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
the Disciples of Christ for discovery of a Disciple in the former sense by their affections to him and suffering of affliction for him are of singular use Christ himself hath gone before us in it But upon the notation of the word because Christ gave the Bread and Cup to Disciples to make the subject of that Sacrament to be onely those that reach these markes is besides the holy Ghosts intention All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto for the bringing of it on to Christ I should desire to know where any outward sensible Ordinance is made or how in reason and according to Scripture it can be made the proper peculiar right of invisible members SECT XI Proposition 9 THe Sacrament of the Supper no more then other Ordinances is not limited to those that have received a new life in Christ by the Spirit that are actually regenerate and in grace The Lords Supper is not limited to those that have received a new life by the Spirit others as they may be admitted without sin so they are in a capacity and possbility to receive benefit from it This I am not ignorant that some will question But let these consider before they censure First That it is an external Ordinance as hath been said Arguments a priviledge of the Church as visible put into the hands of those for edification that are not able to discern men of spiritual life and invisible interest And though there be characteristicall differnces whereby a man in grace and he that is short of it may be distinguished whereby all bad ground at the best may be differenced from that which is good yet they are such whereby a man is to make trial of himself onely they are Spirit-works and none knowes them in any man save the Spirit that is in him and therefore no marks for any others cognizance For a Minister of Christ to dispence by command the Sacrament to many when he knowes that it is of possible use and benefit to some few unto these it is food and nourishment unto life unto the others as Rats-bane Poyson and onely for death is such a snare that may hold him in his administration in all horror and amazement A fad dilemma either to lay aside an Ordinance of Christ and so never come up in his place to the whole of his duty or else to deliver to them that which will inevitably be the ruine and destruction of so many of them I know no possible way that can be supposed or so much as pretended for avoidance but in the Name of Christ to give warning to all in whom this new life by the Spirit is not to abstain every man and woman not actually regenerate on their peril to keep off Let them say some know their danger in the highest terms that can be uttered and then if they come their blood is on their own heads and the Minister of Christ hath by this means delivered his soul But to this I have three things to say 1. That it is as I suppose without all Scripture-precedent to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit wholly to keep off from this or any other Ordinance of Christ I know we must warn men of their sin and the judgement hanging over their heads for sin in which let it be our prayer that we may be more faithful but that we should warn men upon this account upon this very ground to hold off from all addresse to Ordinances I have not learnt 2. I say this doth presuppose that which is wont to be denyed unregenerate men to be in a capacity to examine themselves respective to this Ordinance How can we warn them upon want of justifying faith and the saving work of repentance to hold back when they are in an incapacity upon trial to find themselves thus wanting 3. Shall we not hereby pluck the thorne out of our own sides and as much as in us lyes thrust it into the sides of many of our hungry thirsty and poor in spirit people How many may we suppose are in grace through a work happily begun on their souls yet for several reasons are not able to see this grace or reach to any discovery of it Sometimes by reason of the infancy of the work upon their hearts being yet babes or rather embryo's in grace The first that appears upon light received is an army of lusts and potent corruptions as we know Paul sets it out This cloudes for present any other weak work that as yet in present is wrought In this time Satan is not wanting he did not shew so much artifice before to lessen their sin but he now makes use of as much to aggravate it and as he was industrious before to seduce now he is as busie to accuse He led the incestuous man to incontinency 1 Cor. 7.4 And we know Paul feares least upon continuance of the Church-censure he would gain advantage to swallow him up in overmuch sorrow 2 Cor. 2.8 11. These perhaps as yet are not able to give an account of the nature of faith and repentance or their genuine fruits much lesse are they able by a reflex act to conclude the truth of them in their souls Sometimes by reason of some sharpe conflict of temptation being under the shock and assault of it and therefore whatsoever they have seen of grace heretofore or the favour of God now it is under a cloud which I believe was Pauls case when a messenger of Satan was sent to buffet him and a thorne in the flesh given him seeing it is put in opposition to the abundance of revelations that he had being taken up into the third heavens 2 Cor. 12. and therefore had need of Ordinances for support Sometimes on a soyle received by temptation of which his own heart and not the Church is witnesse and therefore is at a losse of the joy of his salvation and stands in need of strength for recovery Sometimes by over-much sloath and rust contracted on his graces through negligence which is supposed to be the case of the spouse indulging her self too much in carnal ease Cant. 5.2 I have put off my coat how shall I put it on I have washed my feet how shall I defile them Sometimes God out of prerogative withdrawing the rayes of his Spirit and refusing to testifie with our spirits in which case the soul that is most upright with God and sincere in his feare walks in darknesse and sees no light in which there is need of all communications from God and attendance upon him in Ordinances When these shall hear all in whom the work of grace is not in truth thus warned to keep back and told of the high danger of approaching to this Table in such away aggravated will not they put in their name and say their souls are now spoke to They must therefore absent themselves and so the smoaking flax is quenched
over to any such powers But exclusion from and admission to other Ordinances of eminent height and excellency to which all are not promiscuously admitted as private Fasts and doubtful disputations Matth. 9. Rom. 14. is left to prudence and not to the exercise of any juridick power Ergo. Reason 10 Lastly If this be an act of jurisdiction to admit to the Sacrament and keep off from it then there must be a Law of Jesus Christ in it a Gospel-Ordinance for it This is plain Jesus Christ hath not left to his Officers an arbitrary Goverment he hath left no Commission to rule at pleasure as they are to speak so they are to act according to his will and pleasure known But no such Law no such Ordinance of Jesus Christ is found in Scriptures A command we have in the Gospel for administration of Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords Supper and Covenant-interest is our Directory as you have heard to lead us to those that have fundamental interest in them But concerning exclusion of any thus enrighted there is nothing by way of Ordinance written Therefore this can be no act of jurisdiction The Assumption is that which many will question It lyes upon them then to quote this Law to make known this Ordinance of Jesus Christ But instead of that I shall shew upon what grounds it yet appears to me that there is none at all If any such be it is either in plain and full words exprest such as the Law given to Israel to put out of the Camp every leper and every one that hath an issue or is defiled by the dead Numb 5.1 2. or else it must be such as is deduced by fair consequence from the nature and use of the Sacrament or preparation to it or benefit received by it That there is no Ordinance in such plain full words needs not to be doubted In all that enquiry into this so much controverted businesse it would have been long since produced In case it be deduced from any such consequence as hath been spoken it will hardly be made good to be an instituted Law or constituted Ordinance Mr. Firmin hath well excepted against the proof of institutions by syllogismes though to his great disadvantage in that dispute of a Church-Covenant Where there is an Ordinance in power as there was for exclusion from the Passeover proof may be made up by consequence for the latitude to discern who those be that are within the verge of it and concerned in it But consequences will hardly prove the