hope the best but that we should put our charity to it or our reason either for probability or certainty when we are no where so taught and have a more sure rule for our preceeding I see no reason I can scarce meet with a Minister that sayes and I have put the question to many of the most eminent that I know that he baptizeth any Infant upon this ground of hope that the Parent is regenerate but still with earnest vehemence professes the contrary I desire the Reader to consider Mr. Cobbets third and fourth Conclusions in his just Vindication pag. 46 52. There is a bare external being in the Covenant of Grace saith he of persons who possibly never shall be saved Concl. 3d. The Church in dispensing an enjoyned initiatory seal of the Covenant of Grace looketh unto visibility of interest in the Covenant to guide her in the application thereof Concl. 4th Visibility of interest and saving interest are there oppos'd See also Mr. Hudson pag. 249. John Baptist did not in his conscience think they had all actually really and compleatly repented and reformed themselves whom he baptized but he baptized them unto Repentance Matth. 3.11 and they by receiving the same bound themselves to endeavour the practice thereof It were a sad case for Ministers if they were bound to admit none or administer the Lords Supper to none but such as were truly godly or that they judged in their conscience to be so or were bound to eject all that they judged were not so Propos 3 3. Mans obligation of himself in Covenant unto God upon the terms by him proposed necessarily implies Gods obligation to man Where God makes tenders of the Gospel by his Ministers to any one out of Covenant there he makes tender of the Covenant and where a person or people professedly accept that is engage themselves as myriads of thousands did through the Acts of the Apostles this person this people each man of them is in Covenant As Scripture calls them by the name of Saints Disciples Believers Christians so we may call them Covenanters They have all a sanctity of separation which Camero sayes is reall and Mr. Baxter disputed from thence to a right in Baptisme from that Text 1
happinesse and that he ought to take Christ for his Lord and Saviour c. and that this may be done truly not onely as to reality of assent but as to reality of purpose to make this choyce so far as the man knowes his own heart or the mind of God in this work though there be not that integrity to yield up himself wholly which yet by the power of Ordinances through the Spirit in Gods time may be done and through grace perfected Lastly God setting up a visible Church upon earth in order to that Propos 6 which is invisible will have those admitted that give assent to Scripture-doctrine and accordingly make profession And this of it self in foro Dei brings them into Covenant-right and visible Church-membership And therefore according to the mind of God and as Apollonius speaks jure Dei in this estate are to be received Though they shall hit or misse of the mercy of the Covenant accordingly as by grace they come up to or by sin fall short of the Propositions contained in it A Scholar saâth Mr. Hudson that is admitted into a School is not admitted because he is doctus but ut sit doctus and if he will submit to the rules of the School and apply himself to learn it is enough for his admission The like may be said of the Church visible which is Christs School Vindicat. p. 248. To which Mr. Baxter himself if I understand him hath given his assent in his Treatise of everlasting rest Part 4. Sect. 3. The door of the visible Church is incomparably wider then the door of heaven and Christ is so tender so bountiful and forward to convey his grace and the Gospel so free an offer and invitation to all that surely Christ will keep no man off if they will come quite over in spirit to Christ they shall be welcome if they will come but onely to a visible profession he will not deny them admittance This seems to speak the mind of Jesus Christ for their admittance and that in foro Dei as well as in foro Ecclesiae they stand in Covenant-relation and have title to Church-membership Thus Mr. Baxter and the Reader may see my thoughts in this thing and though I doubt not but that he will question much that I have said yet now at last I hope both he and others may know my meaning Argument 2. vindicated Argument vindicated 2 My second Argument is All the obsurdities following the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect or men of a saving Faith follow upon this restraint of interest in baptism Mr. Baxter answers What absurdities follow such restraint of it to sound believers as I have asserted I should be willing to know though with some labour I have searched for it Bear with me therefore whilest I examine what you referre me to It is pag. 109. where you charge those absurdities I wonder that all this labour for search should need when as he saies he hath a reference and the Reader I think may see enough from Mr. Baxters own hand in the places already mentioned one part of the first absurdity which I have pressed Mr. Baxter is pleased to repeat This restriction of the Covenant to shut out all the non-regenerate makes an utter confusion betwixt the Covenant it self and the conditions of it The restriction of the Covenant to the regenerate confounds the Covenant and conditions together or if the expression do not please the Covenant it self and the duties required in it between our entrance into covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulnesse to it All know that a bargain for a Summe of money and the payment of that Summe the covenant with a servant for labour and the labour according to this covenant are different things Faithfull men that make a bargain keep it enter covenant and stand to it But the making and keeping the entring and observing are not the same and according to this opinion Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant and regeneration is our keeping of Covenant before regeneration we make no Covenant after regeneration we break no Covenant there is no such thing as Covenant-breaking All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant After a charge big enough he saies I cannot give my judgement of the intolerablenesse and great danger of your mistake here manifested without unmannerlinesse I will therefore say but this It is in a very weighty point near the foundation wherein to erre cannot be safe To which I onely say I wish he had spoken fully out that the intolerablenesse and supposed great danger of my mistake might have been seen and I earnestly desire all my friends that in case I erre in this manner as I stand charged that they would afford me their help to discover my error but I trust I shall make it good that my error at the highest is but equivocal He addes In my Aphorisms pag. 265. I gave my reasons for the contrary we must therefore see first what is said there where he thus bespeakes his Reader Here let me mind you of one useful observation more The Covenanting on our parts is a principal part of the conditions of the Covenant though this may seem strange that a covenanting and performing conditions should be almost all one And indeed I think all intelligent Readers will judge it to be farre more strange than true though we are to hear of that which is more strange presently we are told of reasons in this page but I find no piece of a reason in it but onely I say instead of a reason And I know not where any thing towards a proof of this position may be found unlesse it be in the Poets Hyperbole Dimidium facti qui bene coepit habet He that hath well begun hath half done yet half is not almost all He goes on It is a truth so farre beyond all doubt that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of grace as that it is in other terms a great part of the substance of the Gospel Here are mysterious words Is our covenanting a part of the condition or is the condition a part of the Covenant The condition is here made the integrum and our Covenanting one part of the condition This is above my reason And for the other part I say if our covenanting be a great part of the substance of the Gospel then the Jew outwardly did make a better progresse in Gospel-waies then we are yet aware of or the Apostle understood when he spake so much as we read Rom. 2. concerning him for he was in Covenant otherwise he had been no Jew at all but a Pagan or Heathen Having told us I cannot guesse to what end that the same act is called our conditions as the performers and Gods conditions as the imposer and promiser giving his blessings onely on these imposed conditions he addes Most properly they are called the
conditions of Gods Covenant or promise rather than of ours for our own promise is the first part of them and our performance of that promise but a secondary part Is not here a convincing reason Our own promise is the first part our performance the second part Ergo they are more properly the conditions of Gods Covenant then of ours I deny not the thing but wonder at the reason but speed it as it will I thence collect that promises and performances are distinct things and that is enough for me Our promising to God I am sure is our covenanting this then differs from Covenant-keeping or performance and is not to be confounded with it There followes For 2. Gods Covenant is a free gift of Christ and life to the World on condition of their acceptance This our Divines against the Papists and the doctrine of merit have fully proved That God doth freely give Christ to those that accept him I freely yield and that our Divines have fully proved it against Papists I confesse and that it must be asserted against Antinomians but what Divines have proved that Gods Covenant is his free gift of Christ and life to the world on condition that they will accept I know not It is the first time I think that ever I heard it This then is a full definition of a Covenant which I yet think comes short of it and if it be a truth it well serves my purpose many a Covenant is made and conditions never performed After his expression of himself about the modification of our acceptance of Christ by faith he addes Our acceptance or consent is our Covenanting and our Faith So that our Covenanting with Christ and our Faith is the same thing that is our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms or a consent that he be ours and we his on his termes And who knowes not that this Faith or Covenanting or consent is the condition by us to be performed that we may have right to Christ and life offered I do know the latter and therefore upon that account as upon divers others I deny the former I know that justifying faith is the condition by us to be performed and I as well know that it is not our covenanting but our making good our Covenant That Faith by which the Romans stood in Covenant with God was such a faith that the whole visible Church of the Gentiles had and the Jewes both Rom. 11. But this was not a justifying faith but short of it To make justifying faith and Covenanting Synonyma is an error I am confident of what size I leave to others to determine If they were both one Scripture would promiscuously speak of them but we find that it still distinguisheth them and gives us clearly to understand that the greatest part of Covenanters are short of Faith that is saving and justifying Ordinances in which the Covenant of grace is dispensed and which speak all those that entertain them to be in Covenant are granted of God to men short of justifying faith as their proper inheritance Rom. 3.1 Deut. 33.4 Titles implying a Covenant-state as I have abundantly shewed are given of God to them that are short of this faith viz. Christian Disciple Saint Believer Called Brethren God imposes Covenant-conditions makes promise of Covenant-blessings upon these imposed conditions to those that are short of Faith that justifieth These therefore are in Covenant Though I hear neither of Scripture nor argument nor any thing else but bare words in two or three Paradoxes for my conviction yet by a similitude I shall understand that our own Covenant-act is the primary condition of Gods Covenant In his Aphorismes he sayes It may seem strange but now a similitude shall render it familiar If a King saith he will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman and a beggar on condition that she will but have him that is consent and so covenant and marry him here her covenanting consenting or marrying of him is the performance of the condition on her part for obtaining her first right in him and his but for the continuance of her right is further requisite If we had had either Scripture or argument to have given us a first light then a Simile might have served for somewhat and come in as a garnish but being served in alone it may speak the Authors thoughts but never settle any in the truth And I shall leave it to the Reader to judge whether the edge of it may not easily be turned against himself and whether when it is brought home it will not prove destructive to his own opinion I must therefore tell the Reader that our relation to Christ whilest on earth is more frequently expressed in Scriptures by espousals then marriages as we may see through the book of Canticles and Hos 2.14 2 Cor. 11.2 and that there is ordinarily a relation of men to God preceding faith that justifies Now Mr. Baxter is not so ill read in the Civill Law but that he knowes that there are sponsalia de futuro and sponsalia de praesenti Those God is pleased to take for his people that are his onely in the first relation and to honour them with priviledges to bring them on to the second Whereas he sayes Our Covenant principally is to receive nor is it onely de futuro but de praesenti I may answer first If our Covenant be to receive then it doth precede this receiving and secondly if he mean that it is our duty to receive Christ in present and not to delay the least moment of time I shall readily yield but in case he say that present profession and engagement to receive gives a people no title to any Covenant-relation before Christ be actually and savingly received I may well ask what we are to say to the whole body of Old Testament-Scriptures were not all Israel in Covenant were they not all visibly the people of the Lord are they not owned of God for such when they were at the worst and lowest How many thousands of Scripture-Texts may be brought to evince it Had they called themselves so and valued themselves as such on this account to be a people nigh unto the Lord and no people so nigh it might have been said to be their own vapour but when God gives them that testimony of honour and hath never done with it sure he would have us to believe it There is a first right therefore before that right in the similitude contended for and that is no other but a right of Covenant to be without God and without hope is the case of a meer heathen uncircumcised in the flesh Eph. 2.11 The state of visible relation is one step nearer than aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel do enjoy and yet too short of a state of salvation Mr. Baxter concludes By this time I leave it to the Reader to judge who it is that introduceth confusion about the Covenant and whether it be
an error of the lower size And I am very well contented to sit down and hear his judgment and if it be upon this determined against me I shall say the authority of man is mightily prevalent I have yet seen no title of Scripture nothing of reason onely that which I take to be Scripture-Paradoxes are laid down as Maximes Restraint of Covenant denies any breach of Covenant There followes As for that you adde that then there is no Covenant-breaking I reply 1. quoad essentiam et possibilitatem there is 2. quoad existentiam there is a breaking of mere verbal and erring half Covenants but if you think that sound Covenanting may be utterly broke then you are against the certainty of perseverance Real Covenants may be broke I desire to know whither this essence possibility and existence refers whether to the Covenant or to the breaking of Covenant If it refer to the Covenant as the words seem plainly to imply then here is a new piece of learning that the essence of a thing may be broke and the existence stand firm I have learnt that existencies may be destroyed and essences remain and instance is commonly given in Roses in winter But I have not untill now heard the contrary But if these referre to breaking of Covenant then the meaning is there is a possibility but there shall not be a futureity But this is flatly to gain-say the Scriptures that complain so frequently of actual breach of Covenant Somewhat therefore is granted and somewhat denyed It is granted that there is a breaking of mere verbal and of erring half-Covenants but I am told that if I think that sound Covenanting may be utterly broke then I am against the certainty of perseverance If by sound Covenanting truth of Covenant be meant this may be broke and no Saint apostatize but if integrity of heart and such soul-qualifications as might be desired in Covenanters be understood the truth of a Covenant stands where this is wanting otherwise none but upright honest sincere men can ever make bargains It follows They broke their particular Covenants about reforming Idolatry and such particular sins And these particular Covenants were branches of their grand Covenants and so habemns reum confitentem It is farther said They broke their verbal and equivocal Covenant or promise to God whereby they seemed to accept him on his own terms but did not But it should be remembred that this Covenant they broke was a marriage-Covenant as is frequently testified in Scriptures as Jer. 31.32 where the Lord speaking of the Covenant made with Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt Which my Covenant they brake saith he although I was an husband unto them which is further clear Jer. 3.1 14 20. Hos 2.17 This then was a reall and no equivocal Covenant or else Mr. Baxters similitude on which he puts so much stresse is spoyled And I never knew that verbal Covenants where sincerity of intention for faithful performance was wanting were equivocal Covenants much lesse where a man did not fully understand himself in covenanting All want of integrity is not equivocation Men may promise and not perform men may promise and never mean to perform which I think few unregenerate men directly do and yet not equivocate If a Gentleman shall promise a Tenant a Lease for life provided that he will give him a dogge he brings him one and accordingly expects his Lease the Landlord puts him off in telling him that he indented with him for a dog-star or a dog-fish here is equivocation but had he directly promised and broken faith it had been no equivocation but falsification I have heard of one of quality that often solicited one to serve him after long importunity he got a promise from the man that such a day he would come and serve him he kept his day and came and served a writ upon him This was equivocation but if he had not come at all as the son in the Parable did not work in the Vineyard when he had said he would that had been plain falsification If those were equivocal Covenants and no reality of the being of a Covenant between God and them in them then all the honour that followed upon them and mercies enjoyed were equivocal likewise Then whensoever God calls Israel his people we must understand him his equivocal people when he calls them his portion we must understand it his equivocal portion when he sayes Judah is his inheritance we must understand his equivocal inheritance and Christs word Matth. 8.12 The children of the Kingdom shall be cast out must be interpreted the children of the equivocal Kingdom and Matth. 22.14 Many are equivocally called and Rom. 9.4 the Apostle must be understood To whom pertaineth the equivocal adoption and the equivocal glory These certainly broke Covenant and yet we have no example of Saints apostasie in them When the Jesuits forced Texts of Scripture to find if it had been possible one or two equivocal speeches in our Saviours words as Joh. 7.8 I go not yet up to this feast leaving out Yet that so there might be either an untruth for he did go up or an equivocation as also in those words of his quoted from the Psalmist Joh. 10.34 I have said ye are gods how would they have gloried in case they had learned that Scripture was almost all over equivocal Give them this and the day is theirs in the doctrine of equivocation Mr. Baxter addes Your second absurdity is That then there are no hypocrites and replyes rather Then all unregenerate professors are hypocrites They pretend meerly to real proper covenanting and they do covenant but verbally and equivocally But the great falshood of this I have sufficiently discovered and therefore my Argument which he notably curtails still stands firm It were too tedious to trouble the Reader with all my words and his The third absurdity which I presse Mr. Baxter doth not vouchsafe to name but onely refers to his answer to Mr. T. I shall therefore let it alone not intending to interpose between them Argument 3. vindicated My third Argument to prove That a faith short of justifying may give title to baptisme is To make the visible seal of baptisme which is the priviledge of the Church visible to be of equall latitude with the seal of the Spirit which is peculiar to invisible members is a Paradox To which he answers The seal of the Covenant and the seal of the Spirit not of equall latitude But you take it for granted that we do so which is too easie disputing and I may well take it for granted seeing in the next words he yields it where he sayes We give the seal of Baptisme to all that seem sound Believers and their seed and we say the seal of the sanctifying Spirit is onely theirs that are such believers Their seeming faith works then onely by way of cheat to procure that which is none of their right
the inward Essence and the other according to the outward manner of Existence Yet this must be taken further into Consideration seeing from this distribution of the Church Mr. Baxter hath got up an Argument to prove visible Churches to be no Churches which is his nineteenth Argument of his 26. and is thus framed If the distribution of the Church into visible and invisible be but of the subject into divers adjuncts and not of a Genus into its Species then that part or those Members which are meerly visible are indeed no part of the Members of the Church so distributed but are onely Equivocally called a Church Church-Members c. The Antecedent must be yielded him the Consequence he saith is undeniable in that adjuncts are no part of the Essence much lesse the form or the whole Essence and therefore cannot denominate but aequivocally instead of the essence To this I answer the consequence might as fairly have been that these members which are invisible are no parts or members of the Church so distributed seeing invisibility or invisible as is confest is an adjunct as well as visibility or visible There may be a distribution of man by hundreds of adjuncts either corpulent or leane high or low black or fair old or young rich or poor learned or unlearned c. If one of these so denominated be a true man shall the other then be onely aequivocally a man If a corpulent man be a true man is a leane man no man If a tall black or old man be a true man shall then a low fair or young man be no man This must needs follow as well as the other The reason given that adjuncts are no part of the Essence is not at all to the purpose seeing the subject that is denominated by such adjuncts hath its Essence though blacknesse be not of the essence of a man yet the man that is black hath his essence and though visibility be not of the essence of the Church yet the Church which is denominated visible hath its essence And whereas we are warned to note that visibile is not the same with visum so I can give warning that invisibile is not the same with non visum though I know not to what purpose Secondly I answer the Church being an integrum and that per aggregationem and onely one in exact propriety of speech it cannot be capable of any such distribution so there must be one Church of one denomination and another of another but it is a distribution of Church-members which serve as parts to make up the whole some of which are onely visible that is all their honour to make a visible profession and to enjoy the glory of Ordinances and the Divine protection of God over his vineyard upon which account they are nigh when others are a far off The other are invisible members As they have all the visible honour before mentioned so they have an addition of a far greater glory of invisible graces The former I take to be the Church most properly though I know others are of another opinion for two reasons 1. When the Church is an integrum as Mr. Hudson hath largely proved it the visible Church containes the whole for the invisible part is also visible invisible respective to graces but visible respective to profession and outward priviledges The invisible is onely one part and so not the Church in its most proper signification 2. The Scripture almost wheresoever it speakes of a Church takes it in this acception and that which is the ordinary and common language of the holy Ghost which he uses most often almost alwayes is that which is most proper Some have said that the word Church is not more then once taken for the Church invisible which is Heb. 12.23 The Church of the first born If it should be granted that there is two or three places more which will bear that acceptation of it which is as much as can be pretended yet I dare say there is not one for twenty where the Church is taken for the Church visible And is the language of Scripture still all over aequivocal When Christ sayes The Kingdome of heaven is like to a man that sowed good seed in his field is like to a draw-net shall we say the Kingdome of heaven aequivocally taken Stephen sayes This was he that was in the Church in the wildernesse must we understand it of the Church aequivocal And when Paul gave Timothy a directory how to behave himself in the house of God which he sayes is the Church of the living God must we understand it of a Church aequivocal Such a one would be but a weak ground or pillar of the truth we may say the same of abundant other places If all these aequivocals be granted it will shortly be questioned whether there be any reality in Scripture language The Author vindicated from Arminianisme As the authority of our Divines is produced against the Papists so also their authority against the Arminians is brought forth Our Divines against the Arminians saith he do suppose the first act of believing to be the first time that God is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of grace and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the state of nature though the conditional Covenant may be made to them and though he hath revealed his decree for the sanctifying his elect That God is then first engaged for the graces of the Covenant I easily yeeld for then the grand condition by the help of grace is put in by the soul But let us here take up that which he is pleased to yield and compare it with that which he hath put into the Index of his Treatise of Infant-Baptisme where he notes this as Mr. T. his Error That the Covenant whereof Baptisme is the seal is onely the absolute Covenant made onely to the Elect which pag. 223. he confutes And if men in the state of nature be in that Covenant that Baptisme seales viz the conditional Covenant then men in the state of nature and short of justifying faith have right to Baptisme It follows In my opinion the transition is very easie from Mr. Blakes opinion to Arminianisme if not unavoidable save by retreat or by not seeing the connexion of the consequence to the antecedent When this was charged upon me by another hand I was acquitted by Mr. Br. and he testified for me that I had acquitted Mr. M. from any such charge I marvel therefore that now it should be fastened upon me But let us hear his reason For grant once that common faith doth coram Deo give right to Baptisme and it is very easie to prove that it gives right to the end of Baptisme God having not instituted it to be an empty sign to those that have true right to it What is it that we hear will it give immediate right to the end of Baptisme
That may be easily said but I think hardly proved It is no empty sign if in the right use of it it may prove serviceable to it I am sure the Jew outwardly had right to the Oracles of God and yet no immediate certain right to their end which is to be the power of God to salvation It will be an hard task to prove the certainty of all their salvation that in the right of God stand entitled to any Ordinance of his the reason will hold of all as well as one they are not empty and vain The Jewes had right to Circumcision in the flesh and none that was a Jew outwardly might neglect it and yet were void of Circumcision of the heart or forgiveness of sin The conclusion is That it will be no hard matter to prove that it is some special grace that is the end of Baptisme at least remission of sin And so upon the right use of common grace God should be in Covenant obliged to give them special grace which is taken for Pelagianisme It will far rather follow from that opinion that a common and special grace differ onely gradually not specifically According to that promise of our Saviour Matth. 13.12 To him that hath shall be given which our Divines have still understood of graces of the same and not of a different kind he that hath common graces and improves them shall have a larger measure of those graces and he that hath spiritual graces and improves them shall have a more large measure of spiritual gifts And if they be both of one kind then Christs promise holds from the one to the other It will be an hard matter I think to prove that all that have right in Ordinances though they make no right use shall attain to the end of them Argument 5. vindicated My fifth Argument was An enquiry into Simon Maegus his Baptisme That faith upon which Simon Magus was in the Primitive times baptized is that which admitteth to Baptisme Simon himself believed and was baptized Acts 8.13 But Simons faith fell short of saving and justifying To which a sudden answer is given Concedo totum sed desideratur Conclusic He is certainly much to seek both in Syllogismes and Common reason that could not infer and could not know that I left the Reader to infer that Ergo a faith that is short of justifying entitles to Baptisme And so I have the whole in question yielded and that which was once said would make foul work in the Church if once granted But as soon as it is yielded me a Means is unkindly used to take it away from me And it is further answered That may be said to admit to Baptisme which so qualifieth the person as that we are bound to baptize him as being one that seemeth sound in believing as Simon did If such liberty of interpretation be yielded who may not easily elude the sense of any Scripture-Text the Text saith that Simon believed and was baptized Is it now enough for us to say he seemed to believe and therefore those whom he thus deceived were bound to baptize him Let the whole Text be viewed and the former Verse taken in and then let us see whether such a Glosse be fair When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both men and women Then Simon himself believed also That faith upon which all the other Samaritans were admitted to Baptisme Simon was admitted upon also But it was not a seeming to believe but a believing that admitted the other Samaritans Therefore it was believing not a seeming to believe that admitted Simon When the Holy Ghost saith Simon believed as he saith other Samaritans believed and his faith satisfied Philip full of the Holy Ghost to give him admittance How may we that stand at this distance dare to call it into question If the Seal were put to a meer blank paper why is not all reversed upon discovery of a Misprision in proceeding So any man would do that had put a Seal where no name was written Why was not all ipso facto made null what reason could be given but that Peter had he been of that mind should have said Repent of this thy wickednesse that upon testimony given of thine integrity thou mayest yet be baptized But when the Text sayes he did believe and Philip upon that account thus proceeded and no retractation upon such discovery was made I believe no such Glosse is to be suffered My sixth and last Argument was In case onely justifying faith give admission to Baptisme then none is able to baptize seeing this by none is discerned To which Mr. Baxter sayes very little but onely refers to what he hath said to Mr. Tombs and I having had occasion before and may have occasion hereafter to speak of it shall here make no further defence of it Additional Arguments that a faith short of that which justifies gives title to Baptisme SEeing these Arguments have given Mr. Baxter so little satisfaction I shall endeavour to make some addition onely premising this That Baptisme is our door of Entrance or way of admission into the Church visible which I shall take for granted seeing Mr. T. pag. 54. of his Apology as Mr. Baxter observes hath yielded it and Mr. Baxter to my hand Treatise of Infant-Baptisme pag. 24. by Arguments hath proved it If then I shall prove that such are to be received into the Church I shall take the Conclusion to be the same as if they said they were to be baptized and proving their right to be taken into the Church I prove their right to be baptized 1. They that have right in the sight of God to many and Arg. 1 great Priviledges of his gift have right in his sight to the first and leading priviledge this I think cannot be denyed Having a right to those that follow they have right to those that lead If any had in the time of the Law right to the Passeover they had right to Circumcision and if any now have right to the Lords Supper they have right to Baptisme But those of a faith that is short of that which justifies have right to many and great priviledges in the sight of God This is clear from the Apostle Rom. 3.1 The Jew outwardly where Circumcision of heart was wanting had every way much profit and advantage he had therefore right to Circumcision and those with him that are short of a faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptisme 2. Those that are a people by Gods gracious dispensations Arg. 2 nigh unto God comparative to others have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear Men have right to be admitted to their right But those that come short of justifying faith are a people by Gods gracious dispensation nigh unto God comparative to others this is