enacting and instituting of it I shall be willing to gratifie Mr. Tombs in this that parity of reason will set up no institution A good cause is wronged when Ordinances of this nature are pretended and cannot be produced and on the other hand when a Ministeriall prudence in the Stewards of Christ is undervalued which might supply it Let it be granted that there is no Ordinance to debar an unexcommunicated man from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet a promiscuous admission will not follow when the end and use of the Sacrament is considered it will appear to them that have the care and charge about it that some are not in a present aptitude for it There is command for the preaching of the Word in a way to edification 1 Cor. 143 12. yet the particular way of application suitable to mens capacities so as to give milk to babes and children and strong meat to those of growth that have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil is not done by any vertue of any specifick particular institution but the Ministers prudence VVhich prudence was exercised by Paul 1 Cor. 3.1 2. Heb. 5.12 by Christ himself Joh. 16 12. There is no Ordinance for admission to or exclusion from private Fasts or punctual direction who are to be called and received or who past by yet our Saviour Christ from the high nature of the duty concludes that it is not for novices in the faith And as it is a point of prudence not to put a piece of new cloth in an old garment unwrought cloth some understand there will be a double inconvenience the weaknesse of the one will not bear the strength of the other and so the rent that was before will be made greater and the whole garment become uncomely and unsuitable nor yet to put new wine which is windy and working into old bottles the weaknesse of such a vessel being not able to bear it so neither had it been a point of prudence in our Saviour Christ to have put such an austere discipline upon the necks of his newly entred disciples Matth. 7.6 vindicated If any shall object that Text Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto dogs neither cast ye pearles before swine as I know it is produced as an Ordinance for the withholding of this Sacrament from those that are ignorant and scandalous I shall desire the Reader for answer to take it into consideration whether it be not more agreeable to the Text to make it an exhortation to an holy prudential circumspection in the dispensation of holy things in general whether in a private or a publick way then to make it a distinct peculiar Ordinance about any one piece or part of worship Making it a peculiar Ordinance we shall run our selves upon inextricable difficulties Our Saviour laying it down in an indefinite way All whatsoever that is holy must there be understood and pearles and holy things are the same one being exegetical of the other holy things excelling other things as far as pearles excel acorns And by doggs and swine both which were unclean in the Law we must understand all that Scripture comprehends under those names they are both put for one 2 Pet. 1.21 and so the result of all is that no person in visible uncleannesse must taste of any thing that is holy From which it followes that as Christ thought it not fit at that present to gratifie a Heathen with a miracle when he said It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it unto doggs Matth. 15.26 So it will at no time be meet or lawfull to preach the Gospel to any heathen or impenitent and unclean Christian they being no other then dogs or swine and the Gospel the most precious of holy pearles but understanding it as an exhortation to Christian prudence and observing the reason added lest they trample them under feet and turn again and rent you these absurdities and snares will be avoided and the result of all will be onely this that the holy things of God and rich Gospel-pearles are not to be communicated where there is no possible expectation of doing good But all the issue of it will evidently be danger to him that doth impart them and all scorn and contempt of the holy things themselve which was the Apostles way of dealing when the Jewes were filled with envy contradicting and blaspheming Act. 13. and is
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
on the Sabbath Part. 2. Pag. 176. For further clearing of this point we must consider of the preceptive part of the Moral Law which alone in this place is our business to enquire after 1. As it is epitomized in the Decalogue those ten words as Moses cals them Exod. 34.28 or else us commented upon or more amply delivered in the whole Book of the Law Prophets and Scriptures of the New Testament 2. We must distinguish of the manner how the Law prescribes or commands any thing as duty which is either expresly or Synecdochically either directly or else interpretatively virtually and reductively I very well know that the Law is not in all particulars so explicitely and expresly delivered but that 1. The use and best improvement of Reason is required to know what pro hic nunc is called for at our hands for duty The Law lays down rules in affirmative precepts in an indefinite way which we must bring home by particular application discerning by general Scripture Rules with the help of reason which sometimes is not so easie to be done when it speaks to us in a way of concernment as to present practicall observation 2. That hints of providence are to be observed to know what in present is duty as to the affirmative part of the commandments of God If that man that fell among theeves between Jerusalem and Jericho had sate by the way on the green grass without an appearance of harm or present need of help the Samaritane that passed that way had not offended in case he had taken no more notice then the Priest Levite did But discerning him in that case as he then was the sixt commandment called for that which he then did as a present office of love to his neighbour according to the interpretation of this commandment given by our Saviour Mark 3.4 When the Pharisees watched him whether he would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath day He demands of them Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day or to do evill To save life or to destroy It was not their mind that Christ should kill the man onely they would not have had him then to have cur'd him but not to cure when it is in our power according to Christ's interpretation is to kill If diligent observation be not then made the commandment may be soon transgress'd 3. Skill in Sciences and professions is to be improved by men of skill that the commandment may be kept The Samaritane powred Wine and Oyl into the Samaritans wounds knowing that to be of use to supple and refresh them Had he known any other thing more soveraign which might have been had at hand he was to have used it As skill in Medicines is to be used for preservation of mens lives so also skill in the Laws by those that are vers'd in them for the help of their neighbour in exigents concerning his estate and livelihood 4. We must listen to Gods mouth to learn when he shall be pleased at any time further to manifest his mind for the clearing of our way in any of his precepts There was a command concerning the place of publique and solemn worship Deut. 12.5 Vnto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there even to his habitation shall ye seek and thither shalt thou come Now they must depend on the mouth of God to observe what place in any of the Tribes he would choose for his habitation When God commands that all instituted worship shall be according to his prescript this is a perfect Rule implicite and virtual tying us to heed the Lord at any time more particularly discovering his will and clearing this duty to us Was not the Law of worship perfect to Abraham unless it explicitely told him that he must sacrifice his Son And if you take your self to be so acute as to set up a new Rule as you are pleased to stile it then you antiquate and abolish the old Rule and singularly gratifie the Antinomian party Two Rules will no more stand together then two Covenants In that you say a new Rule you make the first old Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away Heb. 8.13 You adde moreover doth not the Scripture call Christ our Law-giver and say The Law shall go out of Zion c. Is 2.3 And was not I pray you the old Law as you are pleased to call it his Saint Paul I am sure quotes that which belongs to the preceptive part of the Moral Law and calls it the Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 His Laws were delivered in the wilderness whom the people of Israel there tempted and provoked This is plain for they sinn'd against their Law-giver and from his hands they suffered And who they tempted in the wilderness see from the Apostles hand 1 Cor. 10.9 And as to your Scripture the words quoted are exegetically set down in those that follow them The Law shall go out of Zion and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem Which is no more but that the name of the Lord which was then known in Judah shal be great from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof You further demand And is he not the anointed King of the Church and therefore hath legislative power For answer I desire to know what King the Church had when the old Law was before Christ came in the flesh the Kingdome was one the same the King one and the same then and now as I take it Many shall come from the East West shall sit down with Abrah Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven The Gentiles comming in at the Gospel-call are under the same King and in the same Kingdome And if all this were granted you for which you here plead it is no more then a change in some positive circumstantial Rites and what is this to our question That our righteousnesse which is imperfect according to the old Rule can be perfect according to the new when old and new in that which is naturally Moral is ever one and the same When the Law required heart-service and love with the whole heart upon spiritual ends and motives upon which account all fell short in their obedience and performance shall we say that Christ did dispense with any of this so the Rule being lower our obedience now may answer Others that make Moses and Christ two distinct Law-givers and agents for God in holding out distinct precepts give the pre-eminence to Christ and account his Law to be of more eminent perfection You on the contrary seem to make the Laws of Christ to stoop far beneath those of Moses 2. Exception 2. For Justification of your accusation of the Moral Law of imperfection you say I think the Moral Law taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in tables of stone is not a
blood p. 570 l. 12 member l. 22 before me p. 573 l. 22 Tome page 576 marg directly page 579 l. 6 ascribes p. 584 up to Ibid. nor p 588 l. 7 older p. 589 l. 4 lesse l. 5 more p. 590 l. 19 which page 606 line 10 a fine Travellers page 611 l. 11 takes off the force of the Law condemning p. 614 l. 4 a fine Then p. 648 l. 20 wait THE Covenant sealed OR A TREATISE of the Sacraments of both COVENANTS Polemical and Practical CHAP. I. Of the word Sacrament THe mutual relation between the Covenant of God entred with man and the Sacraments by him instituted and appointed is generally acknowledged Sacraments are in that way bottomed on the institution that both Sacrament and institution have respect to the Covenant Though some to keep back such from all interest in any Sacrament that they know not how to deny to be in Covenant have made it their businesse had it been feasable to have made a divorce between them Having therefore by Gods assistance published a Treatise of the Covenant I would willingly adde somewhat the subject being of so near affinity of the nature and use of the Sacraments of which I know much is already said by men of all parties and interests Though few have written industriously of the Covenant and several books that carry that title have very little of the thing yet they are almost above number that have treated of the Sacraments He that would have a List of names may consult Chamierde Sacramentis pointing the authours out as they have dealt in the several heads of this Controversie as also Vorstius Enchirid. Controversiarum and to compleat the Catalogue especially in the addition of English Writers Dr. Wilkins his Ecclesiastes yet notwithstanding this plenty in which abundance of more light by Gods mercy hath been brought forth I suppose I may say That much is left to be further spoken especially in the particulars in our times most in agitation where I think there is least need I shall be more brief and if in any thing I shall have hopes to adde any strength to the truth or light where it is not so clear I would be more large And before I come to speak of the thing it self it may be expected that I should premise somewhat of the name by which these Ordinances are ordinarily known The word Sacrament vindicated In which Papists saith Chamier have disputed much Catholiques little giving the reason Because the mysteries of Divinity are not contained in words Some have manifested their dislike of the word seeing it is not a name given of God nor to be found in Scripture with application to these Ordinances Bellarmine will have it to be the same with Mystery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek saith he is to be translated Sacramentum in Latine but confesses That though the word Mystery be frequent in Scripture yet it is only once used in Scripture in reference to any of the Sacraments and that is Ephes 5.32 in reference to Matrimony But neither is Matrimony a Sacrament as hereafter may be shewen nor yet hath the word Mystery in that place reference to it in which according to Durand there is no Mystery but to the Conjunction of Christ with his Church And upon this account that Scripture useth it not in this sense as is confest by Protestants some lay aside all use of it as we find in the practice of our Dissenting brethren As they differ from us in the subject of the Sacraments so they differ from us in the name One with them is dipping the other is breaking of bread but neither of them with them is a Sacrament to both of which terms I have spoken somewhat Bellarmine lib. 1. De Sacrament Cap. 7. layes the dislike of this name to the charge of many of our Divines as Luther Melancthon Zuinglius Calvin But falsely saith Whitaker Praelect De Sacramentis pag. 4. And Chamier dealing with him about it entitles the first Chapter of his first Book de Sacramentis in genere a De Sacramenti nomine Calumnia The Calumny about the name of Sacrament in which he acquits these Authours and with Whitaker admits the use of the word as it is commonly received So also Vossius Thes 13.14 De Sacrament Efficacia and Vorstius speaking in the name of Protestants in general in the entrance of this Controversie taking notice of Bellarmine's defence of the use of the word saith b Nostri hic facile assentiuntur licet id quod de Graecae vocis aequipollentia dicitur non omnino admittant uti nec ca omnia quae de etymologia Hebraea Latina dicuntur Here our Divines willingly assent onely he saith they make some animadversions on some passages of his making Mystery and Sacrament to be equipollent as also his Etymologie of the Hebrew word Razi and the Chaldee word Raza c Fallit ergo fallitur Bellarminus cum Luthero Zuinglio litem movet quasi absoluté à vocibus illis abhorruissent Bellarmine is deceived and doth deceive say the Leyden Professors Disput 43. when he contends with Luther Zuinglius as though they had absolutely condemned those words And their unanimous practise speaks their opinion In Treatises Catechismes Sermons constantly making use of the word without the least scruple about it Religion not consisting in words but things when there is consent in the thing there is not contention to be raised about the word In case we had a word in Scripture from the Pen of the Holy Ghost fitted to the thing it self and comprizing these ordinances in that generality as the word Sacrament doth in the common use of it I should then quit this name and take to that But seeing there is no such word And Tertullian the most ancient of all the Latine Fathers whose works are extant using it as Vossius observes Thes 6. De Sacrament and since his time in the successive ages of the Church it is continued and now generally received it were too much affectation of singularity to recede from it yet I would put this caution upon the use of it That it must serve onely to denote the thing that we treat about and that no argument from the word be drawn to hold out the nature of these Mysteries The reason of the word enquired after But those that upon this and the like grounds do freely admit the use of the word cannot so easily agree of the reason of it how it comes to passe that these Ordinances came to have this term or name put upon them why Baptisme and the Lords Supper should be called by the name of Sacraments There are onely three opinions that I meet withall that are worthy to be taken notice of and these drawn from three several acceptations of the word Sacrament in prophane Authours First The depositing of money by men striving for Masteries in Consecrated places upon those terms that he
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