distinction of a Church into visible and invisible Arg. 12 12. The children of God have right in the sight of God to be admitted to baptisme This is clear enough But men short of justifying faith are children of God even those that drew down judgements on the Old world as Gen. 6.2 The whole body of the children of Israel Deut. 14.1 Those that most provoked God amongst them Those that revolted from Christ for whom Paul had so much heavinesse in the flesh Rom. 9.4 If the way of their adoption or sonship be questioned doubtlesse it âs such as hath with it an inheritance for a child is not adopted but to be provided for And what inheritance can be conceived but Church priviledges Greater will not be yeelded and lesser to one thus related cannot be assigned and what priviledge can be inherited if there be no door of admittance to it Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Baptisme 13. Those whom God ingraffs by his power into the true Arg. 13 Olive and makes partakers of the fatnesse of the Olive they have right in the sight of God to be admitted This is plain God engraffing right must not be denyed But he engraffs by his power those that are short of that faith that justifies even the whole body of the Church of the Gentiles and we expect the like of the Church of the Jewes as appears from the Apostle Rom. 11. Therefore those that are short of a justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Baptisme I had thought to have ended here but let me add two more 14. All of those that professedly imbrace a Gospel tender Arg. 14 in which there is a conditional promise of Justification Adoption Glorification have right in the sight of God to all Ordinances ordinarily necessary and requisite to bring them up to these conditions and to the fruition of these glorious priviledges and consequently to baptisme the leading priviledge This none can deny that know the readiness of Christ in imparting saving Ordinances to a people But those that are short of faith which is justifying may imbrace a Gospel-tender in which there is a conditional promise of Justification Adoption Glorification Those therefore that are short of faith which is justifying have right in the sight of God to all such Ordinances and consequently to Baptisme 15. If the Apostle argue for a right to Baptisme from gifts Arg. 15 that are common to the justified and unjustified then faith which is short of justifying gives right in the sight of God to Baptisme This none can deny unless they will call the Apostles Logick into question and deny his consequence But the Apostle thus argues for a right to Baptisme from those gifts that are common to the justified and unjustified this is plain Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we The holy Ghost there is the gift of the holy Ghost then poured out the gift of tongues as in the 45. and 46. verses is held forth which is a gift not onely inferiour to charity but such as may be sever'd from it 1 Cor. 13.1 A gift of that kind that men of a miraculous faith ordinarily did as in an instant confer They are therefore gifts common to the justified and unjustified Those therefore of faith short of that which is justifying have right to Baptisme Arg. 16 16. If the promise be to others besides believers then so is the seal for to whom God promiseth to them he engageth himself to perform But the promise is to others Therefore the seal is to others This will be evident if it be once understood that it is onely the conditional Covenant which God sealeth by the Sacraments for this promise is made to unbelievers though the good promised is not to be enjoyed by any but those that perform the condition Arg. 17 17. If God do no more in his actual sealing to believers then he doth when the Sacrament is rightly applyed to hypocrites then he actually sealeth to hypocrites But God doth no more in his actual sealing to believers then he doth when the Sacrament is rightly administred to hypocrites The Minor is proved by the enumeration of the several acts 1. God maketh a promise 2. He commandeth Ministers to publish it 3. He hath instituted the Sacraments as mutually engaging signs or seals 4. He commands Ministers to deliver or apply them to those that professe their consent and desire to enter or renew the Covenant These two last I confesse I have borrowed and that from Mr. Br. pag. 223. of his Infant-Baptisme and whether they make for him or against him to prove or disprove their right which he here calls hypocrites and distinguishes from believers I leave to the censure of the intelligent Reader Mr. Baxters Arguments reviewed and his Vindication examined Argument 1. MR. Baxter argues When Christ saith Make me Disciples of all Nations Matth. 28.29 Vindicated baptizing them he meant sincere disciples though we cannot know them to be sincere I have answered that this discipleship which Christ here mentions is such of which whole Nations are in a Capacity which was made plain by the Commission concluding If whole Nations yea the whole universal visible Church consisting of discipled Nations were all believers it were a great happinesse Christ on the contrary saith Many are called but few chosen Mr. Baxter replyes If it be not sincere disciples that Christ means in that Text Then no Apostle was bound by that Commission and great Precept to endeavour the making of sincere Disciples but onely counterfeits and half Christians But the Antecedent is false Therefore I am sorry to hear the Constitution of visible Churches to suffer this brand of making counterfeit and half Christians It is well known whose Language it is That all charging or urging of duty upon unregenerate persons is onely to bring them to hypocrisie Do not all know that the means necessarily conducible must be used in order to the end proposed In order to make men sincere disciples they must be made visible professing disciples They may be half Christians if Mr. Baxter will have it so in order to whole Christians Dr. Ames if I do not misremember compares visible Churches to rough stones taken out of the quarry and invisible Christians to stones hewed and polished I am sure they must be taken out of the quarry to be put into the building It is said that Melanchton used to wish that there were more hypocrites in the world then there were not that he would have more dissembling among those that made profession of Christianity but more brought in to make profession Profession being a good step in the way to sincerity which a man would think Mr. Baxter would not dislike who so far speaks the mind of Christ towards men that if they will come but onely to a
I will not take thee for my God to rule me or be my happinesse nor will I take Christ to governe me and save me in his way nor will I be guided or sanctified by the Holy Ghost but hereafter I will and therefore I come to be baptized If I say such have right to baptisme and you say we are bound to baptize them how do you mend the matter do not you conclude your fourty sixt Section with these words Vocation which is effectual onely to bring men to an outward profession of saving faith is larger then election and makes men such whom we are bound to baptize 2. I say and do professe of those that have those secret reservations wrapt up in their brests and not yet from under the power of lusts yet convinced of their duty and acknowledging the necessity that it is the mind of God that they should be baptized and have admission to ordinances in order to bring them more sincerely and unreservedly to God And this being the will of God as you seem to yeeld when you say we are bound to baptize them I say they have right in the sight of God to Baptisme and it were ill with the Church if those in Austins case that would pray Da castitatem da temperantiam Domine sed non modò should be denyed all investiture in Church priviledges Where Mr. Baxter saies that faith which is the condition of the promise is the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal And I say that I judge the contrary to be undenyable After many words which are needlesse to repeat we have his reasons with a complaint that I have given no reason of my denyal To which I say That which in a parenthesis without reason is affirmed may without rendring any reason be denyed But before I come to consider of his reasons it is necessary that the terms be looked into and the question rightly stated that there may be no misunderstanding When Mr Baxter speaks of the condition of the promise I suppose he means the condition called for in order to the attainment of the thing promised the promise for the object of the promise as it is taken Heb. 11.13 Otherwise the promise it self properly taken hath no condition There was no condition inducing God to make promise of Christ nor to make tender of any such promise But he promises glory by Christ on his own terms and propositions Now for the reasons themselves to make good that that which is the condition of the promise is the condition of title to the seal The first is The seal is but an affix to the promise therefore that which is the condition of the promise is the condition of the seal The seal is no affix to the thing promised but it is often separated from it It is a means to convey and a way to confirm it upon Gods tearms to those that have their Interest in the Covenant 2. The use of the seal is to confirm the promise to him to whom it is sealed Therefore the condition of the promise is the condition of the seal When it is granted that the use of the seal is to confirm the thing promised it will not therefore follow that there is the same condition required for interest in the seal as for interest in the thing in promise If a man will ingage under seal to give me one hundred pounds provided that I will come to such a place and accept it my professed willingnesse will Interest me in the seal my actual acceptance in the Moneys 3. If the promise and seal have two distinct conditions then there are two distinct Covenants for from the conditions most commonly are contracts specified and therefore Wesenbechius and such like Logical Civilians call it the form of the contract or stipulation to be either pura vel in diem vel sub conditiene and those subconditions are specified oft from their various conditions But there is not two Covenants Therefore I know not well how to reach this Is there not one thing needful to interest me in a bargain or to make me a Covenanter and another thing to obtain the benefit accruing by such conditional bargain or Covenant 4. Is it not against the nature and common use of sealing that it should be in order before the promise or Covenant And that men should first have right to that seal on one condition before they have right to the promise and then have right to the promise after on another condition But sure it is not against the nature of seals to be before the mercy covenanted for and promised And I beseech you take this into serious consideration and do not sleightly passe it Justifying faith with you is the Covenant and do not you preach to work men up to it and I hope your labours are happily successeful Yet all of these to whom you preach perhaps not a man excepted hath this seal and is baptized Do you now in all your Ministerial labours go against the nature and common use of sealing To keep a due order we must then forbear baptizing not onely till men professe to believe but are actually in the faith in a way that justifies 5. If it be so undenyable that that faith which is the condition of the promise is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal as you affirm why then do ye build so much against Mr. Tombs on that Argument from Acts 2. The promise is to you and your Children arguing a right to the seal from an interest in the promise I Argue not from an interest in the seal to an interest in the thing promised but require something further By this it appears that you take the promise properly and not for the thing promised and then I pray you reconcile this to your second reason The use of a seal is not to confirm in this that I have a promise but that I shall have interest in the good that is promised 6. Where you say that an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with ingagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seal I reply then those that at present renounce Christ so it be against their knowledge and conscience and will ingage to own him sincerely for the future have a title to Baptisme How comes I pray you that future in you manifest much reading in the Law and I have heard this as a Maxime In obligationibus ubi nullus certus statuitur dies quovis die debetur There is no day overtaken but the ingagement is for present though God in mercy except when for a long time the ingagement hath been presumptuously neglected But bring me a man that in his heart is convinced that Jesus is the Christ with his mouth professes him and ingages for him and in the mean space actually renounceth him and I will do what you would have me with him That is a man that is falling headlong
regenerate or unregenerate which is an undiscernable work and accordingly to admit or refuse SECT XIII Proposition 11. The Lords Supper with the Word as an appendant to it may be serviceable to bring a man of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant THere is nothing hinders but that the Lords Supper with the Word as an appendant to it may be serviceable to bring up those of Covenant interest to the terms and propositions of the Covenant may serve to work a man of profession of faith unto faith saving and justifying a man in name the Lords to turn unfeignedly and sincerely to the Lord. This I shall endeavour by Arguments to confirm First Men of that interest that baptisme receives as the intention of the work in order to salvation these the Lords Supper serves to carry on by sanctification to salvation as the end of the work likewise But Baptisme receives men of visible profession onely and visible interest as the intention of the work into the visible Church in order to salvation Therefore the Lords Supper carries on these by sanctification as the intention of the work to salvation The Proposition cannot be denyed unlesse we will without reason bring in that vast difference between these two outward vâââble Ordinances both intrusted in the hands of man as that the one shall be of that latitude to receive men of visible interest and the other restrained to invisible members The one according to the mind of God shall let many into the Church for salvation the other shall be in capacity to nourish and bring on very few The Assumption cannot be denyed That Baptisme receives men of visible profession and visible interest in order to salvation and hath been abundantly proved we baptize infants upon the bare account of Covenant-holiness which is onely a visible interest men of years were baptized and by just warrant yet may in case not baptized upon a visible profession The conclusion then followes that the Lords Supper carries on those as the intention of the work that Baptisme receives to salvation Secondly If it be the mind of God in the Gospel revealed that men of visible interest having not yet attained to the grace of sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Table then it must needs follow that it serves as an instrument with the Word to raise them up by faith and sanctification to salvation But it is the mind of God in the Gospell revealed that men of visible interest having not yet reached unto sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Supper The Lords Supper then serves to raise up men of visible interest by faith and sanctification for salvation The Proposition is clear unlesse we will make mens admission most mens admission meerly vain having no power nor any capacity to advance their happinesse but being wholly in a tendency to increase their judgement Whatsoever the secret will of God to us unknown is that in the event it shall prove yet the work it self must have a tendency and power respective to those for whom it is appointed for edification not for destruction The Assumption is evident that those of visible interest having not attained sanctification according to the mind of God revealed in his Word should have admittance by the barres that are assigned for mens exclusion The alone barres that are ordinarily assigned to hold men in Covenant-interest off from the Lords Table are ignorance Error and Scandal But many that cannot be charged with ignorance error or scandall are yet short of sanctification Many short of sanctification then have no barre to their admission Either visible interest with capacity to improve it or saving interest in the Covenant must be the rule for admission But saving interest in âhe Covenant cannot then to use Mr Cobbets words Vindication pag. 54. it would either necessitate Ministers to come under guilt of sin or anomie breach of rule or for avoiding of that which they must needs do with such breach of rule never to administer any Church ordinances since they sometimes shall break that rule in administring it to hypocrites and albeit they do sometimes administer them to elect ones yet not being able to know that secret infallibly they observe not the rule in faith but doubtingly and so can have little comfort of any such of their administrations If any reply that saving interest in the Covenant is the rule but we are not tied infallibly to come up to the rule but as farre as our charity can judge men to be in grace we must admit them to this seal of grace To this I have several things to reply 1. God never puts mens charity to this work as respective to admission to ordinances to judge whether in grace or not whether regenerate or in unregeneration And indeed charity which is assigned by some to that place is most unfit to judge A Judge or Umpire in a businesse must be impartial and have nothing to byasse him on any hand But charity would be ready to cover a multitude of sins which is no blemish of the grace but a demonstration that this is none of its office If then man must judge as he is most unmeet his reason and not his love must take the chair for it and go as high as conjecture can reach 2. If charity or reason thus set up mistake then the rule is broke which though these will say is not the admitters sin seeing the thing is not so scibile or of possibility to be known and by the way we observe that he is therefore no competent Judge yet a seal is by this meanes put to a blank which is no small prophanation and the ordinance administred solely and necessarily for the receivers judgement 3. Though we infallibly know a mans unsanctified condition and were able to charge it yet whilest it is not open and breakes not into scandal we cannot upon this account as is confest exclude him from the Sacrament That Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper most of the Ancient held as Maldonate on Matth. 7.6 observes we have large lists brought to our hands of names that go that way The greater part of late Writers are of the same mind Ravanellus as the last man in verb. Sacrament is peremptory in it and there concludes also the interest of all in Covenant yet Judas was known to Christ to be a thief a Devil and yet he receives him Christ had doubtlesse power vested in him for his exclusion The non-suspition of the Apostles nor the close carriage of his treachery could not then have excusâd his receiving in case it had not been the mind of God that a man of visible interest though unsanctified might be admitted And to say that Christ acted here as a Minister and it was not fit that he should be both Judge and witnesse though it be a truth yet it serves not to take off the Argument Had it not been the mind of God that
men of his interest should be received then Christ would not at any hand have knowingly gone against it and given him admission to it And what he did according to the mind of God as a Minister by a Minister may be done And to pronounce him at that time that he received it such that had no right for admission yet to admit him were such a precedent as Christ would not have given Christ would not trust himself with some upon that account that the knew what was in them Joh. 2.23 24. and he would not have trusted the Sacrament with such a one in case he had not known that it had been the mind of God that men of that standing should partake of it If it be objected that Christ knew that Judas was not in a capacity to improve the Sacrament for sanctification and salvation being a reprobate I answer respective to his gifts wherewith he was endowed he was in capacity of improvement The Sacrament is of use to those that were his inferiours and an eye is had to the tendency of the work according to Gods revealed will and not to that which is in Gods secret purpose Let us summe up the argument briefly into this form Ministers must give the Sacrament so as it may be to edification and not certainly to destruction But they must give it to some not yet throughly sanctified Therefore some not throughly sanctified may receive it to edification and not to destruction Thirdly the Law and Gospel in their joynt strength applyed in power to the understanding may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms conditions and propositions of the Covenant may work men of profession of faith to faith saving and justifying may work a man that is onely in name the Lords to be truely and savingly his This none can deny if Law and Gospel cannot do it in the way of instruments and ordinances appointed of God there is no way on earth in which it can be done But in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel the epitome and summe the strength and vigour of Law and Gospel applyed in power to the understanding Therefore the conclusion followes that the Lords Supper may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant men of profession of Faith to Faith saving and justified The Assumption is clear that in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel the epitome and summe the strength and vigour both of Law and Gospell There we have the curse of the Law in the highest degree held out Christ made a curse and bearing all that the Law denounces against sin even all that which sinne according to the Law did demerit There are sins bruises transgressions wounds There we have the summe and substance of the Gospel held out Christs death for remission of sinne laid open There we have Christ a curse which is that which the law inflicts upon transgression There we have Christ a sacrifice which is that which the Gospel doth promise all brought home and applyed to the understanding of the communicant Fourthly That which is high in the aggravating of sinne to the conscience and clear in holding out the pardon of sinne may work a man of Covenant interest up to the terms and conditions of the Covenant may work men of profession of Faith to a Faith saving and justifying This is clear which way else are men brought up to faith and sanctification but upon the sight of sinne in its aggravations and Gospel tenders for the removal of it The Assumption that sin is in this ordinance in the highest way aggravated and the removal of it held out is also clear and may easily per partes be proved 1. The highest aggravation of sin to the breaking of the heart and the melting of the soul is the looking upon him whom our sins have pierced Zach. 12.10 They shall look upon him whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his onely sonne and shall be in bitternesse for him as one that is in bitternesse for his first-born and that we thus look upon him in the Sacrament I shall choose to set it out in the words of the Ministers and Elders met in the Provinciall Assembly of London in their Vindication where speaking to those that joyn with them at the Lords Table pag. 104. You must so remember Christ as to find power coming out of Christ Sacramental to break your hearts for all the sins you have committed against him Christ is presented in the Sacrament as a broken Christ his body broken and his blood poured out And the very breaking of the bread understandingly looked upon is a forcible Argument to break your hearts Was Jesus Christ rent and torn in pieces for you and shall it not break your hearts that you should sin against him Was he crucified for you and will you crucify him by your sins And besides the breaking of the bread is not onely ordained to be a motive unto brokennesse of heart for sin but also in the right use to effect that which it doth move unto And pag. 105. You must so remember Christ Sacramentall as to find power comming out of Christ to subdue all your sins and iniquities as the diseased woman felt vertue coming out of Christ to cure her bloody issue so there is power in an applicative and fiducial remembrance of Christ at the Sacrament to heal all the sinful issues of our soules there is no sin so strong but it is conquerable by a power derived from Christ crucified And pag. 106. You must continue in remembring Christ in the Sacrament till your hearts be wrought up to a through contempt of the world and all worldly things Christ instituted the Sacrament when he was going out of the world and when he was crucifying the whole world was in darknesse and obscurity and he is propounded in the Sacrament as a persecuted broken crucified Christ despising and being despised of the World And if you do practically remember the Sacrament of his death you will find vertue coming out thereof to make you dead to the world and all worldly things And pag. 107. Cease not remembring Christ till you be made partakers of the rare grace of humility Of all the graces that were in Christ in which he would have Christians to imitate him in humility is one of the chiefest Matth. 11.29 Learn of me for I am humble And Christ in the Sacrament is presented as humbling himself to the death of the crosse for our sakes And what a shame is it to remember an humble Christ with a proud heart The practical remembrance of the humility of Christ Sacramental when sanctified is mighty in operation to tame the pride of our hearts And pag. 110. To endeavour that your eyes may affect your hearts when you are at the Sacrament For as Christ in the Ministery of his Word preacheth to the ear and by the ear conveyeth himself into the
heart so in the Sacrament he preacheth to the eye and by the eye conveyeth himself into the heart And therefore it is well called a visible Sermon What can be more plain then this to set the out the power of the Sacrament to soul contrition true humiliation and mortification Too many that professe Faith have their hearts lift up and live not by faith Here is a way to bring them down when they see sin to be of such a provoking nature that onely the sufferings of the Sonne of God are able to satisfie that their demerit doth put him upon a necessity of all these woes These are certainly heart melting considerations If it be yet objected that the Provincial Assembly at London speak to their own communicants whom they suppose to be in grace To this I reply that in case that should fail and some at least should have their predominant lusts lurking and treachery against the Covenant as in Judas against Christ harboured it can be of no danger to say that here is a means to work them on to humiliation and brokennesse of spirit 2. If any yet say that their thoughts are otherwise of this Sacrament I answer their words best speak their thoughts and we see what they say The very breaking of the bread say they understandingly looked upon is a forcible Argument to break your hearts and the breaking of the bread may be looked upon understandingly by an unsanctified man if there be truth in their Propositions as I doubt not but they are most true then my Conclusion is true likewise We may make up if you please this part of the Argument thus A sin aggravating ordinance is an heart breaking and soul humbling ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords supper is a sinne aggravating ordinance Therefore it is an heart breaking and soul humbling ordinance For the other branch of the Assumption that this ordinance is the holding out of the pardon of sin needs no proof This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you and for many for the remission of sinne Matth. 26. Fifthly That which is annext to the Word to second it in that very thing which works the soul unto conversion to good may bring the person of Covenant interest up to the termes of the Covenant may work one of profession of faith onely unto faith saving and justifying This none can deny being added to the Word as it 's second in such a work it well may have an hand in the working of it But the Sacrament is annext to the Word to second it in that very thing which works the soul unto conversion to God The Assumption is manifest If we consider what the Word does for conversion and the whole in which the energy and power of it as an Ordinance is exercised then we shall soon see that this Sacrament is added as a second in that work The Word converts in holding out sin in its defilements and danger in the discovery of the loathsome nature of it and the cursed effects that follow upon it together with Christ in the promises to save from it I know no other way that the Word hath to bring a soul in sin to God but in setting forth the lost and undone condition of it and so to bring to conviction compunction and enquiry what to do and then to make tender of Christ In this method souls as we find on record have been brought home to God of which there might be frequent instances Now that this Sacrament is added to the Word for further discovery of sin in the defilement and danger to hold out Christ in his death taking away sin need not to be proved It is true that the first detection of sin is by the rule of the Law and therefore the Apostle sayes By the Law is the knowledge of sin In case the question be put whether this or that act be sin then neither the tender of Christ in the Gospel nor yet the Sacrament can have any hand in the determination of it but they both serve for the aggravation of sin to lay it open in the dimensions and danger of it Sin is no where so seen in its height as in the sorrowes and sufferings of Christ as is by all affirmed and these sufferings we know the Word holds out for conversion from sin And the visible Word of the Sacrament seconds the Word in this very thing to set out Christs death to lay before our eyes Christ broken for us both for the aggravation of sin and for the pardon of it Thus if you please you may put the argument If the Sacrament doth the same thing as the Word doth in conversion then the Sacrament cannot be denyed to have an hand in conversion But the Sacrament as we see does the same thing as the Word it serves to the heightning of sin and the setting out of the pardon of sin Therefore it followes that the Sacrament may have an hand in conversion Sixthly That which by frequent experience we see the Sacrament works toward and for ought we are able to judge works unto that we may well conclude it is designed and appointed of God to work This cannot fairly be denyed yet if any think that this of it self is not of full strength seeing our experience may deceive us we may conceive what is not Let these then joyn to it what hath been already said This experience added to so much evidence of reason I doubt not but will be found to have strength in it And I put it for their sakes that say Let any give instance of any man or woman that hath at any time been converted by the Sacrament And that there are frequent experiences of the Sacraments working towards this thing is plain How frequent is it with men to have affrightings soul-shakings tremblings strong present resolutions against sin upon their approach to this Ordinance being convinced of it to be a duty that they ought to go to it How mightily are their spirits often affected in it If we make that an argument of the power of the Word towards wicked men in the affrighting and astonishment of them in the terrifying and amazement stopping for present their full swinge in sin and wickednesse as we know it is ordinarily with those that set out the power of the Word see Dr. Reynolds on Psal 110. pag. 150. why then should we not make the same effects that we see ordinarily produced by the Sacrament to be evidences of the like power in the Sacrament And as we read of an Ahab a Felix a Zedekiah an Herod thus startled by the Word so we may see and know such as these alike startled and affected at the Sacrament Superstition perhaps works it in some But we find the work in others in whom such superstition hath no place It can be no other then the Majestie of the Ordinance the high aggravation of sin and the glory of Christ set out in it All this