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 brâ—vis ac perspicua definitio Sacramenti est ut mihi videtur Primo enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro genere ponitur hoc est Signum externum aut ceremonia Deinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est sigillum justâ—tâ—ae 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 Sâ—cramentorum 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 dâ—finition To this Pareus in his answer to the sixth doubt on Rom. 4 sayes b Quod omni Specâ—ei ine st toti generi recte tribuitur Sicut igitur valet Homo Equus quodvâ—s animal sentit movetur sensus ac motus differentia sy statica generis recte dâ—citur sic valet Circumcisio Pascha quod vis signum foederis est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addita foederi obsignation is causa Ergo omne signum foederis est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
unbeliefe to the working of it for regeneration so we that hold that infants are confederate with their Parents do conclude likewise that they put no obstacle or barre to their admission to the sign or seal As there was no further qualification required in an infant for title to Circumcision then to be the son of an Israelite or one by Circumcision joyned to Israel so there was no barre by reason of uncleannesse or want of previous purification mentioned either in the command given to Abraham Gen. 17. or in the Law given by Moses Levit. 12. There is mention made of the uncleannesse of the Mother that hath born a man child Levit. 12.1 2 3. she was to continue in the blood of her purifying thirty three dayes and to touch no hallowed thing nor come into the Sactuary untill the dayes of her purifying be fulfilled but nothing said of the uncleanness of the child but on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin was to be circumcised without mention either of uncleanness or purification Those that can find no barre in the child tendred to Baptisme but seek for one in the Parent to withhold it from this initiating Ordinance may here see that when the Parent was personally polluted the child was clean when the Parent might touch no hollowed thing the child was yet to be circumcised And moral uncleannesse in the Parent can have no more influence on the child to indispose for this priviledge then legal when according to themselves Original sin though transfused by the Parent into the child is no barre In vain do they make the Parents actual sins an obstacle which is terminated in the Parent as defiling the person but transmitting no blot to posterity It is a most un-Scriptural way in those that in their judgement are for Paedo baptisme to inhibite the tender of infants upon pretence of either their Parents sin or their want of Congregational membership And here that supposed great argument to debarre the infants of ignorant and scandalous persons from Baptisme may have an easie answer Such Parents if they were now to be Baptized ought not to be Baptized Ergo they cannot challenge it for their children Baptisme belongs primarily to the Parent The consequence is here manifestly false seeing such Parents have unquestionably a fundamental first right both to Baptisme and the Lords Supper in their respective order by virtue of their profession of the worship of God in Christ as their God in opposition to all false gods and their profession of the wayes of Christianity in opposition to all other wayes though their ignorance and scandal do prove a barre to their present admission to either and having this right and being to be Baptized their children with them are enrighted and children putting in no barre may be actually admitted Priviledges in Church and Common-Wealth are ex traduce and so are not crimes In this I have delivered my self Treatise of the Covenant chap. 46. as also in my Birth-priviledge making good this position by several arguments That the children of all that by profession are Christian are by virtue f Covenant-interest to be received into the Church by Baptisme Enlarging my self in several particular instances in such whose seed some would debarre which yet according to Scripture rules we ought to receive Examining Mr. Firmins grounds to the contrary in his serious question stated Mr. Firmins appendix as to the latitude of infant-Baptisme examined And answering his arguments he hath been pleased in one day to read and undertake to refute what I have spoke He must therefore give his Reader leave from his own mouth to believe that it is a very hasty birth and what need there is that he should yet lick it over the work it self will speak I little expected I confesse so unfair dealing from a man of his candour he might easily have seen that all that I speak to him in this thing there is by way of Corollarie or inference drawn from that which by Scripture-testimony and arguments in several foregoing Chapters I had made good Which as it appears from his own hand when his refutation came out he had never read and therefore by his own acknowledgement hath taken my conclusion into consideration having never seen the premises and so must judge according to his own reason onely having never had any sight of mine Before I come to give answer to his exceptions against that which this Position affirmes I must clear my selfe from some imputations of his touching my dealing with him The Author cleared from some imputations I observe sometimes saith he you dresse my argument in such a fashion that I cannot know it to be mine but disclaime it then you find fault To give the Reader here an account Mr. Firmin had framed this argument against the power of mediate Parents to conferre Baptisme on posterity If that promise doth give this power to predecessours then though there were none to educate this child for the ignorant and prophane Parents will not but teach them how to breaks Covenant predecssours cannot they are dead and are not yet we must seal to the child Having explained my self to avoid mistake I first answer that Mr. Firmin himself here concludes such a childs interest In case he can be brought to break Covenant he is interessed in the priviledges of the Covenant to which he sayes nothing at all but either in haste or prudence passeth it by and dealing with Mr. Caudrey speaks fully to confirm the strength of it Interest in the Covenant of the Gospel he saith Pag. 4. gives first right to Baptisme This child hath this interest otherwise he can be in no capacity to break Covenant he hath therefore this first right and let Mr. F. see how he can deny an infant the second I add in the second place let him make it up into a formal argument and then it runs thus That child whose immediate Parents will not bring it up to the power of Godliness hath no right to Baptisme Here his exception lyes and therefore he demands Where have I mentioned the power of Godlinesse as a requisite in him who claimes Baptisme but to bring up a child in it is harder matter To which I reply 1. That here is a strange question seeing we were not speaking to any prerequisite for Baptisme but after education which was his exception 2. Though he mentions not education in the power of godlinesse in words yet in case his meaning be not so his argument answers it self For the child of such a parent that he mentions shall infallibly so farre as man can judge have education in a away of Christianity so farre as to be of the Society of professed Christians under the dispensation of those Ordinances that are able to save the soul and are called by the Apostle the power of God to salvation Rom. 1.16 He further addes Sometimes your answer is a bare laying down your own judgement with a
visible profession he will not deny them admittance there because they intend to go no further but will let them come as neer as they will And what he sayes of Christs readinesse for admittance I may say of Ministers endeavours they must bring them thus far in order to a greater work Ministers are to be instrumental by the work of regeneration to make men babes in Christ and by remisse heat resembling smoaking flax to bring them up to greater fervour Shall we thence infer that they are to make men luke-warm which is a temper that Christ will not bear We therefore distinguish of luke-warmnesse 1. As a medium to further heat so Ministers must bring men up to it 2. As a terminus or end in which men rest So considered a Ministers work is to bring men beyond it the same we may say of a visible profession as a medium not as a terminus it must be all Ministers endeavours Mr. Baxter cannot be ignorant that Mr. Marshall and others that are for Infant-Baptisme have proved and Mr. Tâ—mb's hath yielded That this inlarged Commission given here to the Apostles is put in opposition to their limited Commission Matth. 