I confesse many times comes to nothing it is a fit and so over it hath not the strength to bear down mens lusts to a full change and through mortification and so it is with those also that hear the Word They are many times Sermon-sick and yet all soon falls and comes to nothing yet in the nature of the work it self it hath a tendency towards a change And that this sometimes works those of Covenant-interest unto a true change and through work of sanctification so far as we are able to judge there are not few experiments I have known some bred onely for jollity and outward delights that making addresse to the Sacrament have had those soul-shakings and trembling amazements that have put them upon a serious way of enquiry and the spark so kindled by Gods blessing hath been nourished up into that burning heat that their whole life hath been spent in zeal for God and their name in life and death precious Seventhly To these we add the acknowledgement of eminent Divines of an opposite judgement who will have all admitted present at the consecration of the elements to see the bread broke and divided And to what purpose is their presence if not for their profit and what profit can an unconverted man find in any thing in a spiritual way that works not towards his conversion that is no wayes useful or improvable for it What others may judge I know not these arguments to which some other might be added have taken with me to conclude the position before delivered SECT XIV Objections against the former Proposition answered I Know that objections here are multiplied I have read many which in case they had been with me of weight this that I am now upon had been stifled in the birth and more doubtles hath been said then I have seen and more yet happily will be raised To go about to meet with all were to make no end of words I shall speak first to some general charges General charges answerd after to some particular arguments First In case this holds say some then all upon that bare account are to be admitted to the Supper who will hinder the conversion of any yea even Turks Pagans and the vilest varlots may then come and joyn in this Ordinance To these I answer First Were it of power Promiscous admission follows not from it as an instrument in the hand of God for conversion of all yet all were not to be admitted when the will and mind of God is known to be against it The Gospel in the mouthes of the twelve when they had their first commission might have been of power for the conversion of Samaritanes and Gentiles yet they are forbidden to make tender of it to them Matth. 11.5 Go not into the way of the Gentiles and into any City of the Samaritanes enter not The word in Pauls mouth might have been respective to any operation in it self the conversion of souls in Asia and Bithynia as well as in Macedonia yet the Spirit forbids them to go to the former and sends them to preach to the other Act. 16.6.7 10. If the mighty works which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would hav repented in sackcloth and ashes yet they were denyed to those of Tyre and Sidon Matth. 11.21 So that though the Sacraments had a generally converting power yet in case they be appointed of God with limit to those of Covenant-interest they may not in any greater latitude be dispensed and so Jewes Turkes and Pagans are excluded Secondly The Word it self which is confest to be the power of God to salvation and of the most large efficacy of any Ordinance for conversion is not yet tendred to all in any expectation of conversion by it Not to speak of those to whom God in his providence doth deny it who are out of the pale of the Church but those to whom the Church doth not make mention of it Infants Idiots distracted ones and deaf persons no Minister applies himself to them to make tender of it for conversion so that there must be not onely a commission to tender it and a clear evidence that men have according to the mind of God an interest but there must be a present capacity in such for improvement I am not ignorant that some seeing it seems that this doth lye against them have pleaded for a capacity in all these before mentioned to receive benefit by the Word demanding 1. Why are Infants and pari ratione distracted persons uncapable of the Word An answer me thinks is at hand because they are necessarily in the condition of the high-way-ground to hear and understand nothing They profit no more then those 1 Cor. 14. that hear words in an unknown tongue And in case they be in capacity as is affirmed to receive benefit from the Word the Minister occasionally is to make out a word of exhortation to them giving them their portion as well as others which how it would sound in the ears of those that are of growth and have their senses and understanding let any judge These further demand Where hath God said they shall be kept from it No more hath he said that the swallow or the sparrow should be kept from it by providenee they have been present when those that would have improved such an opportunity in a Spiritual way have been denyed it Yea places are produced to shew that God hath commanded infants to be present at Ordinances But where is it commanded that Idiots distracted persons c. should be present Reasons may be given of infants presence at entry of Covenants at solemn fasts denuntiations of blessings and curses when yet they are in an incapacity to receive benefit by the VVord Demand is yet further made Who knowes how God may work at the Word though not by the Word may not the Word be an occasion of conversion unto infants which is an instrument of conversion to elder persons Such queries will bring in the most ignorant and scandalous to the Lords Supper who knowes but that which is an instrument of nourishment of men converted may prove an occasion of conversion to men unconverted So that this notwithstanding the position delivered will not bear this inference that is drawn from it Though the Lords Supper as an appendant to the Word may serve to bring up those of Covenant-interest to the terms and Propositions of the Covenant may work a man of profession of faith to faith saving and justifying yet there must be somewhat more to give actual admission to it Put in these two Cautions 1. That the persons in question have their interest and first right in it 2. That they be in a capacity to improve it for their benefit with these cautions and not else I am for a general admission Secondly It is objected That this makes the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance as well as the Word
the day that he was to dye he held a passeover In New Testament-times not onely through the Apostles times but to this time Baptisme and the Lords Supper have continued Reasons may also enforce this as to Sacraments in general so to Baptisme and the Lords Supper in particular 1. The Covenant is to be kept for ever there is no dispensation at any time for the breach of it The seals then which by Divine institution are appointed as appendants to it must be continued As reason it self may speak enough for the validity of this consequence so the Text of Scripture likewise confirms it Gen. 17.7 13. compared I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee 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 2. We have as much need as ever this generation as any other generation to have our weaknesses supported our faith strengthened there is not any benefit ever gained by a Sacrament but as primitive times did so we may reap spiritual advantage by it For reasons for the perpetuity of Baptisme Mr. Baxter pag. 341 342. of his Treatise of Infants Church-membership and Baptisme hath furnished the Reader with plenty of ten that he urges I judg nine at least to be unquestionable to which I shall adde onely one and that is such a one that with weaknesse enough hath been brought by some for warranty of the disuse of it If the gift of the Spirit be lasting and continuing in the Church then the use of Baptisme is lasting and continuing likewise But the gift of the Spirit is lasting and continuing Ergo. The assumption that the Spirit is a lasting gift I suppose none will question The major Proposition is grounded on the Apostles words Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we When others do reason from the having of the Spirit to the needlenesse of Baptisme the Apostle disputes in the direct opposite manner where the Spirit is there Baptisme is not to be denyed For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper we may likewise evince the constant standing necessity of it 1. The death of Christ is to be shewed forth constantly and every way preached This is a shewing forth of the death of Christ a means of declaring of him crucified 1 Cor. 11.26 2. The memorial of Christ is to be preserved and endeared This is for his memorial done in remembrance of him Matth 26. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. If the deliverance from Egypt must be kept as a memorial for ever in that Ordinance of the Passeover then much more the remembrance of Christ in his Supper 3. Every way of Communion with Christ is to be preserved and upheld This is a way of Communion with Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 4. Union with the Members of Christ is to be studied This is the way of our union with the Members of Christ and therefore this is to be continued I shall not enlarge much for refutation of Objections of those that in our times are contrarily minded seeing I have read little of any thing that they have to say a noise is abroad of such with whom I have had small converse that cry down rebaptisme by the denyal of Baptisme as Lucian made it his businesse to confute Polytheisme by bringing in of Atheisme made himself merry with the Pagans rabble of gods by believing no God Opposition of errour ordinarily leads men into opposite errors but a better way may be found for the overthrow of a double Baptisme then by the nullifying of all baptisme One God asserted by the Apostle will overthrow Atheisme and Polytheisme and one Baptisme asserted by him in the same place will overthrow Anabaptisme But these are not the first founders of this opinion Austin speaking of the Manichees Heres 46. saith e Baptismum in aqua nihil cuiquam perhibent salutis adferre nec quenquam eorum baptizandum putant That they hold that Baptism with water not at all usefull for salvation neither do they think it meet to baptize any that they deceive and speaking of other Hereticks Heres 49. Seleuciani and Hermiani he saith f Baptismum in aquâ non accipiunt They do not hold any baptisme with water And Philastrius who as Bellarmine witnesses de Scriptor Ecclesiasticis pag. 93. wrote before Austin of Heresies and is quoted by Austin saith g Seleucus Hermius haeretici animas hominum de igne Spiritu esse existimantes isti baptismo non utuntur propter verbum hoc quod dixit Johannes Baptista ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu igne Seleucus and Hermius the hereticks hold that the soul consists of fire and the Spirit These use not Baptisme by reason of John Baptists words He shall baptize you with the Spirit and fire Socinus in this last age hath revived this opinion and saith h Baptismum aquae habere praeceptum Christi aut saltem non perpetuum universale That Baptisme with water hath no command from Christ or at least no perpetual and universal command The Reader if he please may see the Scriptures by him wrested and Reasons by him brought Refert Vossius vindicated and answered by Vossius de necessitate Baptismi pag 381. to pag. 388. Rule 2 Secondly There appears a greater degree of necessity of the initiatory leading Sacrament Initiatory Sacraments are of greater necessity then those that follow which serves for our first admission whether in the dayes of the Old or New Testament into the Church of God then of the other that succeeds for our further strength and growth Both of them are necessary neither of them are arbitrary but in case we may enter comparison the greater weight lyes on the former as may several wayes appear unto us Arguments evincing this necessity First There was a leading Sacrament for initiation many years in the Church before any was ordained to follow after it Circumcision was given in charge 400 years before the Passeover that of Circumcision was not long after Abrahams call and the promise of the land of Canaan being before Isaac's birth which was onely 25 years distant from his first removal out of Haran for Canaan as appears Gen. 12.4 21.5 compared The Passeover was given in charge upon Israels departure out of Egypt Exod. 12. one year before the Law was given which was 430 yeares after the promise to Abraham Gal. 3.17 All this time the seed of Abraham entred into the Church by Circumcision and enjoyed no other Sacrament properly so called Secondly Gods displeasure never shewed it self so high upon the neglect of the Passeover as upon the neglect of Circumcision though the penalty threatned
are likewise seals where there are like Sacramental expressions notwithstanding they have no such name in Scripture And as the Apostle infers from the institution of Circumcision and Abrahams acceptation of it that Circumcision was a seal so may we infer in like manner that other Sacraments are signs and seals Compare that which the Apostle here deduceth from Gen. 17. concerning Abrahams Circumcision with that which may be deduced from Acts 8.34 35. concerning the Eunuchs Baptisme Abraham believed and was justified upon believing and then received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had being uncircumcised And the Eunuch did believe on Philips preaching and afterwards received Baptisme May we not well then say He received the sign of Baptisme a seal of the righteousnesse that he had being yet unbaptized so we may say of Pauls Baptisme and the Jaylours upon their miraculous conversion to the faith they received the sign of Baptisme for the same reason Secondly It is demanded whether the Covenant of grace and promises of salvation be compleat valid and firm in themselves Object without these things annexed to them or whether they be meerly void and null in Law as Kings and mens Deeds and Charters without a seal to confirm them If incompleat infirm and invalid this is extreamly derogatory to the Covenant and therefore they are not properly seals Answ 1. Sol. If there be some dissimilitude between civill seals used by men in Charters and conveyances and seals of God put to his Covenant will it then follow that upon that account they are no seals There are dissimilitudes between the Ambassadors of Princes and the Ministers of Christ respective to their functions are Ministers then no Ambassadors There is difference between servants of men and servants of God are Christians then no servants Sacraments are seals by way of metaphor because they do the office that seals do among men and if they do not per omnia quadrare as no metaphors do yet in case they agree in the main for which that serves from whence the metaphor is borrowed it is sufficient Ministers are fitly called Ambassadors being sent of God to treat from him with a people as Ambassadors are sent of Princes notwithstanding that those to whom Ambassadours come may treat or not treat at pleasure may give in Propositions as well as receive them when they to whom Gods Ministers are sent must give audience must take the Propositions delivered and not stand to Capitulate If Sacraments ratifie to us the promises of the Covenant That is enough to denominate them seales though wit could devise twenty differences And yet I read some differences assigned which I confesse I do not understand to be any differences at all 2. I know not that it is absolutely true in Law that mens grants are void altogether without a seal I have heard of Leases parol and Wills nuncupative which I am sure have no seal And seales sometimes by the injury of time are utterly broke and lost and in this case I suppose the Covenant may yet stand 3. What is objected against this office of Sacraments as seales may also be objected against the oath of God made to Abraham for confirmation of his Word That will admit the dilemma Either his Word of Promise was true and firm without it or else which I am loath to speak subject to change The application is easie The same thing was revealed to Pharaoh in a dream for seven years plenty and seven years famine by a double sign If there was truth in one we may argue the second needs not if untrue neither have cause to be heeded or regarded If we will undertake such kind of reasonings we should make no end 4. The Covenant is compleat full firm and valid in case we should never more then once hear it or never have any seal put to it nor any oath for confirmation yet our unbelief and distrust is such that we need ingeminations inculcations oaths seals and all from God to uphold us Object Thirdly It is yet demanded whether these seales are inseparably annexed to the Covenant and promises of grace in the Old or New Testament as parts or parcels of them as seales are annexed To the Charter If yea then shew us to what Covenants and Promises and in and by what Texts they are thus inseparably annexed and how any can be saved or made partakers of the benefit of the Covenant and promises of grace who do not actually receive these seales of grace when as your selves with all Orthodox Divines must grant that many who were never baptized and infinite who never received the Lords Supper are and may be saved and are made partakers of the Covenant and promises of grace without receiving or enjoying these seales of grace If no then how can these be termed seales of the Covenant and promises of grace which are not inseparably affixed to them as seales are to Charters since many receive the Covenant and promises of grace without these seales and other receive these seales without the Covenant or promises the benefit whereof they never enjoy Answ They are inseparably joyned respectu praecepti Sol. as being enjoyned of God and here all the Texts brought to prove the Sacraments not arbitrary but necessary may be brought in to witnesse though not so respectu medii The Covenant may have its effect without them The Covenant is intire in it self without them They are not inseparable quoad esse yet they have their necessity though not simple and absolute quoad operari for the Covenant to have its due work on our hearts God saw them necessary helpful and useful and therefore gave them in charge as many Scriptures witnesse and we of necessity must submit to them in order to obtain the end to which they serve and for which they are designed and appointed SECT II. Rules for a right understanding of Sacramental Seales FIrst These are outward visible seales Explicatory Propositions touching the sealing of Sacraments and priviledges of visible Churches and Church-membership committed to the Stewards of God in his house to dispense and apply to their people And so different from that other seal of God frequently mentioned the seal of the Spirit which is internal invisible proper onely to the elect regenerate reserved in the hand of God according to prerogative to give That these are external and visible needs no more then our eyes and that they are the priviledg of visible Churches and Church-members sufficient hath been spoken And therefore they both agree in the general nature of a seal both are for ratification and confirmation of the truth of Gods promises yet in a different way and different latitude They have the former that never reacht the latter and the former is serviceable to attain to the latter Secondly They are seales not to confirm any truth of God in it self or to work in us any assent to general Scripture-Propositions But
c. But if any list to say that Sacraments absolutely seal upon conditions as it seems Mr. Baxter chooses to speak and some of his friends have said is more proper though I do not see it yet I will not contend about it He tells me that he confesses that neither promise nor seal bind absolutely till the condition be performed pag. 140. and this is the whole that I desire I am there taken up for saying That the conditional promise is not any absolute undoubted truth but upon supposal of the condition put If the Reader compare the context either in the precedent or subsequent words he may easily see truth there should have been tye and I think he could scarce have missed the sight of it had my sentence been fully quoted The close of my speech in these words so both promise and seal absolutely bind is left out yet the words as they stand though they carry no congruity might have received a fair Interpretation It was no absolute truth that the Jaylour should be saved but upon condition of his believing I shall not trouble the Reader with that which to him would be tedious and from which he can receive slender benefit I shall onely take notice of some passages which Mr. Baxter is pleased to put into his Index seeing many will perhaps look there that will go no further The Minor being sealed the Conclusion is not eo nomine sealed as Mr. Bl. affirmeth and refers to Sect. 65. p. 123. but his charge is p. 124. It is new Logick to my understanding that the Minor being sealed the Conclusion eo many is sealed The Minor of many an argument may be true and the Conclusion false And therefore when the case so falls out that both Minor and Conclusion are true or sealed it is not eo nomine because the Minor is true that the Conclusion is so or is sealed eo nomine because the Minor is so but because both Major and Minor are so and not then neither but upon supposition the syllogism be sound It should first have been made to appear that I vent such Logick and then I might more fairly have been charged with new Logick I spake not of syllogismes in general but of the syllogism I had in hand and such a one where the Major is taken for granted as I say it is in that syllogism The Major in that syllogism is laid down in these words If God give me Christ he will give me justification and salvation by Christ which is clearly laid down by the Apostle Rom. 8 32. The Minor is expressed in these words as supposed to be the words of God in the tender of the Sacrament Here I give thee Christ upon which the Conclusion followes Therefore I give thee justification and salvation The Major in this I said pag. 41. is supposed not sealed The Minor is there sealed giving in my reason which is not opposed and the Minor being sealed I say the Conclusion is eo nomine sealed This is confessed upon supposition that the Syllogism is found to be sound and the Syllogism is not yet under any charge and therefore what I say by his own confession is true There is further put into the Index Mr. Bl 's doctrine untrue that if the conclusion be not sealed then no proposition is sealed referring to Sect. 68. pag. 126. My words quarrelled at are these pag. 42. If the Proposition serves directly to prove the conclusion then that which directly confirmes any Proposition in a rightly framed syllogism confirms the conclusion If the conclusion is not sealed then no Proposition is sealed or else the syllogism is ill framed The answer returned me is this This is too new doctrine to be received without one word of proof Doth he that sealeth the Major of this following syllogism seal the conclusion All that truely receive Christ are the sons of God and shall be saved Judas did truely receive Christ Therefore Judas was the son of God and shall be saved I think both premises must be true before the conclusion will thence be proved true And it is not sealed by God when it is false I confesse I stand amazed at this picking of quarrels and high strains of wit to find out matter for animadversions If the Minor Proposition here expressed directly serve to prove the conclusion then Judas is saved for if it serve directly to that purpose it is neither in matter nor form defective If any should wickedly say R. B. shall not be saved and to make it good shal affirm that he is a pure Pagan wholly ignorant of Jesus Christ will any say that this directly proves it when the proof contains such an abominable falsehood And such is the proof here that Judas is the son of God and shall be saved change Judas into Peter and then you speak my thoughts He is pleased further to put into his Index Whether it be virtually written in Scripture that Mr. Bl. is justified I confesse I did not without trembling of spirit read nor without tears think upon this thus put to the question together with that which followes Whether it be de fide that Mr. Bl. is justified Who would not believe that I had directly asserted it or made some unsavory vaunts about it I must therefore give the Reader an account that Mr. Baxter himself Appen pag. 66. had framed this syllogism in order to the finding out of the way of Sacraments sealing He that believeth and is justified shall be saved But I believe Therefore I am justified and shall be saved affirming that this conclusion I shall be saved is no where written to which I answered Treat of the Covenant pag. 42. It is written vertually though not expressely making it clear by an other instance it is no where written that I shall rise in judgement yet it is on faith that I shall arise seeing it is written that all men shall arise and when I have concluded faith in my heart as well as reason in my soul knowing my self to be a believer as I know my self to be a man I may as well conclude that I shall arise to life as that I shall arise to judgement After some exceptions taken by him at the word vertually to prove if he could that my syllogism is tautologicall he adds Yet I confesse that some conclusions may be said to be Interpretative vel secundum locutionem moralem in Scripture when but one of the premises is there but that is when the other is presupposed as being certain And do not I presuppose the Minor here to be certain in saying When I have concluded faith in my heart as well as reason in my soul I speak not to it but upon this supposition that it is concluded And therefor the conclusion may be Interpretative in Scripture according to Mr. Baxter though not virtualiter and that shall serve my turn And I think there is as much of tautology in the one as in the other
condescend to our weaknesse to answer what infirmity can expect or feeblenesse crave We might think that Gideon was exceeding bold with God to ask a double sign for the strengthening of his faith in the promise of God to save Israel by his hand yet we see God is pleased to gratify him Judg 6.39 40. yet God deales more abundantly with us not onely in a double but a multiplied confirmation to make good every truth which he hath been pleased to manifest And as he teacheth us by similitudes drawn from earthly things as we see in the Prophets and parables from our Saviours mouth so also to speak to our eyes in these signes and seales ratifying and confirming heavenly things unto us Those great mercies which no thought can reach are set out in so obvious a way that every eye doth behold and see That water which we employ for our common use and among other necessary services cleanses all filth that cleaves to us serves to set out that great mystery of the blood and Spirit of Christ taking away both guilt and filth of sin The bread which we have at our table the wine which we drink for our food and repast that sets out both the attonement and divine nourishment which our soules find in the flesh and blood of Christ crucified and dying for us There is abundant weaknesse and tottering in our faith that needs in this manner to be strengthened Abundance of sweet mercies in our God that will vouchsafe this to strengthen and support us Secondly If Christ thus condescends to our weaknesse Christs compassion towards us should move us to compassionate our selves in making provision of these helps let us learn to have compassion of our selves and not neglect or despise so great favours If Christ had judged us to have been of strength he had never tendred us this crutch and when he sees that we need it and therefore hath provided it let us see that we do not reject or despise it Is it not to imitate Ahaz in his obstinacy who when he could not believe the promise that God would deliver him and his people from the combined power of Israel and Syria that were then before Jerusalem and having a sign tendred him of God either in the depth beneath or the height above for his assurance in the thing he answers he will not desire a sign Isa 7.11 12. he will rather dwell in his unbelief and perish As that sign was to that promise so all Sacraments are to Gods great promise He that casts away Sacraments indulges unbelief and we may well fear that he shall dwell in it to destruction CHAP. XI SECT I. The whole of the work of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal THe next observation followes The whole office and use of Sacraments All that the Sacraments work on the soules of receivers is by way of sign and seal They have no immediate effects for the working of any inward graces or priviledges but as our understanding is exercised by them as Indicative signes and our faith as ratifications and seales of the promises The text that we have under our hand is abundantly full to his purpose Scarce any text holds out a truth I may say more clear and full then this text doth that which is here delivered if we take in the context with it The Context opened to which the copulative And leads The Apostle having in the former Chapter delivered the doctrine of justification by faith goes on here to make it good by the Example of Abraham and his argument rendred in syllogistical form appears to be this As Abraham the father of the faithful was justified so must all the faithful This is taken for granted as needing no proof But Abraham the father of the faithful was justified not by works but by faith The Assumption consists of two parts and the Apostle proves both 1. The negative that he was not justified by works this he proves by two arguments 1. If he were justified by works then he hath whereof to glory ver 2. But he hath not whereof to glory before God Ergo he was not justified by works 2. If he were justified by works the reward were reckoned not of grace but of debt ver 4. But the reward is not of debt but of grace Ergo. Which he further confirmes by the testimony of David describing the blessednesse of man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin ver 7 8. As David describes blessednesse that way man is blessed But David describes it to be by imputation of righteousnesse and not by works Ergo. The affirmative that Abraham was justified by faith he proves by a full testimony of Scripture Gen. 15.6 He believed in the Lord and he counted it to for him for righteousnesse Now it might be objected that this justification of Abraham and blessednesse that David speaks of was nothing to the Gentiles uncircumcised but to the Jewes in the state of Circumcision and so Circumcision may yet have an hand in justitification This the Apostle denies ver 10. and proves the contrary by the time of Abrahams justification which was in uncircumcision not in Circumcision If Abraham were justified in uncircumcision then Circumcision hath no hand in justification But Abraham was justified in uncircumcision Ergo But then the greatest question is to what end or purpose he was circumcised having already that righteousnesse which doth justify what needs more Circumcision then might have been let alone The Apostle answers that he was circumcised on a twofold account for a double reason The first is in reference to his own estate in faith which equally concerns all in his state of believing He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised The second in reference to the whole Church that he might be the Father of all that believe in Circumcision or in uncircumcision so that we have both the Apostles authority and his argumentative discourse for confirmation of our point That the work and efficacy of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal We shall find Peter giving his vote with Paul in this thing where he enters a dispute about Baptisme as Paul here doth about Circumcision as you may find 1 Pet. 3.20 21. having mentioned Gods long suffering towards disobedient ones in the daies of Noah while the Ark was a preparing he saies Few that is eight soules were saved by water That element which as an executioner of divine vengeance destroyed the world of the ungodly as an instrument in the hand of God preserved Noah and his family It destroyed the world by overwhelming of them as after it did Pharaoh and his host It saved Noah and his household by keeping the Ark above trees rocks mountaines buildings or whatsoever might have been
that this place should be interpreted of baptisme on which words of his Mr. Gataker pag. 123. very well comments l Quasi aliam potius quorundam expositionem probaturus ni aliorum importunitas aliò impelleret Verba sunt enim alii concedentis aliquid potius quam animi sui sensum enuntiantis As though he would rather saith he allow another interpretation if the importunity of others did not lead him that way They are words of one granting or rather yielding somewhat to another man then speaking his own mind as he further observes And Mr. Burges Spiritual Refining Part 1. pag. 214. speaking of Baptisme saith it is called the laver of regeneration Titus 3.5 as some expound it giving us to understand that it is no exposition universally agreed upon and sufficiently hinting that it is the more inconsiderable part that do interpret it this way Fifthly Though we should yield that these places were to be understood of the Sacrament of Baptisme as Calvin saith he could be content to do yet all this while nothing is gained seeing it still rests to be proved that this is meant any otherwise then by way of sign and seal they conclude no abolute work but onely as they have their influence upon the understanding and faith of the receivers And therefore Calvin when he was prevailed withall to yield so farre as we have heard presently addes m Non quod in externo aquae symbolo inclusa sit salus sed quia partam à Christo salutem Baptismus nobis obsignat Not that salvation is included in the outward symbole of water but because Baptisme seales it to us when Christ hath obtained it for us And Danaeus speaking to that Argument of Bellarmine that the Scripture witnesseth that the words of the Sacrament are active instruments of our justification and not seales of the promise giving instance in these and the like Scriptures for this purpose answers n Instrumenta signa etiam mere obsignantia testantia dicuntur per tropum metonymiam id facere quod obsignant nam annulus sponsalium qui solus est signum eorum dicitur conjun gere obligare sponsos contractus instrumentum quod solum consensus signum obstringere contrahentes Doctoratus sigillum literae creasse effecisse n. Doctoâem quaeenim nos juvant efficere ea ipsa dicuntur propter finem in quem spectant in quibus ab eis juvamur Verum vitanda est verborum hujusmodi quae ut causis vel signis vel instrumentis actionem tribuunt homonymia ne propterea censcamus ea signa vel instrumenta esse causas istâus actionis vel effecti vel fructus efficientes efficiunt enim aut efficere di cuntur illa effecta suo tantum modo nempe per modum duntaxat signi quatenus obsignant certificant eam actionem vel effectionem aut per modum instrumenti quoniam ad effectionem ad hibentur multum enim signa vera instrumenta inter se proprie differunt signa vero nihil plane ad effectio nem conferunt qualia sunt Sacramenta sed affectionem Sp. S. opus illius in nobis duntaxat vârissime certissime testantur consignant Instruments and signs meerly testifying and sealing are said by a trope and metonymy to do that which they seal for even a ring used in espousals which onely is a sign is said to joyn and bind the espoused an instrument of contract which is onely a token of agreement is said to bind the contractors and the letters and seal of a Doctor to create a Doctor for those things that are helpful to us are said to effect those things as to such an end in which they are helpful But the homonymy of words of this nature is to be shunned which attributes actions to signes or instruments as to causes lest upon that account we may think that such signes or instruments are causes of such actions or efficients of such fruits and effects For they effect or are said to do such a work alone after their manner that is onely by way of sign as they seal or certify such an act or work or by way of instrument because they are used in the work For signes and instruments properly so called do very much differ For signes contribute nothing to the work of which sort are Sacraments but onely truely and certainly testifie and seal the work of the Spirit of God wrought Danaeus Contra Bellarmi Tom. Contro 2. Cap. 14. ad Arg. 2. Abundance more might be added to clear these Texts and take them out of their hands that urge them for this purpose though they were meant of the Sacraments which is not to be granted And what we have said of these Texts may be affirmed of that also Deut. 30.6 I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Circumcision which was a Sacrament is indeed there named but the speech is onely borrowed by way of metaphor from the circumcision of the flesh and applyed to the heart as is clear Deut. 10.16 where that work is given in command to the Jewes and they were not commanded to circumcise themselves but were already in Circumsion A second sort of Scriptures are such in which baptisme is mentioned but faith evidently required to the attainment of the effects of it A second sort of Scriptures are such where Baptisme is indeed mentioned and the Sacrament of Baptisme intended but faith is evidently required for the attainment of the effect specified These especially are Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Acts 22.16 Rise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the Name of the Lord. I shall referre the Reader for a full vindication of these Scriptures to Mr. Gatakers disceptation pag. 9 10 c. pag. 56 57. and shall onely adde that that phrase in the Name of the Lord utterly destroies all that they would build on these words seeing it implies faith in his Name as Acts 3.16 may be seen And howsoever Infants that are in Covenant upon their parents profession of faith are baptized into this Name yet those of yeares as these were to whom this speech is directed are in their own persons not onely to make profession of faith but in sincerity to believe in order to attainment to the pardon of their sins or any other spiritual priviledge of the Covenant whatsoever Yea that which these men would draw from these Texts stands not with their principles that urge them The Sacraments work grace say they as instruments I shall then desire to know whether positive infidelity be not such a barre that will hinder If it be a barre in men of yeares then the Sacrament works not without actual faith in the baptized It is the priviledge of faith to obtain forgivenesse of sin Act. 13.39 Rom. 3.25 It is the work then
righteousnesse of faith as before was hinted in opposition to and to distinguish it from the righteousnesse of works required in the Covenant entered with man in his integrity and which the Jewes for a great part conceited they were bound to answer acccording to the letter of the precepts of the Law for the attainment of salvation That of works is called by the name of our righteousnesse Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.18 being to be done by our selves in our own persons as also by the name of the righteousnesse of the Law being required at our hands by the Law so that salvation gained this way is of our selves of works Ephes 2.8 9. This other is called the righteousnesse of faith in this text as also Phil. 3.9 Heb. 11.7 Faith being the hand that receives it of Gods free gift by grace it is called also the righteousnsse of God Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.9 Either as being the gift of God which that phrase seems to imply the righteousnesse which is of God by faith or else as being the work of Christ that is God So that salvation this way gained is of grace and the gift of God Ephes 2.8 These two are still opposed one to the other when one is followed the other is quit and left Rom. 10.3 They being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God so also Rom. 10.5 6. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them but the righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise c. Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the rigteousnesse which is of God by faith 2. This righteousnesse is synechdochically put for the whole Proposition 2 of the Covenant of grace that interests us in this righteousnesse and so it must be taken in those words of the Apostle forequoted The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise that is the Covenant which interests us in the righteousnesse of faith speaketh this language so that Sacraments sealing this righteousnesse they seal the whole of this Covenant 3. All the blessings and priviledges following upon and following Proposition 3 from this Covenant unto true and full blessednesse are here by the like figure comprized as appears by the Apostles words v. 9. Commeth this blessednesse then upon the circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse This righteousnesse and blessednesse is made one and the same in those words of the Apostle Proposition 4 4. Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant that brings man into Covenant with God is the fountain from whence all this blessednesse comes in that by him this righteousnesse is wrought so that he is the whole of all that good that is comprized in the Covenant and sealed in the Sacraments This is plain in that of the Apostle Rom. 10.4 speaking of the error of the Jewes in going about to establish their own righteousnesse and their non-submission of themselves unto the righteousnesse of God he saith that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth that is finie consummans as Gomarus saith not consumens The end at which the Law aimed and not putting an end and period to it One Christ assumes to himself It becometh us to fulfil all righteousnesse Matth. 3.15 The other he disclaimes Matth. 5.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil The Law calls us to righteousnesse but is not able to work it in us Christ hath done it for us and in our stead He is therefore called our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 Jehovah our righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 so that wheresoever we prove that Christ is sealed to us in the Sacrament or any other benefit flowing from Christ as Mediatour there is a sufficient proof of this observation Proposition 5 5. Faith is here considered as an instrument receiving this righteousnesse and interesting us in this Covenant-promise They that will not allow that faith should be called an instrument of justification yet are not much troubled that it should be called an instrument that receives Christ that doth justifie And if either may be allowed as I do not doubt but that both will hold current this will hold that faith is considered here as an instrument and not as a work neither yet as an instrument of the soul producing any act beyond its self as the hand is the instrument to the soul in labour but as receiving and taking in a gift from God This the Phrase of the Apostle Phil. 3.9 doth clear The righteousness of God by faith otherwise it might be stiled the righteousnesse of works yea when the words are the righteousnesse of faith the meaning must still be the righteousnesse of works as a man when he receives pay for threshing or digging receives pay for working But these are made directly opposite one to the other and not confounded one with the other Rom. 10.5 6. Faith therefore is considered not as a work or habitual grace in the soul So considered it is a branch of our own righteousnesse but as an instrument applying Christ and interesting us in his righteousnesse These Positions being premised The Point proved the Observation may be easily proved that the righteousnesse of faith or the righteousnesse of God by faith is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace and may be made good in an induction of particulars Circumcision the leading Sacrament of the old Covenant is expresly here spoken to and here we see what is the thing signified in it and sealed by it And in case we saw no more in it then the most carnal amongst the Jewes saw that it was a note of distinction between them and others that had no visible relation to God in Covenant yet we know that this distinction was grounded and founded in Christ By Scriptures The one stood in a visible relation to him and the other were strangers from him And the Apostle Col. 2.11 12. is full in the proof of it Having said that we are compleat in Christ enjoying him we want nothing it might be objected that we want the very leading Ordinance which receives a people into visible Communion with God which was Circumcision The Apostle answers that in him we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ This Circumcision did figure Deut. 30.6 Jer. 9.26 Rom. 2.28 29. And this is the work of Christ as we see in the Apostles words and therefore circumcision led to him For the following Sacrament of the Passeover if we look to the letter of the institution together with the explication given we shall find it
reconciliation applyable to man by faith which is the means or instrument whereby we receive the mercy of God So also Gal. 2.16 is very full Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by faith in Christ Jesus The Apostle there first in the negative shewes where our justification is not and in the next place tells us in the affirmative where it is so that all works of all kinds are by him excluded and faith onely is acknowledged Whereas one saith that Paul doth either in expresse words or in the sense and scope of his speech exclude onely the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the condition of the Law our selves but never the fulfilling of the Gospel-conditions that we may have part in Christ It is fully against the Apostle if by fulfilling the Gospel-condition any thing but faith be understood All works are excluded and faith as in opposition to works is acknowledged and we have our part or interest in Christ in or by fulfilling of no other Gospel-condition then that of faith whereby we receive Christ and Christ dwells in us John 1.12 Eph. 3.17 The same Authour teaches us to distinguish betwixt our first possession of Justification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer faith and the confirmation continuation and accomplishment of it whose condition is also sincere obedience and perseverance But being first possest of justification we are justified and of this Paul still speaks and there is no intercision of it nor any other way in progresse of time to be interested in it Being justified we enter upon are reconciled state which is never lost and held up onely by Christ upon the interest of our faith Obedience and Perseverance are both of necessity to obtain the end of our Faith the salvation of our soules but not to give us this interest in Christ Sin in the elect-regenerate may work a man as hath been said under present wrath but renders him not a child of wrath brings upon him an inaptitude for glory but makes him not simply liable to condemnation for eternity This accomplishment of Justification in the sense spoken to is no other then glorification and these two are distinct links in Paul's golden chain as it is called Rom. 8.30 Whom he did predestinate them also he called and whom he called them also he justified and whom he justified them he also glorified As Predestination differs from vocation and justification so Justification also from glorification when our first possession of Justification is acknowledged to be of meer faith Paul's justification is confessed to be of meer faith likewise The same Authour saith Paul doth by the word faith especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in for to be justified by Christ and to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one and I am sure faith alone receives Christ and no Evangelical work either of obedience or perseverance therefore Faith alone justifies There is added And when he doth mention faith as the condition he alwayes implyeth obedience to Christ therefore believing and obeying the Gospel are put for the two summaries of the whole conditions But Faith as an instrument receiving Christ is the condition when the Evangelist complains that He came to his own and his own received him not Joh. 1.11 he points out their neglect of the condition required They were his in Covenant or else they had not been called his own and in not receiving him they failed in the condition required of them and in the words following the Evangelist speaks of those of his own in Covenant that did make good the condition of it and that is no otherwise then by believing But as many as received him to them he gave power to be the Sons of God even to them that believe on his Name And this faith implyes onely acceptation though it be an act of the soul that yeelds obedience It is further said Our full justification and our everlasting salvation have the same conditions on our part But sincere Obedience is without all doubt a condition of our salvation Therefore also of our justification Here is either a manifest tautology or an errour For either full justification and salvation are both one and so here is a tautology or else if they differ it is an errour The same are not conditions of both strictly taken onely Faith gives title to Christ for Justification Works qualifie as a condition in order to salvation And whereas it is further said It would be as derogatory to Christs righteousnesse if we be saved by works as if we be justified by them Either of both is doubtlesse derogatory to it and therefore still disclaimed in Scriptures and alwayes expresly denyed except in that one Text of James Jam. 2. which speakes to Justification and must admit of another interpretation then our Authour would put upon it otherwise he can neither be reconciled to himself nor to the whole current of the Gospel Works may be causa sine quâ non of salvation or a qualification of those that are saved as Heb. 5.9 He became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him But this is not to be saved by works which the Apostle denyes Eph. 2.9 Not of works lest any man should boast And works of this efficiency wrought through grace will raise a man to boastings as appears in the Pharisees God I thank thee But seeing there are several new questions started Whether Faith be an instrument in Justification Whether works do not justifie Whether the new Covenant have any condition Whether Faith be not the alone condition And how Repentance can be a condition of the Covenant and not of Justification And Mr. Ball is almost on every hand appealed to I suppose it will not be ungrateful to the Reader if in this place I commend to him the words of that Reverend Authour though it be in a larger way then quotations are ordinarily brought in which we have not barely his authority which I do not offer to put in the balance with any but the Points in question with singular strength debated and spoken to Treating of the Covenant of Grace pag. 18. he saith Repentance is called for in this Covenant as it setteth forth the subject capable of salvation by faith Luke 13.5 Acts 11.18 2 Cor. 7.10 Ezek. 18.27 but is it self onely an acknowledgment of sin no healing of our wound or cause of our acquittance The feeling of pain and sicknesse causeth a man to desire and seek remedy but it is no remedy it self Hunger and thirst make a man desire and seek for food but a man is not fed by being hungry By repentance we know our selves we feel our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it is faith alone without which repentance is nothing but darknesse and despair Repentance is the condition of faith and the qualification of
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
a principal efficient Mr. Baxter is I am sure as zealous as I can be to assert a conditionate Covenant and if an adversary be as streight-laced to him and me in that as he is to me in this he will hardly prove a condition either in the Covenant of works or grace I will as soon find the word instrument in Scripture applyed to justification as he shall find the word condition applyed to either Covenant And he can name I think no word implying a condition that is alwayes put for a condition and the context wheresoever we are said to be justified by faith or that Christ is a propitiation through faith is in all indifferent Readers eyes as clear for an instrument in justification as those which he and I can bring which yet are clear enough for a conditionate Covenant And that doctrine hath farre more adversaries then this though there is little cause that any man should be an adversary in either He sayes the same answer serves to Act. 15.9 and then the same reply may serve There followes To what you say from Rom. 8.13 I reply 1. An adjutor or concause is ill called an instrument must the Spirit needs be our instrument because it is by the Spirit as if by signified onely an instrument Mr. Baxters head was doubtlesse on somewhat else either when he read these passage of mine or when he framed his answer I never had it in my thoughts that justification is expressely spoken to in any of these texts nor was it my businesse to find out any instrument in them though I doubt not but that faith is spoken to instrument in two of them and as a condition non-instrumental in none of them neither did I dream of making the Spirit an instrument All that I intended was to prove The acts of God are entitled to man and the acts of man to God in Scripture that the acts of man were intitled to God and so the acts of God to man not considering as the businesse in hand let not to it about what these acts are exercised if they prove that It is to me sufficient whether it be in Justification Sanctification Mortification or any other work There is added 2. All this is nothing to the businesse of justification nothing directly immediately but much by way of Analogy It is enough to prove That to be the instrument of man and the instrument of God are not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And if he desire a proof more punctually applyed to justification let him consult Rom 3.30 It is one God that shall justifie the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith and Gal. 3.8 The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith Faith for justification is usually ascribed to man being properly his act and therefore that text of the Prophet Hab. 2.4 The just shall live by his faith is by the Apostle more then once applyed to justification And in the text now quoted this act of faith is ascribed to God for that work I explained my self man neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both c. To this is answered If man justifie not himself and yet faith be his instrument of justifying then farewell old Logick Mr. Baxter is the first great Logitian that I ever heard talk so much of his Logick in the last Section but one we had it and now we have it in the same thing again there I shewed that old Logick may stand and yet his consequence not yeelded 2. It is said If man sanctifie not himself under God as to the progresse and acts of sanctification then farewell old Theology And if man may be said to sanctifie himself further then hath been said or so as to be a principal efficient which will follow from Mr. Baxters reasonings then welcome the newest Divinity It will not be denyed that a sanctified man differs from one that is unsanctified and then in case it may be allowed to say I sanctifie my self he may say I make my self to differ which I never heard that any in direct termes would say against the Apostle but Grevenchovius as I find him cited by Dr. Featly and yet it seems it is my great error that I will not say so I lift man up in that height in justification as to pardon his own sin in holding that it is of faith that it may be of grace not of works lest any should boast And I raise him not high enough in sanctification If I say no more then that by faith he receives power from God by the Spirit for it that text 1 Pet. 1.22 would farre better have served my purpose if I had first hit upon it The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in sanctification Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit They that have done any thing in purifying their hearts through the Spirit will rather entitle the Spirit of God then themselves to it and will judge that he rather then they should be denominated a sanctifier And for other texts that are hinted and one mentioned 2 Cor. 7.1 To argue from the Command to the power is that old Theologie that I am ready to bid farewell to As God requires it so he doth often undertake it and declares that it is his work to do it Ezek. 36.25 26. Deut. 30.6 I think few will say that they make their own hearts new There is added 3. To close with God in pardoning me signifieth not that I pardon my self or that I or any act of mine is an efficient cause of pardon This is for me therefore I am contented it should be said over again and my faith is the instrument wherewith I close with God In case it be the instrument wherewith I receive Christ as Mr. Baxter hath sometimes yeelded There followes 4. When you say that faith as an instrument receiveth righteousnesse to justification you speak exactly the conceptions of most Divines that I have met with or read that go your way and therefore these words deserve a little further consideration and after some enquiry into their meaning There is added but these things must be more accurately considered I think Here it is confessed that I tread in the beaten road and that I do appear in the common cause and comparing what is here said with that which in his conclusion he delivers The Author is confest to appear in the common cause in behalf of Protestants It appears that the Divines of this corner of the world for 1300. years past have all taken this way which is all that go under the name Protestant whether Calvinist or Lutheran as they are wont to be distinguished I shall therefore expect that some of those that by grace have obtained to be as of the first three among Davids worthies will step in with their Auxiliary helps in case the