10.5 6. They were first sent unto a Nation discipled to their hands entring as Christ tells them into other mens labours what that Nation was they must by their endeavors work all to be That was a Nation of professed disciples and hither they are by their Commission to bring all Nations Mr. Baxter addes For your Argument I grant the Conclusion and what would ye have more I wish no more so that you will stand to your word and then visible disciples of which whole Nations consist according to Christs Commission have right to Baptisme and I think that is the thing in Question He yet saith I grant the Minor taking the word disciples equivocally as a Corps is called a man and I confesse it usual so to take the word but otherwise I deny the Minor But I abhor that acceptation Honest-meaning men do not use to say so much lesse the Holy Ghost as though I should say that I had kept twenty men in my house these twenty years and then come off with a tale of twenty pictures I assert a reality in that discipleship which you call aequivocal As for that which followes To be Christs Disciple as to the Aged is to be one that hath unfeignedly taken Christ for his Master to teach him and rule him renouncing the contrary guidance of the flesh the devill and the world c. This is true as to the Inheritance of heaven but not as to Inheritance of Ordinances in order to the further work of sincerity that qualifies for heaven The Jew outwardly was not thus qualified and yet he had upon that account just title to Church-priviledges and in particular to Circumcision There followes to your Confirmation I deny the Minor and I say that it is so new a doctrine to affirm that whole Nations are not capable of being sound believers that it deserved one word of proof Much lesse should you have hid your Minor and turned it into a Negatio Existentiae when it should have been but a Negatio Capacitatis Doth it follow that a Nation is not capable of sound faith because they have it not or will not have it and afterwards you say If there be any Nation uncapable of faith then God cannot make them believers And so in conclusion you will have stones to be in this capacity for God can make them disciples as well as he can of them raise up Children to Abraham But you might easily know that I intended a Capacity to be brought into this state in Gods ordinary regular way by the Apostles Ministry And Chap. 27. pag. 194. I had before thus explained my self That which a whole Nation in Gods ordinary way of administration is in a Capacity to attain and enter into is onely a Covenant professed visibly entred upon and doth not require any inward change or work upon the soul to the being of it This is plain it cannot be expected in Gods ordinary way that a Nation should be brought forth at once all inwardly holy and sanctified such a field without tares hath not been seen such a floor without chaffe such a draw-Net without any fish that 's bad such a feast and none without a wedding Garment So that this is a doctrine so clear that proof needs not where there never shall be any futuriety we may well and fairly speak of an incapacity Capacity is vain when it is known and confest Existence shall never follow But there must never be any such existence as appears in Christs and the Apostles Parables of mixtures in visible Churches and hitherto all ages have had experience Whereas you say Do you think Preachers yet be not bound to indeavour the saving conversion of whole Nations If you say No you take them off the work their Master hath set them on If you say Yea Then you think they must indeavour to perswade men to that which they have not a Capacity of I think they are to bring them if heathens to a visible profession and as many as may be to thorow conversion That is somewhat remarkable which followes Vocation uneffectual is common to Pagans Vocation throughly Effectual is of the same extent with justification and I think Election A Pagan called according to Scripture is a Contradiction in adjecto Calling in Scripture-phrase is not a bare tender but accompanied with a professed answer That speech of Christ Many are called but few chosen is the close of two Parables Matth. 20.16 22.14 the one of Labourers called into the vineyard the other of Guests called to the wedding And in both applyed to them that answered to the Call that came and laboured in the vineyard that came with other bidden ones to the Feast and not to those that refused According to this doctrine there is no Medium between a Pagan and a justified man all Pagans and unjustified men are upon the same terms the Jew outwardly whatsoever St. Paul saith to the contrary hath no profit or advantage above the heathen When the Psalmist gives that Elogy to the children of Israel a people near unto the Lord Psal 148.14 the same may be said of every Pagan that is an alien from the Common-Wealth of Israel if once he hath manifested so much stubbornnesse as to refuse a Gospel-tender Scripture makes visible Church-Members nigh when others are afar off Ephes 2.13 and in visible Churches some according to Scriptures are more nigh then others Mark 12.34 when yet both are in an unjustified Condition Argument 2. reviewed Mar. 16.16 vindicated Mr. Baxters second Argument to prove that onely justifying Faith gives title to Baptisme is thus laid down When he saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved here Faith goes before Baptisme and that not a common but a saving faith for here is but one faith
any man that desired to be a member of the Church though but onely professing to repent and believe so neither did I ever there find that any but convicted Hereticks or scandalous ones and that for the most part after due admonition were to be avoided or debarred our fellowship And whereas it is urged that they are to prove their interest to the priviledges that they lay claim to and not we to desprove it I answer If that were granted yet their meer sober professing to Repent and believe in Christ is a sufficient evidence of their interest to Church-membership and admittance thereto by Baptisme supposing them not admitted before and their being baptized persons if at age or members of the universal visible Church into which it is that they are baptized is sufficient evidence of their interest to the Supper till they do by heresie or scandall blot that evidence which evidence if they do produce yea though they are yet weak in the faith of Christ who is he that dare refuse to receive them And this after much doubting dispute and study of the Scriptures I speak as confidently as almost any truth of equall moment so plain is the Scripture in this point to a man that brings his understanding to the model of Scripture and doth not bring a model in his brain and reduce all he reads to that model What have I spoke more then here is said and did I ever speak with more and higher confidence I say that a faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptisme and he sayes Such give sufficient evidence of their interest to Church-membership and consequently admittance to Baptisme so that if my doctrine herein be loose as he chargeth it the Reader will hardly find his to be fast and it heares not well to play fast and loose The evasion of equivocal will not here serve that will utterly spoyl the whole strength of his Caution and put men amain on this separation as it will contradict his assertion of their grace as real and true They will say They will have no fellowship with a dead Corps instead of a reall man for that is his expression of the difference between what is real and what is equivocal Neither can he here come off by the help of his distinction of forum Dei and forum Ecclesiae These gifts and graces from God these priviledges vouchsafed of God and purchased by Christ plainly enough speak a right in the sight of God Neither is there as we have heard in this Controversie any such distinction to be admitted I am therefore in this no further to blame then he hath been and if he see cause to recede from yet I see all reason to persist in my opinion SECT X. Proposition 8. FOr the Sacrament of the Lords Supper No such vast difference between baptisme and the Lords Supper that the one should be a priviledge of the Church visible and the other peculiar to the Church invisible there cannot be that vast difference and disproportion between it and baptisme that the one should be a priviledge of the Church visible and the other peculiar and proper to the Church invisible that all in the outward administration of the Covenant as some speak should be interessed in the one and onely those that come up to the termes of the Covenant should have any interest in the other Christ gave order that Disciples should be baptized Matth. 28.19 and he delivered his Supper to Disciples Matth. 