the mercy-seat durst not lift up his eyes to heaven seeing a large list of sins and not of vertues or praise-worthy carriages goes away justified rather then the Pharisee Here is a subject morally qualified to be a fit patient to be justified not yet actually justified which also was their case Acts 2.37 with the Jaylours Act. 16.30 which I think neither Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Woodbridge can find affirmed of any actually in the faith who according to Scripture are actually justified and not barely qualified to be fit patients in due time to receive it There followes I would have Pareus here put against this which is quoted out of Mr. Woodbridge speaking by way of objection against the Orthodox doctrine of Justification he saith Faith justifies that is Fides justificat i. e. disponit ad justitiam Respondeo Glossa contorta Scripturae ignota et repugnans Justificare enim dicitur fides accipiendo donum justitiae absque operibus non disponendo ad justitiam Nec justificatio fit per motum sicut calefactâo sed per imputationem Quod si sicret per motum admodum impâoprie fidei tribueretur Neque enim motus ad rem est res ipsa nec dispositio generat sed est via ad generationem Non igitur per motum dispositionis fides justificat it disposes or fits for Justification and answers A wrested glosse unknown to Scripture and contrary to it For faith is said to justifie by receiving the gift of righteousnesse without works and not by disposing for righteousnesse Neither is Justification by motion as is warmth but by imputations And if it were by motion it were most improperly ascrib'd to faith Neither is motion to a thing the thing it self nor doth a disposition obtain any thing but is the way to obtain it Therefore faith do's not justifie by any motion of disposition Pareus in Rom 3. Dub. 8. The reason of this is That this is onely donation or the will of the donour signified that can efficiently convey a right to his own benefits the receiver is not the giver and therefore not the conveyer of right I wonder what this is a reason of if it be intended for a reason of that which goeth immediately befote that faith doth morally qualifie in the way mentioned it is above me to see any reason in it It is further said Every instrument is an efficient cause and therefore must effect and it is onely giving that effecteth this right But it effects no such right without receiving where it is given upon that proviso that it be thus and thus received After much ado and to what purpose let others judge The conclusion is The great thing therefore that I affirm is this that if you will needs call faith the instrument of apprehending Christ or righteousnesse yet doth it not justifie proxime formaliter as such but as the condition of the gift performed And the great thing that I would affirm is That the instrumental apprehending Christ or righteousnesse is this condition of the gift It is given upon condition that we make use of our faith to apprehend it and so the summe is That faith doth not justifie formaliter proxime as apprehending Christ or righteousnesse because it doth justifie proxime formaliter as thus apprehending Faith as a condition certainly doth somewhat and this it is that it doth according to the Scripture The eighth and last of his accurate heads followes In which he saies he opens his meaning together about this point though as he saies with some repetitions I cannot then without repetitions give any further answer which to the Reader would be too troublesome yet somewhat is observable that I find not before Faith saith he must first be faith i. e. apprehensio Christi in order of nature before it can be the condition of right Actual existence not necessary to the being of a condition in a Covenant If faith must have an actual being before it can be the condition of right then perfect obedience according to the old rule as Mr. Baxter calls it must first be perfect obedience in actual being before it can be a condition of the Covenant of works and so it will follow that that Covenant hath no condition seeing there is no such actual obedience A condition may be a condition though not made good though never made good The delivery in of an hundred foreskins of the Philistines was Davids condition for Marriage of Sauls daughter before any Philistine was slain and had stood as a condition though had never been given in If he mean that faith must be faith before the condition be made good this is false for the actual being of it is the making of it good and so it is as much as if I said I must wink in order of nature before I shut my eyes He further distinguishes of apprehensio Christi and conditio praestita when apprehensio Christi is conditio praestita as though I should distinguish between Abrahams sacrificing of his son and his obedience of Gods command in sacrificing him when all know that his sacrificing him was his obedience To say that there is such a thing as faith in the general notion before Christ doth constitute a condition were somewhat but to say that we believe or apprehend Christ before we perform the condition is to say we must perform the condition before we perform it Having led the Reader through all this accuratenesse I must further consider his animadversions I said The Spirit will do nothing without our faith and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit man cannot justifie himself by believing without God and God will not justifie an unbelieving man faith then is the act of man man believes yet the instrument of God that justifies onely believers To which I have a multiplication either of answers and scornes in place of answers 1. It is said The Spirits working in sanctification is nothing to our question of justification It is yet somewhat for illustration for which alone it was brought though nothing for proof for which it was never intended 2. It is said The Spirit works our first faith without faiths coworking and that is more then nothing What need he to have told me this when I had told it him before as the Reader may see in words which he omits I speak there of the Spirits work in the soul where faith is implanted 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action before faith moveth it self Here is an exception to fill up the number If I move my pen to write before it move then I write something without my pen. 4. It is said It is not so easily proved as said That the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the soul nor yet restraineth from any evill without the coworking of faith But why is not this disproved with ease I would know for my learning what act of the Spirit upon a beleeving soul is
mentioned in Scripture which is not ascribed also to faith The Spirit mortifies the deeds of the flesh so doth faith Acts 15.9 Devils are cast out by the Spirit of God so they are cast out by faith Mar. 9 The Spirit is our strength in the inward man Ephes 3.16 and faith is our strength 1 Pet. 5.9 Rom. 4.20 All things are possible to the Spirit of God And all things are possible to him that beleeves Mar. 9.23 The Spirits method laid down in the Word is not to work in us respective to salvation after the grace of faith is implanted without us what is ascribed to the one as the efficient is ordinary ascribed to the other as the instrument But these answers he confesses are besides the point This simile might therefore have escaped this quarrel in the two next he will sure then be so punctual that all Readers shall say Rem acu tetigisti 5. It is added When you have laid down one proposition Man cannot justifie himself by believing without God how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct proposition And God will not justifie an unbelieving man who would have thought but you would rather have said Nor will God justify man unlesse his faith be the instrument of it and do you not seem to imply that man without God doth justifie himself when you say man cannot justifie himself by believing without God No nor with him neither for none can forgive sins but God onely even to another but who can forgive himself I think all is laid down so fairly that were I to lay it down again I should not lay it down in Mr. Baxters words Nor will God justifie a man unlesse faith be the instrument he would then soon have challenged it as a petitio principii seeing it is that which is in question I might have said that God will not justify a man except he disclaim his own righteousnesse and accept of Christs righteousnesse to justification but that which I did say is the same with any friend or fair adversary and so it is a disjunct proposition fairly laid down and I imply that which I speak and if any will have it further expressed God will not justifie man without the concurrence of his faith There followes In deed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in that is the onely man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin he can forgive others but who shall forgive him It seems by this jest that Mr. Baxter is willing to put off that he is not so good a proficient in Popish mysteries as by Mr Crandon he stands charged otherwise he could not but know that the Pope hath his pardoner as well as others The Pope hath his visible pardoner as well as receivers He gives power for the pardon of sin as the supposed head of the Church by application of the supererogated merits of the Saints together with the merits of Christ out of the treasure of the Church of which he hath the keys Now he sinnes as a man and receives pardon as a Church-member and to that purpose hath his confessor A man as visible as other men And speaking of his sad condition on this supposition he seems to lay farre more stresse on the pardons of Rome then they themselves as though he stood in some eminent danger of hell upon the want of such a pardon when he might know that according to their principles all his danger is an abode some longer time in Purgatory which is their trimming place in the way to heaven For if the pardon find him in a mortal sinne which alone is deserving of hell it is altogether inefficacious mortall sinne puts a barre to the working of it It is the temporal punishment which this pardon remits and not the eternal and in case it were true that this could not be done to the Pope there being none above him his successor with a wet finger can do it for him As to that which was forgotten it had been to his honour if it had never been remembred I forgot saith he that every believer forgiveth himself for I did not believe it Such sarcasmes befit not grave Writers especially when all Reformers to speak in his own language must bear a share in the contumely when they had it in their thoughts in this way to imitate the Apostle in giving all to grace and taking all from man that one would rise out of themselves to make this sport with it It followes 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying doth God effect our Justification by the instrumental efficient causation of our faith If this were my fault yet Mr. Baxter of all men is most unfit to give it in charge other men must have a proof for every word but he himself may heap up distinctions propositions conclusions without any colour of proof at all where is his proof of that which in the last Section number 6. must be remembred and of that great thing num 7. he would desire should be observed I suppose he will have ten to remember and observe before one to believe it Others can see proof and send their Reader hither for proof though he cannot find it My work was to shew that though it be mans act yet God may make use of it as instrumentally serviceable in this work and whether this hath been nakedly said or proved let the dis-interested Reader give his sentence if that which I have said will not satisfie let Mr. Burges be consulted in his late Treatise of Justifica Part 2. I conclude That which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality but where there is a concurrence of agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold To this is answered He that will or can make him a Religion of words or syllables that either signifie nothing or are never like to be understood by the learner let him make this an article of his faith what you mean by absolute I cannot certainly ariolate Bona verba bono viro desunt Seeing I find the man in this mood I say no more but seeing he knowes not how to ariolate what I mean by this or that I have no mind to help him in this art of soothsaying and shall let the words stand for their use that bring a mind to understand rather then to exercise their wit to carp at what they read Of the sole sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant as an instrument in justification I shall now leave to the Readers consideration whether Mr. Baxters exceptions against the instrumentality of faith in justification be of that validity as to overthrow it and whether his doctrine of this subject be of that
clearnesse as to accuse the doctrine of his adversaries which are all Reformers Forreign and English of such notable obscurity I must now look into that which he hath said for the sole-sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant of the Gospel to stand in stead of faith for an instrument in this work And if I meet with no more satisfaction in this then in the former I must crave leave to say that I have very little in either I said in my Treatise of the Covenant The promise or grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of justification adding This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the Covenant of God the promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise up man to justification To which Mr. Baxter replyes I say there is none but Gods for non datur instrumentum quod non est causae principalis instrumentum And I say still that God acts not in this work without the concurrence of him that is justified which Mr. Baxter grants And this concurrence of man having its instrument In justification of man God acts not without man God thereby doth carry on his work otherwise the Apostle had not onely said that God is a justifier of those that believe in Jesus Rom. 3.26 but also that he justifies the circumcision by faith and the uncircumsion through faith And this act of man is interpretativè the instrument of God but more directly and properly the instrument of man where I say it is of it self unable to raise up man to justification he gives in his answer In which we have First his concession what of it self it is not able to do Secondly his assertion what of it self it can do Thirdly his explication under what notion it doth it His concession is That it is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to justification Mr. Baxters concession as to humble to give faith regenerate c. But he doth not tell us from whence it hath any supply for those antedaneous works or whether it be employed in those works at all His assertion is that as to the act of justification His assertion or conveying right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse it is able of it self But it is worth our enquiry to whom this new Covenant grant doth convey right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse whether to the unhumbled unbelieving unregenerate or to the humble believing and regenerate soul The former are not in a present capacity of him and the latter are already in possession if he can find me an humble believing regenerate man void of all right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse I will confesse that the grant of the new Covenant is of it self able to do what Mr. Baxter sayes I looked that he should have proved that the grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel doth this constitutivè as he useth to speak That it should work an unjustified man up to a justified state but it seems he will have it to do it onely declarative to make it appear that he is already justified which honours is very low and that about which I intend not to raise disputes If I mistake him and that he will say that he means more then a naked declaration I would he would explaine himself and speak out what more it is that he inteds for if he intend more I know not how to help him out of an high contradiction seeing he talkes of conveyance right to them that all know are possessed before-hand of right The same Gospel-grant which works those antecedaneous acts of which he speaks doth together convey right to all those in whom such a work is found It is able to do it of it self as he explaines himself ac signum voluntatis divinae but where is it revealed from God that either the unhumbled unbelieving unregenerate shall have right to Christ pardon justification or that the humble believing regenerate want it Faith with Mr. Baxter is an acceptance of a freely given Christ and life in him how doth a man in faith stand in need of a new conveyance of right to him There followes If you should mean that that of it self i. e. without the concomitance of faith as a condition is not able I answer that is not fitly called disablity or if you will so call it the reason of that disability is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall coefficiency but of its presence as the performed condition It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualites till the condition were performed This assertion That there is no efficiency in faith but a naked presence to stand by and as it were to look on in the work of justification calls for some proof seeing he well knowes that among all Reformers his adversaries this will passe for so high a Paradox How is Christ a propitiation through faith and how are we still said to be justified by faith If no more then a bare presence is required the presence of other graces is equally required as love meeknesse temperance chastity they have still been confest necessary in justification quoad presentiam though not quoad efficientiam yet Mr. Baxter can I think no where shew that Christs is set forth a propitiation through any one of these graces or that we are justified by love meeknesse temperance c. I shall as soon believe that the presence of the eye is barely required for sight without further efficiency as I shall believe that the bare presence of faith is required and no more for justification and where he will will prove that it is the will of the Donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition be performed intending as he expresseth himself that after the condition is performed a new grant must passe actualy to effect this right I cannot tell when the condition is to accept Christ which is present possession They cannot take Christ for justification but by virtue of this grant and when they have thus taken him and are possest of him must they have a new grant for right to him If I give a begger a gift upon condition that he will come and take it when he hath taken it and is possest of it hath he need of any further grant of right to it I said It is often tendered and justication not alwayes wrought and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument As soon as the instrument serves not the principal agent so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument mentioning instances that he gives and adding neither is the Gospel an instrument of justification where it justifies not Mr. Baxter being gotten into a vein that he hath not yet a mind to leave replyes I am too shallow to reach the reason of
it such To which I say I read in Divines of a justification active and that is the work of God and a justification passive of which man is the subject as I read of a double miraculous faith one active to work a cure the other passive to be cured Paul saw that the Cripple at Lystra had faith to be healed Acts 14.9 Yet I suppose that this is called a passive faith not that it acted not at all which is contradicted by Christ in saying Thy faith hath made thee whole but that it served for a passive work on the diseased so I think this faith which tends to our justification is not meerly passive though it serves for such a work as receives that denomination When I receive a gift that enriches I act Yet he that gives onely does enrich and I that receive am enriched so it is in justification we do not justifie but are justified and yet act in receiving Christ for justification as sick ones in Christs tyme did not heal but were healed yet their faith acted for cure and ours for justification I confesse I did somewhat needlessely runne upon this discourse of passive instruments upon occasion of Mr. Pembles words and Mr. Baxters denyal that there was any such thing as a passive instrument never intending to make faith meerly passive which was never my opinion neither am I altogether without scruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers yet I would have those that are confidently opposite to weigh the strengâ ãâã his reasons and find out if they can a more moderate middleâ ãâã to ascribe somewhat more to the Word without injury doâ ãâã the working of Gods Spirit I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either and of two extreames detracting from the Spirit I take to be the greater which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry further to determine I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occasion of some passages in Mr. Baxters Aphorismes I mentioned that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckermans incus c. yet it followeth not that there is no passive instrument but onely to rectifie Mr. Baxters complaint that these words do import an intimation as he expresses it that I said all these were active instruments And as the words stand in my Book it is hard to say what they import It should have been expressed and Keckermans incus c. and his scamnum and mensa accubitus and terra ambulationis no instruments which words I know not by what meanes were left out yet the Reader may see that they were intended seeing they are opposed to the other which are made active instruments But so much is spoken of passive instruments by others that I may well spare my paines neither is it any way necessary for me to speak to them seeing though I doubt not but there are thousands of such kind of instruments I put not faith into that number as I know many godly learned do But it is easie to bear a dissent in a word of art when the thing in question is agreed upon As to the rest which followes in this tract against me in this thing there is very little but what hath been spoken to and this paper already growing more big then is meet for an interposition in this kind in a positive Treatise though not impertinent to the subject in hand I am loath to cause it to swell further with impertinencies onely I must take notice of two passages one where I am charged with ignorance the other with complyance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit In the first there are several particulars 1. A charge of misunderstanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped that I had understood better I suspect saith he by your words when you say the Word is produced and held forth of God and by your discourse all along that you understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self So ãâã it is taken for granted that he cannot be mistaken when ãâã âruth is known Mr. Baxters writings and truth are one and ãâã same 2. My error is detected and I am sent where I may understand my self better You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the soul as the Papists say and our Divines say it sanctifies or as it doth justifie in foro Conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort but Sir saith he I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoris pag. 173 174 c. I scarce bestowed so many words on any one particular point But I marvel that it should be expected that my new learning should be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered seeing himself there speaks with so much vacillancy Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and hesitation in this doctrine pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein justification is conferred upon every believer and in the close of all when he hath spoke his full mind he addes pag. 180. This is the present apprehension I have of the nature of remission and justification adding Si quid novisti rectigus c. But now he peremptorily sayes I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens heart but as it is lex promulgata foedus testamentum and so doth convey right or constitute the duenesse of the benefit 1 Joh. 5.11 12. I would learn of my Catechrist that is now thus raised out of douhtings in this manner to take the chair 1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant which is the transient act in which justification is conferred on every believer find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it If so then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant if not whether he presupposeth that men upon the Lawes promulgation will believe of themselves without any further work or whether God makes use of any other instrument for the work of faith If these be answered in the negative that men will not believe of themselves upon such promulgation nor there is any other like instrument for this work then I think it must follow that God makes use of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe and so I am further confirmed in my former supposed mistake that the Covenant works by a real operation on the soul in order to justification Namely By working men out of unbelief into faith I had thought that when Paul and Appollos are Ministers by whom men believe that they had by the means of this encted or promulgated Covenant brought men to this posture And though justification be a relative change and not a real as is truly affirmed yet that a real change had been wrought in the soul for this work Whereas
he saies He speaks not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens hearts but c. I think he ought to speak so of it when he speaks of it as an instrument of justification In his sense I suppose it can be no instrument of justification an instrument must serve to work the thing of which it is an instrument but in this case justification is before-hand wrought and therefore according to the proverb it cannot do that which is done before it comes for the truth of this let Mr. Baxter speak The accepting Christ in this Covenant is true justifying faith if an unregenerate man have this indeed then he is justfied pag. 66. A believing man hath this indeed and so is indeed justified and the grant of the Covenant is an instrument for justification of a justified person I am demanded Do you not often read in Divines of justificatio juris vel legis as distinct from justificatio judicis vel per sententiam And I demand whether of these justifications do procede If justificatio juris go not before justificatio Judicis then the Judge justifies him whom the Law justifies not In case it follow after then it is onely a manifestation or declaration of it of which we may have further occasion to speak hereafter And this considered it appears to me that Mr. Baxter speaks ef the Covenant onely as eyed of God and not applyed to us and then indeed it is no instrument of God whereby he justifies but his rule according to which he justifies Pardon of sin is a relative change yet Ministers appointed of Jesus Christ for the pardon of sin are instrumental in working a real change from unbelief to faith in order to this work and so are instruments of pardon dispositivè as Mason de Ministerio Anglicano speaks as well as declarativè I added in my Treatise Forgivenesse of sin is preached in the Gospel Act. 13.38 but it is to those that believe that are justified faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it And here comes in my second charge mentioned I should tremble saith Mr. Br. to say so what Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of justification I answer Paul a Romane extols faith as high as I have done in Scripture already quoted in the work of justification The Author acquit from complyance with Romanists and according to Mr. Baxter farre more seeing through the whole Chapter of Heb. 11. he speaks as he sayes not onely of justifying faith but as justifying yet he is no Romanist 2. Mr. Br. well knowes the Romanists distinction of a first and second justification which first justification Protestants onely allow according to Scripture to be called justification and that there is according to them no ingrediency of any other grace but faith and no merit in faith but all of grace for which he may see Mr. Crandons first parallell Part 2. pag. 215. It followes If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us then the Gospel is our instrument of justification and can this be unlesse it be also said that we made the Gospel then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of donation But how this can follow I think few but himself can see It will onely follow that the Gospel cannot justifie us without us that which Austin hath de verbis Apostoli Ser. 15. will follow He that made thee without thee doth not justifie thee without thee It will follow that somewhat is to be done by us without concurrence of which the Gospel for justification is inefficacious Qui ergo fecit te sine te non justificat te sine te and how the second can follow that the Gospel is our instrument of justification I desire to know If Naamans dipping himself seven times in Jordan rendred it by Divine appointment efficacious for cure of his Leprosie will it follow that Jordan was his instrument whereby he cured himself If the Angels moving on the water Joh. 5. gave efficacy for cure to him that first entred will it then follow that it was either the Angels or his instrument that first entred and not rather the instrument of God onely And to his question moved Can this be unlesse we made the Gospel If we should grant that it is our instrument will this follow Can no man use an instrument unlesse he first made it Peter it seems was no fisher but rather a Cutler and made the sword wherewith he cut off Malchus ear or else he could not have used it as his instrument Neither followes it that God and we are concauses It would onely follow that there is a willing concurrence in us to accept of that which God of grace doth give That of Austin will follow which immediately is added in the place quoted Ergo fecit nescientem justificat volentem tamen ipse justificat ne sit justitia tua He therefore that made thee unwilling doth not justifie thee unwilling yet he doth justifie thee lest it should be thine own righteousnesse It will then follow that in self-denyal renouncing all self-righteousnesse we humbly accept what God of grace doth give After these supposed absurdities we have a list of subtle questions Is it the same power and efficacy for justification which the Gospel receives from God and which it receives from faith or are they divers If divers shew us what they are and which part of its efficacy and power the Gospel receives from faith and which from God If they are the same then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel which who imagineth or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it That faith gives efficacy to the Gospel for sanctification Mr. Baxter will not deny as appears in his words that follow and his own exposition of Heb. 4.2 1 Thess 2.13 before mentioned here let him then first answer his own question respective to Sanctification and by the help of him and light borrowed from his illuminate notions I shall aym somewhat at it to answer his respective to Justification If it be the same power and efficacy for sanctification that the Gospel receives from God and from faith then God must convey efficacy and power into faith first and by faith into the Gospel for sanctification and till I have his answer why should I be so vain as to confute his There followes Oh that you had condescended to your Readers weaknesse as to have deigned to shew him Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo Quid recipit ut fiat potens efficax Quomodo haec potentia efficacia fuit in fide utrum eminenter an formaliter Aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium For answer
tryal is our faith not barely the doctrine of faith as some would have it whereby we may conclude that we are of such a Church in which Christ is visibly resident in Ordinances but the grace of faith whereby he makes his abode in our soules The reason annexed is put by way of interrogation or question Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates which doth not imply that all are Reprobates that know not in present that Christ is in them but this is all that is implyed or can be gathered that Jesus Christ is in all that are not reprobates where reprobate is not yet opposed to the Elect as though all such were everlastingly cast-awayes in whom Christ is not in present But as the word is used Jer. 6.30 reprobate silver that is unfit for use or service so it is here taken such in present are not in a saving but in a lost condition and therefore it much concerns us to put this upon the tryal Motives to perswade to get assurance of this grace 1. Necessity of Faith For Motives to put men upon this work consider First the necessity of this grace and that upon a several account 1. Without Faith as you have heard we are without this righteousnesse None in unbelief can say of Christ Jehovah our righteousnesse All the good that Christ does unbelief loses so much good that Christ can do thee of so much unbelief strips thee The Apostle tells us of unsearchable riches in Christ Ephes 3.8 Such that none can summe up nor he that is highest in skill in Arithmetique calculate Christ is the Fathers Store-house Magazine or rich Exchequer The Father hath not a gift for any of his but he layes it up in Christ and a faith receives it from Christ Noah by faith was heir of this righteousnesse Heb. 11.7 The rest of the world wanting this grace went without this inheritance The rest of Canaan was lost by unbelief Heb. 3.18 The rest of heaven will be thus lost in like manner God hath chosen the poor of this world rich in faith heires of the Kingdome which he hath prepared for those that love him Jam. 2.5 The rich of this world destitute of this Faith make forfeiture of this Kingdome Is Christ a gift Faith receives him and unbelief is wanting Is Christ food Faith feeds upon him and unbelief is hunger-starved Is Christ rayment Faith puts him on and unbelief is naked Is Christ a Medicine Faith applyes him and unbelief languisheth Is Christ a laver Faith drencheth and douzeth it self in him and unbelief is filthy and defiled Is Christ a pardon Faith sues it out and unbelief lyeth under guilt Is Christ satisfaction Faith makes the plea and attains a discharge and unbelief remains indebted 2. Without Faith the soul is under the wrath of God and his ireful displeasure This is a necessary result from the former The man of unbelief wants that which might be interposed as an atonement and might stand as a skreen or shield for his guard And it is also fully laid down in Christ's words Joh. 3.36 He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him What Zophar saith of the wicked man Job 20.29 This is his portion from God and the heritage appointed him of God that Christ sayes of unbelievers so long as they remain in unbelief so long wrath abides on them All by nature are the children of wrath having no other inheritance and the man of unbelief never gets from under wrath to attain any other portion This is an aggregate of all miseries when all is reckoned up that can be named to make miserable wrath comprizeth it all to the uttermost to infinitenesse As is the man so is his strength say Zeba and Zalmunna Judg. 8.21 As is God so is his wrath with this motive the Psalmist presseth to faith Psal 2.12 Thy sin hath merit enough to damne and thou hast not any interest in Christ to save or deliver He that is void of Faith and yet under no such feares it is not because there is no cause of feares but that such a soul is not awakened to see his fearful deplored and desperate condition If the rich glutton had seen Hell gaping for him and the Devil ready to hale and drag him he could not then have had any list to his every-dayes Gorgeous apparrel nor yet any appetite to his delicate fare That is the condition of secure sensual ones till Hell-fire flame about them they think they are sure of heaven 3. Without faith there is no benefit to be had or good to be found in any Ordinances No Ordinance is useful but either as it is improved by Faith already seated in the soul or as it is serviceable to the plantation of it No duty of any kind works to acceptance from an unbelievers hand Abel's sacrifice was accepted when Cain's could not gain acceptance Gen. 4.4 5. The Apostle shews us the reason of this difference Heb. 11.4 By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice then Cain The Parable of the sower tells us how few profitable hearers of the Word there can be found and the Apostle gives the reason Heb. 4.2 The Word is not mixt with faith in those that hear it It is effectual alone in believers 1 Thess 2.13 and no more have audience in prayer then those that profit in hearing and there is one and the same reason of both Jam. 1.6 7. And that man is doubtlesse under an heavy Judgment that never gets good when he hears from God nor obtains his request when he seeks to God At the Lords Table they eat bread but feed not on Christ they take the Cup but have no interest in the blood of the new Covenant 4. Without faith nothing is done that God accepts The man and the work both displease Heb. 11.6 There must be a concurrence of all requisites to render a work good and acceptable But in an unbelievers work the matter of the work excepted all requisites are wanting The rise is from a fountain that is unclean and the unbelieving soul cannot go so high as to make the glory of God the end And the rule is above him in the work to look after 5. Without Faith the whole of man head breast and bowels are all open to Satan Faith is a Christians shield Ephes 6.16 and a shield is the defence not of one part but the guard of the whole A man without faith is a Souldier without armes and destitute of all power to make any manner of resistance Satan leads such an one at pleasure There is nothing of Christ nothing of grace nothing of the Spirit to stand up in opposition Some devils are not resisted without strength of faith Mark 9.29 No devil without faith can be vanquished or overcome Mot. 2 Secondly Consider the benefits of faith the glory that doth accompany it The benefits that
Lastly as Durand Reas 4 doth observe The whole that is done in it speaks its own use and signification and the use and signification of Sacraments wholly depends upon divine institution They have nothing that beares any colour to say for the Sacramentality of it save that Text of the Apostle Ephes 5.32 where the Apostle having illustrated that love which is due from the husband to the wife by that similitude of the love of Christ to the Church concludes This is a great Mystery and having spoke both of the union betwixt Christ and the Church and between man and his wife to prevent all mistakes he addes but I speak of Christ and his Church so that first we have not the word Sacrament there but the word Mystery which by Bellarmines own confession is not elsewhere in Scripture to be understood of any Sacrament and Cajetan on the words as Amesius observes warnes the prudent Reader to observe that we have not from Paul in this place that Marriage is any Sacrament So that neither word nor thing is found in Scripture that Marriage is a Sacrament Every one of these might have born a large discourse as is well known to all that are verst in these controversies But so many having spoken so fully to them though I was unwilling intending a Treatise of the Sacraments wholly to omit them yet was resolved that the Reader might not be overburthened to be as brief as possible in them FINIS A POSTSCRIPT TO REVEREND and LEARNED Master BAXTER IN WHICH These following QVESTIONS are friendly debated Whether faith in Christ quà Lord be the justifying act Whether mans Evangelicall personall righteousness be here perfect Whether the Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Whether Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace Whether Faith and Repentance be Gods conditions or mans in the proper conditionall Covenant Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection and accept sincerity With an enquiry into the judgement of Antiquity about severall things in reference to Justification Sicut meritum Christi non potest apprehendi ad justitiam salutem nisi per organon fidei divinitùs ad hoc ordinatum ita si fides alibi quà m in suo proprio principali objecto quaerat Justificationem non invenit nec accipitillam Chemnit exam concil Trident de fid Justif pag. 159. LONDON Printed by S. G. for Abel Roper at the Sign of the Sun against Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1655. THE INTRODVCTION REverend Beloved and much Honoured I have received your Apologie according to your appointment from your Stationer for which I return you hearty thanks as for the gift it self so for the pains that you have taken to rectifie me where in your judgement I have publickly stept aside An error in Divine things if it stand alone without addition of further aggravations is not light Truth being of such divine excellency that no pensil can draw out all deviation from it into opposite error must needs answer in black deformity and darkness But when it is not simple error but joyned with endeavour to engage others it is far above it self in fowlness To reduce a brother therefore not onely erring but thus erring must needs be an high acceptable office of love But in this I need to do no more than to say over to you what you have said to me in your first and second page which you stile your Prologue In this if we both speak our hearts thoughts we are one And I wish that in all other things there were a like unity in judgement and the time I hope with some confidence is near at hand that all mists and clouds will be so dispelled that we shall arrive at perfect union And as for infinite other reasons so for this glory is infinitely desireable In order to a right understanding between us I must acquaint you that your first words after your Christian salute have their mistake though not much material whether upon mistake of my words when I last saw you in Shrewsbury or fayling in memory I cannot determine I told you not that I had then sent to the Press a treatise of the Covenantâ but wished you indeed not to be offended in case I should in such a treatise publish somewhat in the way that you mention In which I do not barely oppose my memory to yours but also the witness of the Reverend Brother whom you know was then present together with the computation of time which speaks it to me to be above contradiction It was May 3. that we spake together as I well know by the errand that I had at that time into those parts and my book saw not the light till towards the end of November following and yet made speedy haste after it went out of my hands I was glad of the opportunity as of a brief discourse of some things as the little scantling of time would bear so also to understand your mind in the thing already mentioned before any further proceeding that there might be no unbrotherly difference which at that time you express'd with all possible candor for my encouragement in that way Yet you now complain that I have given the first onset and so put you upon a necessity of this way of dealing against me which you mention in your Preface Apologetical and in this Prologue and more at large in the Preface of your Confession preferring in your judgement a more private Collation and enquiry into things before this publique way of appearing in the Press And indeed I had it in my thoughts to have written to you before I had any setled resolution at all any more to have appear'd in publique had done some little that way as soon as your Aphorisms came to light which was more than three years and an half before my treatise of the Covenant was published as may be seen comparing the dates of either but after-thoughts took me off And indeed I see no cause of Repentance considering the issue of things between you and others After so much pains of writing on both sides I do not hear that any of those eminently learned men which you say from most parts of the land have taken this way to impart their animadversions have at all prevail'd to change your mind Neither do I hear that any of your replies have wrought any change in them for satisfaction And in the mean space those elaborate writings on both sides are buried in your Study and theirs and no other but your selves have any benefit at all Only we have their complaints such is humane frailty that their names suffer in your publick writings As to the Charge against me for making the first onset I had not appear'd at all had I not upon other occasions which may be seen in my Preface been put upon it to come out in open view And how far I stand guilty of that in which I
either to his own if unbaptized or to his Childs baptisme upon the grounds before mentioned And If I be here holpen out as indeed I utterly despair by any distinction of Forum Dei or Forum Ecclesiae Vnivocall or Aequivocall what thoughts then shall I entertain of the Holy Scriptures As you say of an opinion that you oppose Confess pag. 5. when you do but open the Bible you can seldome meet with a leaf that is not against them And I think your Hyperbole is very tolerable The same I think I may assert of this opinion which here I oppose if you except the book of Genesis and that needs not wholly to be excepted as Gen. 6.1 doth witnesse After the Church was gathered into a visible body in Abrabam the leaves are very rare through the Old and New Testament in which a man may not find testimonies or instances of a people in Covenant-relation to God and received by Circumcision or Baptism into a Church-state in an unregenerate condition Let Mr Ball be consulted in his Friendly tryal pag. 192. What high titles implying a Covenant-relation are given to men of most vile qualifications To which many more might be added They are called saith he by God himself His People His Children A chosen People An holy Nation The peculiar People of God The Daughter of Zion The Daughter of his People His pleasant Plant A right Noble Vine To which may be added Children of the Kingdome Children of the Covenant Heires of the promise Saints Believers Disciples Together with many compeâlâtions I am God even thy God c. And all of this as this Reverend Author shews of a People that were a stiff-necked People Foolish and Vnwise That did rebell against the Lord That did not understand were a most Sinfull Nation As Sodom and Gomorrah passing Sodom and Gomorrah in iniquity Here is enough to speak a Covenant and upon that account interest in Circumcision and Baptism Yea these were called The People of the Lord and the People of his holiness And to come off with such distinctions that they were aequiâocally not univocally nomically not really such That they had these names as a Corps or Picture hath the name of a man is that boldness with Scripture on which I dare not adventure Especially finding those great advantages and priviledges in Scripture annexed unto them May not the worst of Antinomians whom you follow with just indignation give like answers and find like starting holds when they deny any necessity of good works and we bring Scripture Texts in the fullest and plainest way against them May not they reply that all this is respective to our carriage towards men and not as to any notice that God takes of them either as to displeasure or acceptance That they are not necessary in foro Dei but in foro humano onely As Trask in a journey that he made into Stafford-shire there delivered That a Christian was to live amongst men as though he were under the obligation of the Law of God or words to that purpose but must not account himself obliged And I once heard one that had got into a Pulpit pretending to advance Christ but in such a way as I hope I shall hear no more mentioning Sanctification he said There was such a thing indeed respective to man but God regards it not And objecting the Apostle's words 2 Cor. 8.12 If there be a willing mind it is accepted according to that which a man hath and not according to that which a man hath not This he said was not any acceptation of God but of the Saints I must confess the gloss with me is alike in the one as in the other and either of both such as the Text will not bear Not that I charge all that hold that tenent as so highly guilty They see not as is plain in that they deny the connexion between them as the Ubiquitaries deny that any thing that they hold is destructive to the humane nature of Christ but with me the consequences before mentioned are palpable And if on the other hand when God sayes Hear O my people and I will testifie against thee I am God even thy God Psal 50.7 I entred covenant with thee and thou becamest mine Ezek. 16.8 I shall believe that God speaks as he thinks and that this covenant-relation is reall and not barely equivocal or nominal I cannot see any danger that followes upon it To leave this to your further thoughts and the Readers more serious judgement I come to that which is behind which I think I may reduce to these three heads 1. Those things wherein you and I really differ in judgement The Contents of this Postscript 2. Those things in which there is an agreement between us 3. Those things which we on either side problematically dispute and enquire into In the first I believe your business is to beat down error and find out truth In the second your end might be judged to be onely to discover my weakness being satisfied with my Tenent but unsatisfied it seems with my reasons but you profess other and better intentions In the third I believe that amidst what seems doubtful you would fain find out that on which you might fix as certain In all of these I would willingly be brief upon a several account 1. There is none of them in which this Treatise doth directly engage me and that at this time is my work And I think I had never appeared at all in any of these had not this work led me to it 2. I would not be thought to have a mind to differences when indeed my endeavour is to take my mind off them 3. I doubt I shall put the Reader to too much cost and pains The Book it self is of that bulk though I hope of a necessary subject that he may be tyred before he comes at the Postscript SECT I. Faith in Christ quà Lord is not the Justifying Act. THe first of those points which you have made choyce of is That the acceptation of Christ as a Lord and not onely as a Priest doth justifie In opposition to some passages of mine Chap. 12. pag. 79. of my Treatise of the Covenant In all of which as I do not name you so I think there is never a sentence that is positively yours so that had not you thus owned it few would have observ'd it I there say what you repeat That it is true that faith accepts Christ as a Lord as well as a Saviour but it is the acceptation of him as a Saviour not as a Lord that justifies Christ rules his people as a King teacheth them as a Prophet but makes attonement for them onely as a Priest by giving himself in sacrifice his blood for remission of sins These must be distinguished but not divided Faith hath an eye at all The blood of Christ The command The doctrine of Christ But as it fastens on his blood so it justifies
to the question Saving from the power of Sin Sanctifies and not Justifies Your fourth Of faiths receiving Christ as he Justifies us affirming that he Justifies us as King Judge and Benefactor is the same for ought I can discern with your tenth and there is to be considered Your fifth is If receiving Christ as Satisfier and Meritor be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds we must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification If you put this argument into form the word meritor will be found aequivocall and the Syllogism to consist of four termes We look at Christ for Justification as satisfying Justice and meriting pardon and remission not as meriting Sanctification Sixthly you say Rejecting Christ as a King is the condemning sin therefore receiving him as King is the Justifying faith This is like the old argument Evill works merit condemnation Ergo good works merit salvation An ill meaning damnes Prov. 21.27 Our good meaning therefore saves I further answer Rejecting Christ as a King is a sin against the Morall Law which damnes Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Morall Law is required that a sinner may be saved You give in your reason of your consequent Because unbelief say you condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the Justifying Faith explaining your self that you speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the New Law To this I answer Unbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemne further then as it is a breach of a Morall Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be your judgment as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the New Law as you call it to an Act of Oblivion And an Act of Oblivion saves many but condemnes none If a Traytor or Murtherer be exempted in any such Act of Oblivion it is their crime that condemnes them only the Act provides no remedy for them It harmes them not only it does not help them If one of those which were stung by the fiery serpent Numb 21. had refused to have look'd on the brazân serpent The sting had been his death and such obstinate refusall had kept him from the meanes of cure Your seventh is Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath Answ If you had said A condition you had spoken fairlier The condition implies the sole condition The yeelding up of our selves to him in all his functions as the Lords Christ vers 2. is there understood which is of necessity in all that will escape his wrath Eighthly you say Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of case and of rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our comming to Christ as a teacher and example of meeknesse and lowlinesse and our learning of him a taking on us his yoke and burthen Answ This text shewes the duty of men to be not alone to seek rest and ease from Christ but to learn of Christ and follow him But neither their learning nor their imitation but faith in his blood is their freedome or Justification Ninthly you say That faith which is the condition of salvation is the condition of Justification or remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as a satisfier that is the condition of our salvation Therfore c. Answ Here the Conclusion is safely granted You know that we yeeld that the faith that accepts Christ as a King Justifies But that is not the Justifying act The hand hath more officers then one It works as well as receives and so hath faith And that there is more reqâired as a condition to Salvation then to Justification speaking of it in Scripture phrase you yeeld sufficiently where you distinguish of Justification begun the condition whereof is faith only and Justification consummate there you bring in Repentance and Obedience That which you call Justification begun is Justification properly so called Faith only is serviceable to reconcile us unto God but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications to hold us up in communion with God Of this I have spoke Chap. 1.2 13 14. of my treatise of the Covenant Your tenth and last reason is If accepting Christ a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Justificat i. e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is meerly strictly and properly the Justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs righteousnesse is But the Antecedent you say is granted by all Divines that you have to do with Therefore c. Answ If they grant your Antecedent simply as in this phrase you deliver it I much marvell This seemes to imply that Christ acted quà Lord in paying the price of our Redemption and that this work of his is to be referred to his exaltation and not to his state of humiliation And I am sure the Scripture speaks otherwise That which I yeeld is That the faith which accepts Christ who is our Lord and Redeemer is the faith which Justifies and the condition of our Justification But as it lookes upon Redemption a sacrificing act of Priest-hood The distinctias fides quae and fides quà asserted done by him who is indeed a Lord and King sit only Justifies But this distinction of Fides quae Justificat and Fides quà Justificat is as you are pleas'd to say the generall cheat so that your Antecedent it seemes is granted you by all those Divines with whom you deal under this limit And as it seems you have met with a pack of impostors that of the most learned in the Land that out of their great condescension have written for your satisfaction This word you think sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon as indeed it doth and is no small blemish to his great paines you may then judge how it will take from your self in the ears of others And I much marvell that this distinction that every where else would passe and be confessed to be of necessity to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities in which men usually act should here not alone be questioned but thus branded Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variously act according to them And do not men that make addresse addresse themselves in like variety He that is at once a Husband a Parent a Master a School-master a Physician acts variously according to all of these capacities Some come to him as a father some as a Master some as a Teacher all of them come unto him as a Physician But only they that come to him as a Physician are cur'd by him Believers through faith go to Christ that bears all the relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding which is an act of his Priest-hood they are justified Learned Amesius may
personally righteous And in this sense it is that the faith and duties of believers are said to please God viz. as they are related to the covenant of Grace and not as they are measur'd by the Covenant of works Are not faith and duties here our personall righteousnesse and is not faith a branch of holinesse as well as it is of righteousnesse And hath it not its degrees as well as righteousness Surely the Apostles thought so when they prayed Lord increase our faith Luk. 17.5 And the Lord Christ had no other thoughts when he rebukes his hearers for their little faith Matth. 6.30 And commends the Woman of Canaan for the greatnesse of her faith Matth. 15.28 And as it riseth and falls so do other duties with it they are more intense or remisse in like manner And as for their speeches which you challenge do you think that their ignorance was in that measure intolerable as to believe the righteousnesse of what they spake was a meer non-entity i.e. had nothing of the being of righteousnesse in it They doubtlesse looked upon righteousnesse as a renewed quality as you do upon holinesse and the Apostle both upon holinesse and righteousnesse Eph. 4.24 The new man is so put on that we must be still putting it on It follows that seeing these things are exactioris indigationis understand that the reason of my assertion lyes here The law as it is the rule of obedience doth require perfect obedience in degree and so here is an imperfection in our actions in the degree as being short of what the rule requireth and it being these actions with their habits which we call our holinesse therefore we must needs say our holinesse is imperfect And if our righteousnesse were to be denominated from this law commanding perfection we must say not that such righteousnesse were imperfect because the holinesse or obedience is imperfect but it is none at all because they are imperfect It seems you intend here exactnesse equall to that in which you appeared to the learned brother before mentioned and as you did distinguish before of a metaphysicall and morall perfection so you seem here to distinguish of righteousnesse and holinesse either as a duty performed by men in the Covenant of grace according to rule or else as a condition required by the Covenant of works respective to the attainment of life upon terms there required This seems to be your meaning in your last words in this Paragraph Duty simply as duty and holiness or supernaturall grace as such may be more or less But holiness and duty as the materia requisita vel subjectum proximum justitiae consistit in indivisibili How duty and holiness can be the subject of it self I know not for so they are if they be the subjects of righteousness That righteousness in which we must exceed the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees is our duty and our holiness as well as of our righteousness but if you carry it thence to make it the righteousness of the covenant of works it is easily granted that the imperfection of it renders it as no righteousness respective to that end of attainment of life by it A Pharisee might as well be justified upon the terms of that covenant as Noah Daniel and Job Zachary and Elizabeth or any other of those that were most perfect and eminent in righteousness But I think no Reader could observe either in your own words or theirs that you censure any such meaning To assert the imperfection of our righteousness I said Isaiah I am sure saith All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is 64.6 no greater charge of imperfection can lie against the most imperfect holiness then the Prophet layes upon our righteousness Interpreting the Prophets words as I think the sense of them is generally given by interpreters ancient and modern But seeing you go off to speak of righteousness of another kind I will not contend I there added Neither do I understand how holiness should be imperfect taken materially and righteousness perfect taken formally in reference to a rule After such courteous censure that you please to give you fall to examine what that is that I understand not In which you take one piece of my sentence apart and say How holiness should be imperfect taken materially sure you understand that It is therefore say you no doubt the other branch that you mean How righteousness is perfect taken formally in reference to a rule If the Reader please to consult my words he may see that I put them not divisim but conjunctim giving in my reason why to me it is non-intelligible telling you that we may for ought I know as well make holiness formall and refer it to a rule and righteousness materiall in an absolute consideration without reference to any rule at all This you disjoyn from the rest and fall upon my words apart for what reason is best known to your self And I leave it to the Reader to judge whether that I may not call holiness perfect and righteousness imperfect as well as you may call righteousness perfect and holiness imperfect and whether there is not a materiality and formality not in the one or the other but in the one as well as the other and this was that which I spake to And any man that understands no more then I will I think take this to be a material exception against that which in your Aphorismes was delivered You say if you or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness if I once know your minds I will not contradict you for I find no pleasure in contending about Words but for my self I must use them in the common sense if I will be understood Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used But you might have done well to let us know that that is the common sense of the word righteousness taken for personall inherent righteousness which you here use till I see that made good I shall judge it to be your own peculiar acceptation of it I would know what interpreter of Zachary's words Luk. 1.75 of Paul's words Eph. 4.24 of John's words Revel 22.11 do put such a difference as you make between righteousnesse holiness as to make one a renewed quality of the Spirit the other no such thing but a relation in esse formali to what you must explain your self I have read so much difference indeed made as to put holiness for duties of the first Table in immediate reference to God righteousness for duties of the second Table in immediate concernment to man but thus taken they are both equally new qualities from the Spirit and have their intension and remission one as well as the other And I have read a rule given that where they are put together as in the Scriptures quoted they are to be distinguished as before but where the one is put apart it is to be understood as comprehensive of