26.26 27. and it is more then strange that disciples should be taken in that aequivocall way as to hold out all in outward profession confoederation and visible Church communion in the one as is almost generally agreed upon between Paedobaptists and their adversaries and to be restrayned to those that answer to their profession in the other so that in the administration of the one the dispensers have a firme rule to lead them viz. visibility of interest as Mr. Cobbet hath largely shewn in his Vindication pag. 52. Cou. 4. and in the other can have nothing for their guide but an invisible work left to their charity to conjecture Disciple therefore respective to either of the Sacraments which are outward visible ordinances and visible Church priviledges can be no more then a man of visible interest When Christ sate down to the Passeover it is said he sate down with the twelve onely they had right to eat of it in his company Exod. 12.3 being of his family And as he was eating he gave the Supper but then the phrase is changed he gave it to his Disciples onely the twelve were occasionally there but it was instituted in behalf of all Disciples of which the number could not be small considering how many John had made and baptized and Christ had made and baptized more then he though not in person but by his Disciples Joh. 4.1 2. A reverend brother makes this practice of Christ at the first institution and administration of the Supper to be a directory for future to receive such onely to it as are the Disciples of Christ To which I willingly condescend provided that the word be aright understood I know the word is sometimes taken in a restrayned sense for those that indeed do the duty of disciples Joh. 8.31 If ye continue in my word then are ye my Disciples indeed and Luke 14.33 Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath he cannot be my Disciple As the word Israelite is sometimes taken for those that do the duty of Israelites and are such as Israelites ought to be Joh. 1.47 Behold an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile when respective to fruition of Church ordinances of what nature soever all that were of Israel according to the flesh or visible Church-Members in Israel are expressed by it Disciple or Israelite is a man of outward Covenant interest The latitude of it according to Scripture expressions I have shewen Treatise of the Covenant pag. 208. All that were Christs family Disciples did eat of the Passeover with him Matth. 26.18 even Judas as is acknowledged and scarce to be doubted of but he did eat of the Supper It is more then strange that as a Disciple he should be taken into the Passeover and a few houres after as no Disciple should be put from the Supper The Lords Supper is for the building of those that Baptisme takes in But Baptisme takes into the Church visible Visible Church members have then interest in the Supper When Sacraments are in their use distinguished one for admittance into the Church and the other for growth one as the Sacrament of our birth and the other our nourishment most understand the first of admission into the Church visible well knowing that regeneration is not tyed to baptisme but the growth many will have to be in the Church invisible which inharmonious discord between Ordinances of the same kind cannnot be suffered To give notes of
put into the Proposition and it not delivered in that generality and whensoever that distinction shall be put I shall not doubt but an answer in the distinction will be suggested Secondly Inabilities to perform duties upon the bare account of natural corruption in a right way and in that acceptable manner as to receive the comforts of them do not discharge a man from obligation to the duty In case indeed it could be proved that God never gave the Sacrament in charge to an unsanctified man but left this visible Ordinance as a Legacy or charge to an invisible Society whom none but themselves can distinguish and few of them able to distinguish themselves then the argument were of some force but from the inability to reason against obligation to the duty to take men off from it upon that account of weaknesse through natural corruption will take all men off that are unregenerate from all duties Thirdly Those that in this way disable all men in nature from these duties which are given in charge to a Communicant upon that ground to keep them from the Sacraments yet confesse they may do this work in order at least to their own exclusion they cannot examine themselves in order to receive but they may and must examine themselves in order to hold themselves off from it When the Apostle speaks to the whole visible Church of Corinth expressely Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. This few say they can reach but to examine and not to eat is in the power of all the other Fourthly Though these reach not the highest duties and so come not up to the ultimate end of the Sacrament yet they perform in their measure several duties and reach the intermediate and subordinate end of it They see Christ there evidently set forth and crucified before them There they see the highest aggravation of sin Christ wounded for sin bruised for transgression under the Fathers wrath for mans guilt suffering for sin the just for the unjust They see him bearing the sins of many and they cannot nor may not exclude themselves from the number They see there a ransome paid for sin a discharge made to the Fathers Justice They see Christ tendered and offered They may further oblige themselves to all duties required as well to the interesting grace which is faith as to the qualifications of obedience They do believe Acts 2.12 13. Luke 8.13 Joh. 12.42 43. 1 Tim. 1.19 This faith is true in its kind they do not onely yeeld assent but reach to some measure of joy and delight Luke 8.13 They are in Christ their way of inhesion or implantation I shall not determine But in the latitude as he is an head he hath members that are inherent in him he is an head of a Church visible and hath many members suitable as the Reader may see in Cobbet of Infant-Baptisme Conclus 5. pag. 56. Whilest those hearers mentioned Luke 8.13 believed I cannot think it was the seeds-mans office who had sounded the Word in their ears to have withheld the visible Word from their eyes or advised them to have withdrawn themselves And as they do duties incumbent on Communicants so also they receive mercies many intermediate mercies though in that state they receive not the highest and choicest mercies They partake of the fatnesse of the Olive Rom. 11. even all that come into that state that the blinded Jewes and the worst part among them did relinquish SECT XII Proposition 10. THe Lords Supper as all other Ordinances of Christ must be so administred The Lords Supper must be so administred that Communicants may be edified that the Kingdom of Christ may be most advanced and the Church in her members most edified Let all be done to edification is the Apostles rule 1 Cor. 14.26 Not as an Apostolical Canon as Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy hath observed for then if the Apostle had been silent that injunction had not been obliging but as a necessary result from all that they had in charge from Jesus Christ Prophecie exceeds unknown tongues because it edifies 1 Cor. 14.4 And unknown tongues are without profit and of no use without interpretation to edifie ver 5. Therefore we have the Apostles resolution for publique prayers ver 14 15 16 17. For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitfull what is it then I will pray with the Spirit and with understanding also I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the understanding also Else when thou shalt blesse with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest for thou verily givest thankes well but the other is not edified And for the preaching of the Word ver 18 19. I thank my God I speak with tongues more then you all yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that by my voice I might teach others also then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue Matters circumstantiall and of themselves indifferent if they be not reduced to this end prove inexpedient and to the doer evil All things are lawful for me but all thinges edifie not 1 Cor. 10.23 The whole of the Ministerial work and every appendant to it must be reduced hither what have builders to do but to edifie And if they edifie not what do they do In what other metaphor soever their work is set out this is still their businesse the perfecting of the Saints the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes 4.12 When they have done this and made it their whole businesse they may with confidence speak to God in the words of Christ I have glorified thee I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do Joh. 17.5 This thread which runs through the whole of the Ministeriall work is not to be excluded here Those of whom there is hopes that they are willing to learn Christ are to be taken into Christs School by Baptisme and those are to be admitted to the Lords Supper that knowingly will engage for continuance and comming on in the waies of Christ Baptisme is the entry door into the Church visible no man must be refused of whom there is reason of expectation that they will be professedly Christs And the Lords Supper is the means of the growth of those that are thus visibly and in the face of the Church received where this may conduce to their building up it is not to be denyed so that the dispensers great enquiry must be whom the Lords Supper may benefit where it may edifie which according to Scripture rules may be discerned and determined otherwise the Apostle had not given this charge Let all things be done to edification and where it may edifie to give it and where it serves not for edification to forbear it not whether
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
jurisdiction can here apply this distinction seeing it overthrowes that which they apply hither Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Many that are admitted ma want acceptance in heaven but having their right and putting in no visible barre their confessed Ecclesiastical right concludes that their admission is with acceptance of heaven and my great businesse hath been for their comfort and encouragement that give admittance that their benefiting is possible that are thus admitted And here I might take into consideration the opinion of those that would have a promiscuous admittance and indeed I had it in my thoughts to have given a brief answer to Mr. Humphrey's Scriptures and Reasons so much by some applauded and so strongly bottomed Because all Communicants must drink of the Cup therefore all must communicate with some limits which being yielded as I have proved they must will draw the limit necessarily yet somewhat more narrow But this is by one hand already done and I have lately had the happinesse to see a second learned Piece fitted for the Presse dealing largely in it which I doubt not may both satisfie the Adversary and the Reader so that my pains may well be spared onely I cannot but take notice of his fourth Reason for a promiscuous admission which he faith will arise from the vanity formality impossibility of selecting people to this Ordinance Look to the heart of all these separations they come to nothing For put the case you will have a gathered company I pray who do you account indeed to be fit and worthy receivers If not all that make profession as we do mixtly then those onely that have an interest in Christ and are true believers Well but how will you be able to know them The heart of man is deceitfull above all things who can know it And if we can hardly discover our own hearts how shall we discern others so that all will come but to these that have the fairest shew those that seem such and you cannot be secured but there may and will be some hypocrites and so this true partaking as all one body and one blood in such an unmixt communion as you pretend vanishes and there can be no such matter But now if men stand here upon a formal purity and will have the outward purest Church they can they go to separating again and never leave separating and separating as we have daily testimony till they are quite separated one from another Even as in the peeling of an Onion where you may peel and peel till you have brought all to nothing unlesse to a few tears perchance with which the eyes of good men must needs run over in the doing To this I answer If the rule to take in this gathered company be interest in Christ to take in those of a saving interest and refuse all others if regenerate then he shall be admitted in case unregenerate then he shall be refused then I shall yield his conclusion I shall leave that distinction to him that knowes what is in man I should fear many a man of non-interest might be let in and many a man of true interest refused a glozing tongue may here carry it further then an upright heart And for his next of a formal purity to get the Church as pure as we can though this ought to be our endeavour to get the Church as pure not formally but really as possible yet I make it no rule But following the Apostles rule to do as all things else so this to edification though it be a matter of much care and prudence yet not vain and impossible in a good measure to determine it upon this rule I pitch till I hear something that may take me off it SECT XVI An enquiry into the power authorized to judge of mens meetnesse for the Lords Supper THe adaequate subject of Sacraments being found out and some discovery made of those that according to Scripture principles stand in a present aptitude for actual admission A great question yet remains Who must judge of this fitnesse Who are to judge of mens present aptitude so as to approve of men as such and Authoritarively to refuse or passe by others in which we may seem to be much in the dark finding no one expressely set up for that work nor any Scripture-precedent of any that have taken upon themselves such power And herein men have been very different in their thoughts The various claimes that are made to this power The Church of England heretofore hath vested the Minister in sole power as appears in Canon 26. which provides That no Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy communion of his cure or flock which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance nor any who have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbours untiil they shall be reconciled As also the Rubrick to the same purpose It is true that those that made it their businesse to scrue up Episcopal power to that height that it could not bear did interpret this of such notorious offenders that by the Ordinary had been so adjudged and under present censure expressely contrary to the very words of Canon 27. requiring every Minister so repelling any such upon complaint or being required by the Ordinary to signifie the cause unto him and therein obey his direction In case of such a preceding censure upon the person thus refused he had beforehand his direction and complaint is then supposed to be made onely for his obedience in refusing those that according to command given were to be denied The Schoolmen generally go this way putting the sole power into the hands of a Minister not so much disputing it so farre as I have read as taking it for granted Suarez putting it to the question a Utrum teneantur Ministri hujus Sacramenti non dare illud homini existenti in pâ—câ—ato mortali Whether the Ministers of this Sacrament are bound not to give it to a man in mortal sinne answers b respondetur certum esse habere Ministros hujus Sacramenti hanc obligationem simpliciter absolute loquendo That they are simply and absolutely under such an obligation mentioning none that are over them or assistent to them in it And in his first reason he saith That c Ex quibus sequitur primo hanc obligationem oriri ex ipsa lege naturali ac divina supposita tali Sacramenti institutione potestate ac munere commisso Sacerdotibus this obligation doth arise from natural and divine Law an institution of the Sacrament being supposed and such commission given to the Ministers so that he doth no more question the Ministers authority in this thing then he doth the institution of the Sacrament it self Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae quaest 89. disput 67. sect 1. And Thomas puts the question
his businesse to take off Christians from their resort to the Idols temples to eat there of that which had been offered in sacrifice which they judged to be within the verge of their liberty An Idol being nothing in the world tells them that as joyning with Jewes in their sacrifice offered on the Altar did declare them to be one body with the Jewes and eating of the Sacramental bread did make them one body Christian so also going to the Heathens sacrifices did evidence them to be one body Heathen The Apostle as we see Rom. 1.5 thought no understanding man would question it we must therefore readily yeeld it which holds true of the Passeover seeing onely the circumcised who were in saith Jewes were to be admitted do it Exod. 12.48 And this I suppose is that which Reverend Gataker means opposing that tenent that the Sacraments conferre grace by the work done where there is no barre put and having quoted testimonies of Bishop Abbot Calvin and Whitaker sharpely enough declaring themselves against it adds That for the axiome it self I will not contend about it if that effect of the Sacraments be understood for which they were instituted of God and the Word be taken in a more large sense for all that whatsoever it be that may be any impediment that the Sacraments cannot have their effect Though perhaps in these words of his he had some other intentions It were an endlesse labour to lanch out into the controversie and to gather up the various opinions of those of a contrary judgment and their different thoughts to make good their tenents whether of those that deny Sacraments to be Seales as generally the Papists whom Anabaptists in this follow at the heels as in most other things both about the Covenant and Sacraments Or Lutherans who yeelding them to