sufficient Rule for us now for believing in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a generall command say you of believing all that God revealeth is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part c. To this I say 1. As before I think I may answer out of your own mouth where you say Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandement and unbelief is a breach of the first If we break the Commandement in unbelief then the Commandement binds us to believe 2. Much of that which I have spoke by way of answer to your former may be applyed to this likewise 3. I have already spoke to this that faith is a duty of the Moral Law Treat of the Covenant Chap. 3. pag. 18 19. To which I refer the Reader 4. If Adam had no command for faith then he was not in any capacity to believe and by his fall lost not power of believing And consequently it will not stand with the Justice of God to exact it at our hands having never had power for the performance of it 5. I say there was power in Adam for that faith that justified but not to act for justification Adam had that habit and the Law calls for it from all that are under the Command of it But the Gospel discovers the object by which a sinner through faith is Justified 3. The same answer may serve to your third objection 3. Exception which indeed is the same with the former only a great deal of flourishing is bestowed in discourse of the understanding and will paralleling them with the Prefaces grounds and occasions of Laws And at last bringing all to the Articles of the Creed to which enough allready is spoken 4. You say But what if all this had been left out 4. Exception and you had proved the Morall Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow theâefore that it is the only Rule Answ I take righteousnesse to be matter of duty and then the only Râle of duty is the only Rule of righteousnesse You say further Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding And I say Rewarding is none of our work but Gods and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours and that we are to make our business I confess an imperfection in it to give life but assert a perfection as thâ Rule of our lives It justifies no man but it orders and regulates every justified man 5. You say The same I may say of the Rule of Punishment 5 Exception To which I give the same answer It is not our work bu Gods either to reward or punish And here you speak of a part of the penalty of the new Law And I know no penalty properly distinct from the penalty of the old You were wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to have their penalties You instance in that of the Parable None of them that were bidden shall tast of the supper when thâ sin for which they there suffer is a breach of a Morall Command 6. You say The principall thing that I intend is 6. Exception that the Morall Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we muât now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Vnjust To this I have already given a sufficient answer and if I had not you answer fully for me Aphor. p. 144 Thes 28. Where you say The precepts of the Covenant as meer precepts must be distinguished from the same precepts considered as conditions upon performance of which we must live or die for non-performance And I speak of them as meer precepts and so they are our Rule of righteousness and not as they are conditions either of the Covenant of works or grace And a man may be denominated righteous by the Laws Rule when he cannot stand before the sentence of it as a Covenant of which we have heard sufficient After a long discourse against all possibilitie of Justification by the Law of works as though I were therein your adversarie or that the Antinomian fancy were above all answer that a man cannot make the Law his Rule but he makes it withall his Justification you go about to prevent an objection and say If you should say this is the Covenant and not the Law you then tell me that you will reply 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule To which I say When my work is to make it good that the Law is our only Rule I marvaile that you will so much as imagine that I will say that which makes it not the only Rule But perhaps you think I do not see how it cannot follow as indeed I do not neither can I see any colour for it 2. You reply It is the same thing in severall respects that we call a Law and a Covenant except you mean it of our Covenant-act to God of which we speak not who knowes not that praemiare and punire are Acts of a Law And that an Act of Obliviom or generall pardon on certain terms is a Law and that the promise is the principall part of the Law of Grace To which I say that praemiare and punire are not essentiall in a Law Some have power of command so that their words in just things is to be a Law where most deny any power of punishment as an Husband over the Wife Some Parents have Authority to command Children Children remaining under the obligation of the fifth Commandment as long as the relation of a Child continueth when they have neither power to reward or punish Jacob took himself to be in power to command Joseph among the rest of his Sons as appears in the charge that he gives concerning his buriall Gen. 47.29 30. and Chap. 49.29 So compared and yet he was not in power either to reward or punish him And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power Yet they are no parts of a Rule nor any directiory of life to him to whom they are proposed I know that an Act of Oblivion or generall pardon may be called a Law as many other things are catachresticè and abusivè but that it should be a Law properly so called I know not The Romanes defined a Law whilst that a Democratie was in force among them to be Generale jussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu Afterwards when the State was changed and the Legislative power was in other hands they defined it to be Jussum Regis aut Imperatoris And Tullye's definition of a Law is that it is Ratio summa insita in natura quae recta suadet prohibetque contraria Here jussio suasio and prohibitio are express'd which are not found in Acts of Oblivion That every man who
writers of note much differing one from the other in one particular subject I think I should first mention Bp. Davenant and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of justification Your Reader may well judge that he is amongst those that you say Confes pag. 459. you may safely and boldly advise all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls that they take heed of Where you warn all such that they take heed of their doctrine who make the meer receiving of that is affiance in the righteousness of Christ to be the sole condition of their first justification excluding Repentance and the reception of Christ as a Teacher and King and Head and Husband from being any condition of it yea and will have no other condition of our justification at judgement who call that affiance only by the name of justifying faith and all other acts by the name of works And as to that which you here assert that he speaks as much as you for the interest of works in justification you may conceit it but those that have perused him will hardly be induced to assent to it Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant then faith only (m) In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur conditio quà m verae vivae fidei In this Covenant saith he cap. 30. de Justit act pag. 396 there is no other condition then that of true faith required to obtain Reconciliation Justification and life eternall And having quoted Rom. 3.16 Rom. 4.5 Gal. 3.8 he adds Justification therefore and right to life eternall is suspended upon condition of faith alone But good works are also required of justified men not to constitute a state of justification or demerit life eternall but to yield obedience and testifie thankfulness towards God who justified us freely and hath markt out that way for their walk whom he hath designed for the kingdome of glory How is it (n) Justificatio igitur jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione solius fidei suspenditur Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur non ad constituendum statum justificationis aut promerendam vitam aeternam sed ad exhibendam obedientiam testificandum gratitudinem erga Deum qui nos gratuito justificavit atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae designatis ipse delineavit then Haec gratia sc inhaerens ut saepe dictum est est appendix five consequens gratuitae justificationis that again and again as he says himself hath said that it is but an Appendix or consequence of Justification pag. 317 If he thus interest works in Justification how he will be reconciled to himself where in the passage before quoted he says that They that affirme that man is Justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of Mans salvation in Justification alone to God but ascribe some part to themselves And in all that you quote out of him Pag. 319 c. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way You think you have just cause to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the first and second part of Justification Because having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant concerning the imputation of Christs active obedience in which they scarce differ in termes yet afterwards adds Though holy works do not justifie yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification So that did not the Covenant of grace interpose grosse and wicked waies would cut off our Justification and put us in a state of condemnation If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant which I doubt not may be done this Author may then be as easily reconciled to himself Passages of this kind only you quote out of Davenant which are as much opposite to himself as to the Author now mentioned SECT VI. Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace THe next you enter upon is a Query How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant Opposing your self against that Position of mine Chap. 33. Pag. 245. The men in impenitency and unbelief that lie in sin and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ live in a continuall breach of Covenant Here you confesse that I cite no words of yours and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you To which I say that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted which you seem to do Aphor. Thes 34. Pag. 163 Where you say That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken But before I enter upon the thing it self Men in finall unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth That men in finall unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God This is clear They that break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if are in Covenant The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise and bâeach of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant Jer. 34.18 The Lord threatneth those that trasgressed his Covenant and had not performed the words of Covenant And those that thus transgressed Covenant did likewise as wee see there enter into Covenant But these as you affirm break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it Therefore it follows that they are in Covenant And as the Covenant is that they transgresse such the Covenant is that they enter They do not enter one Covenant and transgresse another They transgresse a reall and not equivocall halfe-erring Covenant It is therefore a reall and not an equivocall halfe-erring Covenant that they enter And as this clearly follows from hence so that from you prosition that immediatly goes before it That Christs passive obedience and merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of works but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace it clearly follows Universall Redemption overthown That there is no universall Redemption by Christs Death or satisfaction If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace then he died not for the sins of all This is clear But according to you he died not to make satisfaction for their sin that thus stand guilty Therefore he died not for the sins of all Yea it will follow that he dyed for the lesser part only of those that make profession of his name Seeing the greater part die in impenitency and unbelief Yea it will follow that he dyed for the Elect only For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect All others
die in impenitency and unbelief I do not here go about to dispute the thing but only observe that all that Amyraldus hath gone about to set up concerning universall Redemption with such high applause of yours is by this position utterly overthrown For the assertion which in the place mentioned I have laid down that impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant I need say no more then that which I have spoke there having been nothing replyed to that which I have said My argument in the place quoted Arguments evincing that impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians are violation of Covenant in brief was this They that engage in Covenant to believe in Christ and forsake their sin break Covenant by a life in unbelief and sin But all professed Christians engaged by Covenant to believe in Christ and to forsake their sin Therefore all professed Christians by unbelief and sin break Covenant I only here add If unbelief and impenitence be not breaches or violations of Covenant properly so called then finall unbelief and impenitence is no breach or violation of Covenant properly so called This is clear Finall perseverance in unbelief and impenitence is no more then a continuance of the same posture or state of Soul God-ward in which they before stood in impenitence and unbelief As Perseverance in Faith and Repentance is the continuance of Faith and Repentance Explicatory distinctions examined If then finall unbelief and impenitence be a breach of the Covenant of grace then all unbelief and impenitence denominating a man an unbelieving and impenitent person is a breach of Covenant likewise For the clearing of your meaning which is all that you do in this question you distinguish first of the Word Covenant Secondly of the word Violation You say The word Covenant is sometimes taken for Gods Law made to his creature containing precepts promises and threatnings Sometimes for man's promise to Gâd Violation You say is taken either rigidly for one that in judgement is esteemed a non-performer of the condition or laxly for one that in judgement is found a true performer of the condition but did neglect or refuse the performance for a time You apply both these distinctions Taking the word Covenant in the latter sense you say that you have affirmed that man breaks many a Covenant with God yea even the Baptismal vow it self is so broken till men do truly repent and believe To which I reply That it is no other then the Baptismall vow or Covenant that we are to enquire into Baptisme is as Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant In Baptisme then we engage to the terms of the Covenant and till we repent and believe by your own confession we break this Covenant But taking the word Covenant say you in the former sense i. e. for Gods precepts promises and threatnings and Violation in the latter sense for one that in Judgment that is at the day of Judgment is esteemed a non performer of the conditions so you say None violate the Covenant but finall Vnbelievers and impenitent that is as you explaine it No other are the proper subject of its peremptory curse or threatning But Good Sir reflect upon this explanation of yours and in a more serious way yet consider of it To help your self out you refer mans violation of Covenant not to his own promise or engagement in which he stands in duty tyed but to Gods engagements containing his promises and threatnings and to violate Gods promise or threatning which you here implye to be done by Covenant-breakers scarce carries sense with it We may incur his threatning or misse of his promise but we do not violate either his promise or threatning Violation of Gods precept is disobedience of which Pharaoh a man never in Covenant was guilty but no violation or breach of Covenant where there is no voluntary engagement Our engagement is necessity to make it up into a Covenant and our violation of our engagements to make it a breach of Covenant Was ever any charged with breach of Covenant in breaking not his own but the condition of the other Conanting party Jsrael was under a Law to let their Hebrew Servants go free the seaventh year Exod. 21.2 In Zedekiah's time they serv'd themselves of them beyond that terme Here was the transgression of a Law but no breach of any particular Covenant But when they entred Covenant with God to do that which Law required and ratified it by cutting a Calfe in twaine passing through the parts of it and again served themselves of them here was a breach of Covenant So that the violation that you speak of if you may call it a violation is no Covenant-violation Every man that breaks a Covenant breaks his own and not anothers part in the Covenant And whereas you will have that to be a violation of Covenant laxly and not rigidly taken Impenitent persons in the most strict and proper sense are Covenant-breakers whân one doth neglâct or refuse the performance for the time but in judgment that is in the day of Judgment is found a true performer of the conditions to me it is very strange upon a severall account First I suppose you mean his own conditions to which he standes engaged which for a time he thus neglectâ and not Gods And you so spoile all that before you spake of Covenant-violations respective to promises and threatnings Secondly Such a one in the strictest sense is a man guilty of breach of Covenant during such time of his neglect or refusall Was not that younger Son of his Father mentioned Luk. 15. properly and in the most rigid sense a prodigal when he wastâd his substance with ritotous living notwithstanding that he was after reclaimed to a more frugall course And was not shee also that was a sinner in the City Luk. 7. truly a sinner or only in a laxe sense because she afterwards repented Was not the penitent Thief as truly and in as rigid a sense a Thief when he stole as he that stole and repented not And so he that lives in breach of promise with God is as truly a breaker of Covenant notwithstanding following Repentance as those that live and die impenitent I know therefore no other way of explanation of your self to your Readers satisfaction but to say that the Covenant of grace is not finally violated unlesse the conditions be finally broke Who ever doubted but when a sinner repents the doom which is passed against him for sin is reverst And that Paul a persecutor not in a laxe but in rigid sense afterwards building the faith that he destroyed shall not appear in Judgment as a persecutor And so he that is as truly and in no laxe sense a Covenant-breaker being by grace brought in to keep Covenant in the day of Judgment shall be reputed and esteemed a man faithful in Covenant SECT VII Faith and Repentance are mans conditions and not Gods in the
proper conditionall Covenant THE next in order in which I am spoken unto is that which Sect. 55. Pag. 108. you fall upon Entituling it Whether Faith and Repentance be Gods works Where having repeated words of mine out of Chap. 15. Pag. 101. of the Treatise of the Covenant somewhat largely but very brokenly you are pleased to say Mr. Bls. businesse here is to refute the answer that I gave to that objection The objection was thus put by one that excepted against your Aphorismes How make you Faith and Repentance to be the conditions of the Covenant on our part seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part Can they be Gods conditions and ours too To which I answered which in part you transcribe In case these two cannot stand together that they should be conditions both Gods and ours we may answer by way of retortion And am I sure we have the better end of the staffe that they are our conditions they are conditions on our part therefore they cannot be Gods That they are ours is made known of God as by the beame of the Sun in his word And I shall not stand to distinguish of an absolute and conditionall Covenant and so making the whole in the absolute Covenant to be Gods and in the conditionall this part to be ours which I know not whether exactly understood the Scripture will bear but in plain termes deny them to be the Gods conditions and affirme them to be ours In all which I can confidently speak that I never had it in my thoughts to oppose you yea I assuredly expected that how many adversaries soever I should find yet I should have had you here on my party Grounds on which the Author was confident that Mr. Br. herein was on his party My confidence herein was upon these grounds 1. In that you have shewed your self so well pleased with that which I had spoke in my answer to Mr. Tombs for explanation of that text of Jeremiah after quoted as may be seen Pag. 224. of your Treatise of Infant-Baptisme and I am sure there is nothing here to crosse any thing that I had spoken there Shewing your self then so far my friend I could not imagine that persisting in the same I should have had you to be my Adversary 2. In that you had plainly enough to my understanding declared your self against any such thing as absolute promises Aphor. Pag. 8 9. in these words Those promises of taking the hard heart out of us and giving us hearts of flesh c. are generally taken to be absolute promises and after some more words you infer Therefore these absolute promises are but meere gratious predictions what God will do for his Elect the comfort whereof can be received by no man till the benefit be received and they be to him fulfilled Therefore as all meer predictions so also these promises do fall under the will of purpose and not of precept And Commenting on those ãâã words of the Prophet as applyed by the Apostle Heb. 8. you sây Appen Pag. 42. Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise is a great doubt and having yeelded so far as to say I think you may call it an absolute promise you caution this freedome of calling it so very largely Pag. 43. And then you make all up in these words So that I conclude that it is most properly but a propheâie what God will do de eventuâ as it hath reference to the parties on whom it shall be fulfilled and so is the revealing part of Gods purposing will and belongeth not at all to his preceptive or legislative will by which he doth govern and will judge the world And that Gods Covenant and promises properly so called belong to his preceptive and legislative will whereby he governes the world and not to his purposing will according to you is manifest 3. You have appeared at large with much zeal for the conditionality of the Covenant on mans part and that it is not made alone with Christ but Christians with conditions imposâd on them but not on him And how this can be when those are Gods conditions and not m ns I cannot see If Faith and Repentance be Gods conditions and not mans Where is there any conditions on mans part remaining 4. Summing up your answer to your Querists 6. and 7. question you say Now I hope you can hence answer to both your own demands To the seaventh You see there is a Covenant absolute and a Covenant conditionall but the last is the proper gospel-Gospel-Covenant To the sixth You see that in the absolute Covenant or prophâcâe he promiseth Faith and Repentance in promimising his Spirit and a new heart to the Elect who are we know not who And in the conditionall proper Covenant he requireth the same Faith and Repentance of us if we will be saved So that they are Gods part which he hath discovered that he will performe in one Covenant and they are made our conditions in another And you very well know that I speak of the conditionall proper Covenant or else why do I contend for conditions in it and in this Covenant of which we speak you say they are required of us and are our conditions And for the other Covenant where you say that they are Gods part which he hath discovered that he will performe see how full I come up to you Chap. 9. Pag. 64. of my Treatise where I say I suppose they may be more fitly called the declaration or indication of Gods work in the conditions to which he ingageth and of the necessary concurrence of the power of his grace in that which he requireth So that had you had no more mind to have been upon contradiction of me then I of you we had here shaken hands together and not lift up oâr hands one against the other You say Section 38. pag. 37. that you are uncertain whether my 33. Chapt. be against you because I recite no words of yours though it be indeed full against your opinion Here I think I recite no words of yours neither did I as I thought oppose any opinion of yours Yet you say my business is to confute your answer You say A brief reply may satisfie this confutation And I say No r ply would have been more fit for no confutation You acquaint me how you explain'd your self plainly shewing that the thing called God's condition was not precisely the same with that called ours Ours was Believing and repenting God is The bestowing of these as the question expressed Answ I think you should have made the difference far more wide Oâr conditions in this conditional proper Covenant are faith and repentance to these we are called as you say if we will be justified and saved God's conditions in this conditionall proper Covenant are those to which he engages himself viz. rewards in case of Covenant-keeping and punishments in case of Covenant-breaking One he promises the
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 uââacts And I acknowledge the same and so far there is a âaire and ââiândly accord Bât you say I adventure a step farher and say that faith and repentance are mans work and not Gods To which yâu 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 ârâuâent 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 denominâtion 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 Eââius upon the words Deus omne bonum ac totum ab initio bonae voluntatis usque ad consummationem boni operis in nobis efficâciter operatur ordine sc causalitatis You âdde I never met with any Orthodox Divine but would yeeld that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit and the Spirits work is doubtleâs Gods work Farther telling me If you go the Common way of he Praedeterminants you must acknowledge that God is the Physicall Efficient Praedeâermining 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
as from God but reqâired of God from us are not Gods conditions but ours in that Covenant This is cleare Being there expresly required of us and not so much as mentioned as from God they cannot be his engagement but ours to performe But Faith and Repentance are not mentioned as from God in the proper conditionall Covenant but required of God from us This proposition is your own in your answer as we have heard before pag. 45 46. Therefore Faith and Repentance are not God's conditions in the proper conditionall Covenant but ours 2. The conditions of a Covenant are his that performeth and not his that imposeth This Proposition is your own in this Section and clear in reason But we perform and God imposeth Faith and Repentance This is of two parts First that they are performed by us This you confess where you yield that they are our acts For the second that they are imposed on us none can deny See 1 John 3.23 Act. 17.30 They are therefore our conditions and not God's in this Covenant 3. Covenant-conditions are theirs that are charg'd with falshood in case of failing in them and non-performance of them This is plain in all Covenants To make conditions and to fail in them is to be false to them But in case of failing in Faith and Repentance man is charged and not God God fails not but man deals falsly Therefore they are mans conditions and not Gods 4. Covenant-conditions are theirs who upon failing in them and not performance of them suffer as Covenant-breakers This is clear Israel covenanted to dismiss their Hebrew servants and dismissed them not And Israel suffered for it Jer. 34. But upon failing in Faith and Repentance God suffers not so much as in his name He is not charged with mens unbelief and impenitence Men themselves suffer Therefore Faith and Repentance are mans conditions not God's So that though I have not refuted your answer which never was in my eye yet I have answered your Querist's demand and made it good that Faith and Repentance are mans conditions and not God's in the Gospel-covenant SECT VIII The Covenant of Grace requires and accepts sincerity I Have pass'd through those debates in which our judgements stand at difference for in the last you will differ though I had thought there had been a full accord between us Now I must come to that in which we do agree which pag. 144. Sect. 82. you entitle Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection and accept sincerity In which I take to the negative conceiving that it requires the same that it accepts And in your Aphorismes if I understand any thing you have clearly delivered your self with me pag. 157 158. in these words As when the old Covenant said Thou shalt obey perfectly the Moral Law did partly I think you mean perfectly tell them wherein they should obey So when the new Covenant saith Thou shalt obey sincerely the Moral Law doth perfectly tell us wherein or what we must endeavour to do c. Whereupon Mr. Crandon is herein against you with as great vehemence as in any other of your doctrines Neither do I perceive by any thing that you have said that your mind is changed And I had much rather answer Mr. Crandon in defence of truth which he in you here opposeth then to spend time in my own quarrel Though my Tenent give you not distast yet it seems my arguments do not please But if truth stand it matters less though I fall You answer all my arguments in order as though you judged me to be in the fowlest error when I am yet perswaded that if not onely some but all of my arguments fail which you make your business to impugn the Position it self which with you is truth as well as with me will fall with it After a short Apology and conjecture made who that Divine may be whom with much reverence I mention supposing him the first that manifested himself in the contrary way that the Gospel requires perfection and accepts sincerity You tell me that you conceive this difference is occasioned by the ambiguity of the word Covenant of Grace and tell me that in your judgement I ought to have removed it by distinguishing before I had argued against their opinion And so you fall upon my work for me and give in abundance of acceptations of the word Covenant of Grace And if I may take the boldness to be as free with you as you with me I think you might have done well to have made it appear where and by whom this word is taken in all of these different senses and significations If your Reader knew all this before your Book fell into his hand you have nothing benefited him you have only told him what he knew before If he he knew it not he hath now alone your word for it And I know not where else any Reader may find a great part of it but from your hand I profess my self to be much more amazed then edified in Reading all that you have spoke of it When you have reckoned up very many senses of the word you say Now if the question be whether in any of these senses the Covenant doth command perfect obedience you answer An explication of the Authors meaning All the doubt is of the three latter one of which is Promises Prophecies and Types before Christ's comming And to speak mine own meaning and I had thought no man had doubted of it I take Covenant of grace in this dispute for the whole transaction that passes in a Covenant-way betwixt God and his people in order to Salvation as comprizing all that God requires promises or threats and all that to which man engages himself and which he expects But when I speak of that which the Covenant thus taken promiseth I mean that which it promiseth in the promissory part of it when I speak of what it threatneth I mean in the Minatory part of it and when I speak of what it requires I mean in the preceptive part of it Now this preceptive part must needs have some rule at which men in Covenant must look as distinguished from threats or promises and containing Agenda things to be done and not Credenda Speranda or Timenda things to be Believed Hoped or Feared The rule or Standard here in these things which man in Covenant is called to do is the Moral Law God quits not man of his Subjection He is a subject in this as he was in the former Covenant The Covenant of works called to the keeping of it in the highest fullest and most compleat perfection The Covenant of Gâace cals us to eye it and with sincere endeavour to conform to it When God spake to Abraham the leading man in Covenant respective to all after-Covenanters whether Jewes or Gentiles he saith I am the Almighty God or God al-sufficient walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 In which words we have first the
and the condition as such And you proceed ex non concessis to charge me with this confusion taking it for granted in the words that follow that a Covenant which is also a Law as well as a Covenant may by the preceptive part constitute much more duty then shall be made the condition of the promises In which I conceive there is a double mistake 1. That a Covenant properly so called of which we speak can be a Law in the proper acceptation For a covenant is of 2. parties either of both concurring to the constitutioÌ of it if it be a Law both parties are as well Law-givers as Covenant-makers A Superiour may impose a condition as by a Law but that is but one part of a Covenant 2. That there is any duty in a Covenant that is not also of the Condition of it I am sure in the Covenant of Grace there is nothing duty which is not a condition Faith and Repentance are conditions and if you can tell me of any thing else which is matter of duty taking Repentance in its due latitude viz. to cease to do evill and learne to do well it will be a piece of a new Catechisme with me These you grant are conditions and this the all of a Christians duty Whereas you say If you will speak so largely as to say All who break the preceptive part of the Covenant are Covenant-breakers then no doubt God accepteth of many such and none but such for Whether we say say you that the New Law commandeth perfect obedience or not yet except you take it exceeding restrainedly it must be acknowledged that the precept is of larger extent then the condition having appointed some duties which it hath not made sine qua non to salvation Answ I think God accepts of none that break the preceptive part of the Covenant in the sense as the preceptive part of it qua Covenant is to bâ understood as interpreters usually give as the meaning of it God accepts that I know none to speak de adultis but those that walk before him and are sincere He neither accepts of profanenesse nor men of hypocriticall dissimulation I know sincerity hath its latitude as perfection strictly taken hath not An upright heart in temptations hath many a great shock but if you can say that the duty of the Covenant is so laid aside that the heart is not right in the sight of God as Peter of Simon Magus which must be said if the precept of sincerity and uprighthnesse be broke then I do not know that there is any acceptance Simon Magus must be in another frame before the thoughts of his heart be forgiven him And this I am confident is the thoughts of my learned friend whom you mention if I do not as I think I do not mistake the man And I have my reason for this confident opinion And as I wonder at your distinction betwixt the duty and condition of a Covenant so I no lesse marvail at your Simile You tell me If I send my Child a mile of an errand and say I charge you play not by the way but make hast and do not go in the dirt c. and if you come back by such an houre I will give you such a reward if not you shall be whipt He that plaies by the way dirties himself yet comes back by the houre appointed doth break the preceptive part but not the condition Your distinction is between the preceptive part and the condition in a Covenant and here you talke of a precept that is no part of the Covenant but if I put all within the Covenant and say Come again within an houre not playing or dirtying your self if he either out stay his houre or play or run in the dirt he forfeites his reward and is at mercy for a whipping according to Covenant You speak afterward of a mans breach of some particular Covenant which a man may do in a temptation and yet as to the Covenant of grace be sincere 3. I said Then it will follow that as none can say They have so answered the command of the Law that they have never failed So neither can they with the Church make appeale to God that they have not dealt fasly in the Covenant Psal 44 17. Every sin according to this opinion being a breach of it and a dealing fasly in it You reply This charge is as unjust as the former I confesse it and you giving no further reason I shall sit down with the former answer 4. I said Then the great promise of mercy from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his righteousnesse unto Childrens Children to such as keep his Covenant and to those that remember his Commands to do them Psal 103.17 18. only appertaines to those that keep the Law that they sin not at all against it You answer It follows not If they sincerely keep the Law they fulfill the conditions of the Covenant though not the precept And I say the precept of the Covenant goes no higher then sincerity And I had thought you had fully concurred with me That Christ say you as the Mediator of the new Covenant should command us not only sincere but perfect obedience to the moral law so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel not only as a directory and instruction but also as a command I am not yet convinced Adding My reason is because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to performe Aphor. 157 158. How these can be reconciled I know not I think none is inabled through grace to be more then sincere and then the precept of the Covenant according to you requires no more You further say They keep the precept in an improper but usuall sense as keeping is taken for such a lesse degree of breaking as on Gospel grounds is accepted Answ They keep it if they be sincere in the sense as Christ the Mediator of the Covenant gave it in as proper a sense as they keep the conditions 5. I said Then our Baptism-vow is never to sin against God and as often as we renew our Covenant we do not only humble our selves that we have sinned but we afresh bind our selves never more to commit the least infirmity To this you answer We do not promise in Baptism to do all that the precept of the Covenant requireth but all that is made the condition of life and to endeavour the rest I desire to know where you find this distinction as applied to our Baptism-vow You say pag. 79. of this Apology that Baptized ones are to renounce the Flesh the World and the Devill and that this abrenunciation hath been in the Church ever since the Apostles daies qâoting Tertullian Cyprian and all antiquity for it I would know whether Tertullian Cyprian or any other eminent in ancient times help'd it out
same Page 25 Disciple D. A Title in Scripture not alwayes proper to the justified Page 149 Discipline Church-discipline asserted Page 266 c. Objections answered Page 268 Dogmaticall Faith Is a true Faith Page 176 Entitles to Baptisme Page 103 The Authors Arguments proving That a Dogmaticall Faith or a Faith short of justifying entitles to Baptisme uindicated Page 120 121 c 17. Arguments added for the proof of it Page 161 Arguments from humane authorities against a Dogmaticall Faith examined Page 147 Dogs Dogs and Swine what they mean Page 260 E. Eldership ALlegations for the power of an Eldership in admission to the Sacrament Page 252 These taken into consideration Page 253 Ruling Elders uindicated Page 270 c. Grotius his testimony concerning them Page 171 Election And the Couenant of grace not commensurate Page 124 Elect. Restriction of the Couenant to the the Elect regenerate confounds the Couenant the and conditions of it Page 134 Exceptions against it answsred Page 135 136 Restraint of Couenant to the regenerate denies any breach of Couenaut Page 138 Exception against it examined ibid c. Elements No continuall holiness in Sacramentall Elements Page 324 Their touch or abode makes not holy Page 325 Engagement Answer to Sacramentall engagements necessary to Saluation Page 387 Arguments euincing it Page 389 Sacraments without spirituall profit to those that liued in breach of Couenant Page 18 Sacraments are meer shadowes and empty signes where conscience answers not to the engagements Page 389 c. Sacraments are aggrauations of sin and hightnings of judgements when conscience answers not to Sacramentall engagements Page 390 When conscience answers not to Sacramentall engagements men subscribe to the equity of their own condemnation Page 391 When it is that conscience answers to Sacramentall engagements Page 392 Equivocall Men of a uisible profession really and not equiuocally in Couenant with God Page 128 Gods Couenant with his people no equiuocall Couenant Page 80 Scripture language not equiuocall Page 140. 150 Equivocation What it is Page 139 Errors Reformers uindicated from a charge of four supposed great errors Page 438 Protestants uindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 Erroneous Persons in an incapacity to receive any benefit from the Lords Supper Page 236 c. Evidence Men in grace often want assuring evidence of grace Page 190 Grounds laid down Page 190 191 c Eunuch His Baptism enquired into Page 176 F. Faith THe alone grace that interests us in the righteousness of the Covenant Page 432 All forein reformers make not faith a full persuasion Page 439 c. Whether the act or habit of faith doth justifie Page 442 These phrases to be justified by faith and faith justifies are one and the same Page 444 Faiths instrumentality in justification asserted by Scriptures ibid. The unanimous consent of Protestant writers in it Page 445 c. There is somewhat of efficiency in mans faith for justification Page 447 How Christ dwels in our hearts by faith Page 450 Faith doth more then qualifie the subject to be a fit patient to be justified Page 460 More then a bare presence of faith is required to justification Page 468 In what sense the Gospell through faith is efficacious for justification Page 481 Christians must bring their faith to triall Page 492 The absolute necessity of faith ibid. Manifold benefits of it Page 494. c. The humbled soul the proper seat of faith Page 498 c. Faith hath its seat in the will as well as in the understanding Page 504 It is hold out in words in Scripture implying affiance trust c. ibid. Faith defined Page 505 Faith far under-values all earthly things respective to Christ Page 510 Faith is against all whatsoever is against Christ Page 512 It suffers no lust to divide from Christ ibid. Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the justifying act Page 554 The distinction of fides quae and fides quâ asserted Page 565 566 Protestant writers guilty of no cheat in it ibid. Arguments evincing that faith in the bloud of Christ onely justifies Page 566. c. Faith dogmaticall See dogmaticall Faith justifying See justification Faiths instrumentality See instrument Fathers And Councils often too rigorous in their Rules respective to Church discipline Page 112 Queres put touching the authority of the Fathers in Controversies Page 653 c. Mr. Firmin His Appendix as to the latitude of Infant-Baptisme examined Page 94 c. The Authhor vindicated Page 95 96 His Appendix as to admission of men of yeers examined Page 104 c. Advertisments given to Mr. Br. touching his undertakings for him Page 180 Their disagreement Page 180 c. Food Ordinary and quickening food differenced Page 218 The word as well as the Sacrament is food ibid. Forum Dei Mr. Brs. distinction of Forum Dei and Forum Ecclesiae examined Page 141 Form A precise form of words not of the essence of Sacraments Page 59 G. Gesture NO one Gesture of necessary observation in receiving of the Sacrament Page 310 God His great goodness in condescension to mans weakness in institution of Sacraments Page 52 c. He is the Author of all Sacraments and Sacramentall rites Page 63 He is to prescribe in his own worship Page 65 He alone must distinguish his servants in relation from others Page 65 66 He onely gives efficacy to Sacraments Page 66 He onely can seale his promise Page 66 67 His great goodness and the tender care of Christ in condescension to our weakness Page 349 His compassion to us should move us to compassionate our selves Page 551 Gospell Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his Priestly Office Page 567 Grace Papists speak doubtfully of any work of inherent grace infused in Baptisme Page 377 Protestants deny any such infusion of grace in Baptisme Page 378 The Fathers acknowledge no such infusion of grace in Baptisme ibid. Common grace is reall Page 132 H. Heresie IN the Parent divests not the Child from Church-privileges Page 99 Holiness Covenant-holiness must not be confounded with inward holiness Page 148 149 The doctrine of Covenant-holiness more antient then Zuinglius Page 117 Calvin and Beza not the inventers though the promoters of it Page 118 Mr. Humphreys His Treatise of a free admission to the Lords Supper Page 247 I. NAtural Idiots uncapable of benefit by the Lords Supper Page 229 Ignorance Ignorant In Covenant Parents divests not the Child of Church-privileges Page 99 Grossely ignorant ones in an incapacity of benefit by the Lords Supper Page 230 Ignorance distinguished ibid. Image An Image less like the Pattern is an Image Page 612 Impenitence And unbelief in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of grace Page 622 Arguments evincing it Page 624 c. Infants Of confederate Parents put no bar to their Baptisme Page 95 They are uncapable of benefit by the Lords Supper Page 226 The different practice of Antiquity ibid. Schoolemen divided about it ibid. The present practice of the Church of
Rome in it Page 227 Whether Infants were saved by their Parents faith and how before circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions laid down Page 29 c. Infant-Baptisme Severall benefits of it Page 185 c. See Baptisme Infirmities Men Covenant not with God to be above all infirmities Page 392 Meer infirmities no Covenant-breaches ibid. Their happiness whose sins are not above infirmities Page 393 Sins above infirmities and towards presumption ibid. See Sin Institution A word of institution necessary to the being of Sacraments Page 58 Repetition and explanation of this word of institution singularly usefull Page 59 All Sacramentall rites must be of divine institution Instrument Faith The instrumentality of Faith in justification asserted Page 437 Scripture Texts holding out the instrumentality of Faith as in other actions so in justification Page 444 Whether the action of the principall cause and of the instrument in Morall operations is alwayes one Page 445 The unanimous consent of Protestant writers that Faith is an instrument ibid. c. Faiths instrumentality makes not man the efficient cause of his justification Page 438. 464 Faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ being granted its instrumentality in justification cannot be denied Page 441 Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ Page 443 Instruments of meer reception and further operation distinguished Page 448 Faith an instrument of the proper reception of Christ Page 460 It is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification Page 448. 487 The grant of the New Covenant is not an instrument of justification solely sufficient Page 466 Concauses instrumentall have efficacy one from another Page 470 Instruments Cooperative or Passive Page 474 Whether the word be a passive instrument or Cooperative with the Spirit ibid. An instrumentall effiâiency ascribed to Faith respective to Salvation Page 486 Arguments for the instrumentality of faith in justification Page 485 Proofs from Antiquity for its instrumentality in justification Page 628 c. See Faith Justification The relative change in it necessarily presupposes a reall Page 447 God and man not co-ordinate causes in it Page 449 In justification of man God acts not without man Page 446 Quaeres put in what sense the grant of the New Covenant is said to be solely instrumentall in the work of justification Page 478 Arguments against the sole sufficiency of the grant of the New Covenant for justification Page 489 Justification by Gospell grant and by the sentence of the Judge how they differ Page 556 557 Justification at the day of judgement not specifically distinct from that which precedse Page 558 The Father appoints the termes of justification and salvation Page 559 Paul treats directly and industriously of justification by faith Page 576 Justifying Faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptisme Page 163 c. Severall arguments vindicated Page 120 c. Exceptions examined Page 143 Additionall arguments to prove it Page 161 Covenanting and justifying not Synonima's Page 135 136 None able to Baptize if justifying faith onely give admission Page 160 Jurisdiction Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page 253 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Objections answered Page 262 K. Knowledge A necessary prerequisite in faith Page 500 Knowledge distinguished Page 501 See Ignorance L. Law ANd Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Law Morall Arminians Socinians and Papists oppose the perfection of the Morall Law Page 601 Authorities of Protestant writers for the perfection of the Morall Law Page 602 Arguments evincing the perfection of the Morall Law Page 603 Objections answered Page 605 There is no sin that is not condemned in the Morall Law Page 603 In what sense the preceptive part of the Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Page 605 c. Actions are denominated good or bad from the Law onely Page 613 Men are denominated really and not equivocally righteous that imperfectly obey the Morall Law Page 614 The Law commanding duty and the end of the duty are not opposite but subordinate Page 614 Law nature What meant by the time of the Law of nature Page 24 No Sacraments appointed of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. Scripture silence a probable argument Page 26 Jesuites arguments herein examined ibid. The preceptive part of the Law of nature delivered to Moses and as used by Christ whether they differ Page 600 Leiturgy Divine ordinances must not stand or fall upon the want or fruition of any set leiturgy whatsoever Page 308 Leiturgy of the Church of England taken into consideration ibid. c. 1. As to the work it self Page 308 2. As to the sanction put upon it Page 309 Life What meant by it in the Covenant of works Page 11 Not barely an animall life ibid. c. The tree of life had not any naturall power to answer its name Page 12 Lord. Faith in Christ qua Lord is not the justifying act Page 554 The position at large discussed Page 555 c. Lords Supper See Sacraments Supper Lunatick Persons uncapable of any benefit by the Lords Supper Page 229 M. Man His first originall is in sin Page 363 Arguments evincing it Page 364 In mans restitution his nature must be healed and his guilt removed Page 366 The healing of his nature and the removall of guilt is the work of Christ Page 366 Manna Whence it hath its name Page 523 The time it continued with Israel Page 524 Miraculously provided ibid. A fable concerning it ibid. Of a Sacramentall nature Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Meanes Their necessity for our help in the way of faith and obedience Page 17 Objections answered Page 17 18 Mediatour See Christ Metonymies Frequent in Scripture Page 572 Marriage The Matter Page 540 Form Page 540 Minister Page 540 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 541 Minister Allegations for a Ministers sole power in admission to the Sacrament Page 251 Inconveniences objected against it answered Page 262 A Ministers prudence in this work to see with more eyes then his own Page 272 Where an Eldership is erected to make use of them ibid. To make scrutiny into mens knowledge with all tenderness Page 273 Not to refuse but upon known crimes ibid. When he cannot in this do what he would he is to do what he is able Page 274 Ministerial Dispensation of Sacraments a part of the Ministeriall function Page 277 Whether Ministeriall dispensation be of the essence of Sacraments Page 277 c. Gospell order transgrest when Sacraments are not dispenced by a Ministeriall hand Page 278 Doctor Abbots and Mr. Hookers judgement in it ibid. Mixt. Lawfull to communicate in mixt congregations Page 314 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Morall Perfection or imperfection is in reference to a rule Page 592 Duties naturally Morall bind all Page 195 Where a positive command is given there is a Morall tye to obedience ibid See Law
and so both seales are of equall latitude which yet is more plainly exprest in his following words But if you speak onely of Covenant-right to Baptisme coram Deo by his gift of Covenant then I make them of the same extent and I cannot tell what other Covenant-right to speak of but that in which God avoucheth a people to be his and himself to be their God and I dare not have a thought of any thing but reality in his words For his distinction which he hints here and plainly delivers elsewhere of right in foro Dei and in foro Ecclesiae both to Covenant and Baptisme I suppose considerate men will pause upon it before they receive it especially in the sense which he puts upon it 1. They may presse him with his own rule Vbi lex non distinguit âibi non est distinguendum Such a right to visible Ordinances before men never granted of God I would learn 2. They may demand whether it be the Will of God that any upon the latter right coram Ecclesia should be baptized by the Church If it be then they have right coram Deo If it be not his will then they have no right coram Ecclesia I know no Court that God keeps respective to visible Church-priviledges but his Church 3. They may tell him of the necessity that is put upon Ministers to profane this Divine Ordinance in putting this seal ordinarily and unavoidably to meer blank paper which is a most contumelious abuse of it Of many that are called few are chosen and yet all that are visibly called are thus sealed when in Gods sight all title is wanting 4. They may tell him that poor soules are thus miserably cheated in bearing them in hand that this great priviledge and consequently all further Church-priviledges are theirs when the conveyance is more fraudulent that casts it upon them 5. They may yet tell him that a door is here opened to Anabaptisme or multiplication of Baptisme A new door of which either nothing or very little hath ever been spoken When discovery shall be made as according to these principles it may be often made that the title when Baptisme was administred was barely seeming then all was null ab initio in such proceedings and as such persons alwayes were in the eye of God so now in the eye of men they are unbaptized persons And in case God ever vouchsafe the grace of conversion to this man he is now by Divine appointment to seek baptisme In case Simon Magus who after baptisme did discover himself to be in the gall of bitternesse by Gods grace should ever attain repentance and forgivenesse which Peter did not judge to be desperate he must then upon conversion afresh offer himself to Baptisme If Titius be admitted into possessions presumed to be his true inheritance and afterwards it be made to appear that it never appertained to him but to Sempronius when this appears all is to be judged invalid And if Titius ever gain due right he must again procure possession and is not to hold on his former crackt and seeming title So that whensoever a Minister converts a baptized man he must look upon former proceedings as null and upon his conversion baptize him Neither let Anabaptists here triumph as they may baptize whom we have baptized when they see them converted so we may baptize whom they have baptized too many of both parties manifesting over-evident signs of their unconversion 6. They may tell you that that Scripture-distinction of circumcision in the flesh and circumcision in the heart is hereby overthrown seeing circumcision in the flesh where circumcision in the heart is wanting is uncircumcision which the Apostle grants respective to true happinesse Rom. 2. ult but denyes respective to Church-priviledges Rom. 3.1 7. They may tell him that this principle standing all persons dying unregenerate dye unbaptized yea all that were baptized in infancy and after converted remain still unbaptized 8. That it is much to be feared if not certainly to be concluded that the major part by far of Worcestershire combination consists of unbaptized persons there being I doubt no good evidence of true conversion in the most considerable part of them subscription to the confession there and consent to membership being all that is required and whether it be enough for a good satisfying evidence that a man or woman is in grace that he or she hath subscribed or put to their mark let any judge I am sure it is voyc'd that the most prophane where the Minister carries any authority are as forward for subscription as any If all marriages were null where grace were not in truth in the parties I fear that through the Christian world there would be more adulterous then marriage-copulations And in case where there is no grace there is no subject for Baptisme there are as many unbaptized persons Argument 4. vindicated My fourth Argument is The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite to the being of Baptisme The great condition to which baptisme engages is not a prerequisite in Baptisme This is plain no man is bound to make good his condition before engagement to conditions no servant is tyed to do his work before he hath received earnest no Souldier to fight before he is listed or hath given in his name But faith that is justifying to accept Christ is the condition to which Baptisme engageth To this Mr. Baxter answers What is the conclusion Therefore justifying faith is not a prerequisite in baptisme or according to the Simile no man is bound to accept Christ to justification before he is baptized And then begins highly to Rhetoricate I confesse the reading of such passages in Grave Learned Godly Divines and that with such confidence uttered as undoubted truth and that in zeal to save the Church from the errors of us that are contrary minded doth very much convince me of humane frailty and that the best of men do know but in part and in a little part too If Mr. Baxter seek an instance of humane frailty he hath made no mischoice in casting his eyes upon me he cannot see so many in me as I know but I am sorry that he must put his wit upon the device of one or at least take hold on the most handsome seeming opportunity to cry up one and so to give too much evidence as one said upon the first sight of it of his own weaknesse As to the conclusion that justifying faith is no prerequisite in Baptisme in the sense that every Reader may see I have given of it I shall maintain and as Mr. Br. hath heard I have the strength of the reformed Churches for my confirmation in it but for the other which serves onely to blind the Reader and to bring me under a charge that no man is bound to accent of Christi before he be justified I look upon it as an assertion both senselesse and gracelesse I believe
life in the Sacrament either of thy initiation or confirmation either in Baptisme or the Lords Supper is it in the Sacrament it self or is it in Christ that thou shouldest seek and look after in the Sacrament If thou lookest for it from Sacraments thou Idolizest them and deceivest thy own soul Bread and Wine never were nor ever can be saviours Our Fathers ate Manna in the Wildernesse and are dead Joh. 6. We may eat bread at the Lords Table and eternally dye All Israel in the wildernesse did eat of Manna and drank of the Rock which the Apostle calls Spiritual meat Spiritual drink being Sacramentally such yet with many of them God was not well pleased but they were overthrown in the Wildernesse 1 Cor. 10.5 If thou sayest thou lookest for life in Christ I desire to know where thou findest that men in unbelief have life in Christ The Apostle saith I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and presently adds The life that I live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God Gal. 2.20 And the same we may say of repentance Christ with his own mouth denounceth death and destruction to the impenitent I tell you Nay except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish Luk. 13. Where he gives life he gives repentaace to life Act. 11.18 I have said that the Sacrament may be improved with the help of the Word towards conversion But if there be no such change already wrought in thy soul nor any such thing in thy endeavour then this great Orinance is sadly prophaned thou pretendest to Christ when indeed thou treadest under foot the blood of Christ seemingly wouldst have thy interest in his blood and dost become guilty of his blood Here Christs death is set out his sufferings for sin called to remembrance Art not thou now affected with delight in his death when thou art affected with delight in thy sin when thou seest a man murthered and sportest with the murtherers with those whom thou knowest to have had the alone hand in the murther how then dost not thou be come an accessory This is the case of the man that comes to the Sacrament and will keep his sin He looks not upon Christ Sacramentally broke to the breaking of his heart but he looks upon him to his hearts rejoycing Look upon all that hath been said of the danger of unworthy receiving by all that have written practically upon this subject all is thy danger that art in sin and resolvest not to relinquish thou art admitted into the Church by Baptisme and upon that account art of that number and reckonest thy self among those that are called Christians and here perhaps thou hast hopes highly prizest this priviledge as sometimes the Jews did circumcision in order to the favour of God and assurance of eternal life And doubtlesse rightly understood it is to be prized otherwise God would not have given it it is an honorarium or token of love to his people Nor would the Apostle Peter have said that Baptisme saves 1 Pet. 3.21 But our building of hopes upon Scripture-words without Scripture-Comment doth undo us When the Jewes took themselves to be secure against all the judgements that the Prophets could denounce by reason of sin upon the priviledge of circumcision Jeremy undervalues not circumcision at all but helps them to a right understanding of it will have them to have it full and compleat reckoning up many Nations by name he saith They are uncircumcised they were wholly destitute of it and mentioning the house of Israel saith that they are uncircumcised in heart Jer. 9.26 They want the best and choisest part of it and so are in the same condition with uncircumcised ones and the Apostle after him beating down the vain confidence of the Jewes in their outward title called Jewes and circumcision which was a badge of their relation to God as a people in Covenant tells them that he is not a Jew that is one outwardly that was not enough to give a full and true denomination but he is a Jew that is one inwardly who is for God in soul as well as in name and circumcision is that of the heart Rom. 2.28 and he beats down the carnal opinion of the Jewes in circumcision by a definition given of the circumcised We are of the circumcision that worship God in Spirit and in truth Phil. 3.3 And baptisme of the flesh can neither be nor do more then circumcision in the flesh The Apostle therefore telling us that Baptisme saves is as willing to undeceive us as the Prophet was to undeceive the Jewes and tells us that he doth not mean the outward putting away of the filth of the flesh the application of water is but the outside of Baptisme but the answer of a good conscience towards God when conscience answers to that which this washing signifies and to which it engages then Baptisme saves not of it self but seales Salvation through the Resurrection of Christ when conscience fails in its duty Baptisme fails in its efficacy then it brings not Salvation but is an aggravation of condemnation as after may appear Thou art admitted to the Supper of the Lord upon that account that through knowledge gained and profession made thou art in a capacity for improvement of it for eternity But if thou stay here and thy remembrance of Christ broken for sin do not work thee to brokennesse of heart under sin canst drink of this Cup and gulf in wickednesse here is no pardon sealed but condemnation heightened I know on the other hand to discourage men from endeavour some say that there is no acting for life but from life what can be gained by sin and all actions done in unregeneration are no other but sin I marvel then what that Counsel of our Saviour means Joh. 6.27 To labour for the meat that endures to everlasting life The context acquaints us with the unregeneration of those to whom this Counsel is given As also what that complaint of our Saviour means Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life These works in unregenerate men are acts of obedience and not as is objected sins onely by accidental pollution they are sinful such subtleties are above the Logick that we read in Scriptures which gives duties in charge in reference to their respective ends without consideration of the state of the subject under command whether in nature or grace Actions we know work to habits and in case that rule hold that Habitus infusi infunduntur more acquisitorum which Dr. Wilkin sayes is a golden rule in Divinity Treatise of the gift of prayer pag. 8. this is above controversie I yeeld to that of Austin that as a wheel is not made round by turning but turnes because it is round so a man is not made good by doing good but is good through grace and then does good as the tree is first good and then brings forth good fruit But it is not