be seales as well as signes yet affirim that these are lesse principal offices and uses of Sacraments the chief end is to be instruments of conveyance of grace to the soul Or dissenting brethren among Protestants some of them falling in with Popish Schoolmen wholly closing with their tenent that Sacraments conferre grace where no bar is put to hinder their working or others that hold it with limit onely to Baptisme and that to elect children not daring to put reprobates into a state of regeneration or remission of sin nor yet to assert that the elect are alwayes thus regenerate in Baptisme But that it holds so in ordinary Or of some that I have met with in discourse that suppose that Baptisme hath his work in those elect infants where God foresees that death will prevent their regeneration by the Word or others that say that God works by Baptisme to regeneration and forgivenesse of sin but according to pleasure they dare not assign to whom Some of these I judge to be more evidently opposite to the Scripture then others yet I confesse I see not foundation in the Word for any of them These that are thus agreed that the Sacraments as instruments conferre grace without respect had to the receivers faith yet are at odds among themselves what manner of instruments they are He that pleases may read in Suarez disput 9. quaest 62. art 4. Sect. 2. six several opinions about it some will have them to be no efficient but material causes onely as a dish conveying a medicine is no cause of health but a material instrument onely of conveyance Others hold that they conferre grace per modum impetrationis because the Minister and the Church obtaines of God by prayer grace by them Others say that they are conditions without which God gives not grace Others yet say that the Sacraments are causes of grace because when they are applyed they move God to conferre it As we say they work by way of sign on our understanding so they say they work by way of sign with God moving him to remember his promise Others say they conferre grace because God in a more special manner appears in them as a principal agent or efficient which my Authour complaines is very obscure But he that will consult the Authour of this opinion which is Henricus à Gandavo Quod. quart quaest 37. may find much against any power in the Sacraments to conferre or to speak in his language to create grace in the soul creation being solely the prerogative of God and above the power of any creature to be assistent in it yet lest he should run upon an heresy against the determination of the Catholick Church in making them no more then signs and seals he is put upon it to come off thus blewly that Suarez with all his high wit cannot find out his meaning Suarez himself concludes that they are Physical instruments in the conveyance of grace and that they are causes of grace because by a true Physical action they concur to the sanctification of men Having with much adoe endeavoured to prove a possibility of their working of grace in a Physicall way he concludes that this is their way of working and that not barely in working some disposition towards grace not reaching grace it self nor yet in working an union only of grace with the soul But in the most proper and rigorous sense Sacraments Physically work grace the very Physicall action by which Grace is wrought and drawn out of the obediential power of the soul truly really and Physically depending on the Sacraments which he judges to be most agreeable to the dignity of the Sacraments the phrases of Scripture and Councels and Fathers about them But it might pitty the Reader to see how miserably he comes off with this assertion of his only telling us that the Scripture sayes we are cleansed sanctified or regenerate of water or the laver of regeneration and washing of water in the Word of life without the least light given us to let us understand that these phrases must be taken in his Physical sense meaning adding some sentences of Fathers who ordinarily give that in their writings to the sign which is proper to the thing signified finding yet opposite sentences in them that much troubles him in which in an orthodox way they explain themselves sufficiently against his position In case in this position of his of the Physicall working of Sacraments he had only understood that they work according to the nature of the office and place assigned unto them there might have been just cause to have subscribed to his judgment It is of the nature of a sign to hold forth to us the thing signified of a relative symbole to ingage to the filling up of such a relation It is of the nature of a seal to confirm every grant past in Covenant but to give a Physicall power to those elementary substances to create Grace in or confer grace upon the soul is a monstrous tenent A little Philosophy will accquaint us with the natural properties of water and as applyed in washing experience will soon discover it The
Psalmist also shewes the efficacy which nature gives to bread and wine Psal 104. But for either water bread or wine to pardon sin infuse habits or new qualities into the soule or add to the strength of those that are already wrought is an unheard of secret Others yet say that they are hyperphysical or supernatural instruments in the conveyance of grace which might easily enough be understood in case it could be believed A power they mean put into them or exercised by them above that which in their naturall workings they have any possible activity to reach as in the water of the Poole of Bethesda upon the moving of the Angell to heal him that first stept into it and in the water of Jordan to cleanse Naaman of his Leprosie by seven times dipping in it Had it had that naturall power of cure Abana and Pharpar rivers of Damascus would never have been esteemed equall with it But that these elements should be standing instruments of the work of miracles of this nature we had need of full and clear texts of Scripture to make good to us I shall assoon believe a transubstantiation in the bread from hoc est corpus meum as such a transmutation or renovation of the soul or any such priviledges of glory as Scripture makes the peculiar inheritance of those in whom this change is wrought upon the bare application of these Elements Most say they are morall instruments in what they do but then there is so much work to understand what a morall instrument means that I dare neither without further expression of my self affirm or deny it Some make them such instruments by which God works according to pleasure sometimes working that which they signifie and sometimes working not at all by them as sometimes he works by the Word but sometimes it remains a dead letter Others make it an instrument of conveyance as a staffe of an Abbotship a pall df a Bishoprick a Book of a Canons place and this doubtlesse is according to the meaning of Scriptures as men vouchsafing gifts appoint at pleasure Ceremonies and Solemnities evidencing such donations so God hath appointed these elements as signs of that nature Having a precedent right the initiating Sacrament is a means of solemn inauguration and the following Sacrament an evidence of continued possession Baptisme takes into the body 1 Cor. 12.13 and Bread and Wine evidence that we are of the body 1 Cor. 10.17 And as a twig and turfe vests a man in his purchase of lands a rod vests a customary tenant in his Coppy-hold a Crown vests a King in his Kingdom so these elements having this office assigned them of God vest a man in Covenant in visible Church-membership and give him actual interest in all visible Church-priviledges But yet this difference The Staffe the Pall the Book the Twig and Turfe the Rod the Crown lead no further then to that which they immediately conferre which is the present dignities and possessing whereof they are solemnities and these dignities are also terminated in themselves and lead men into no expectation of any higher honour But Sacraments vesting us in Church-priviledges and these priviledges leading us to higher and greater things as they vest us in present in these so by way of sign and seal they lead and raise us unto all that Church-priviledges serve and are appointed to advance us unto So that God works as a Moral agent in appointing according to pleasure these elements as solemnities of his grant and they work according to the nature of the office assigned them that is by way of sign and seal for the help of our understandings the refreshing of our memories and strength of our faith in promises of greater things SECT II. Propositions tending to clear the doctrine IN order to the discovery of some further light concerning the operation of Sacraments and for detection of erroneous opinions about them I shall lay down several Positions Explicatory Propositions 1. Mans first original is in sin First This must be held as an uncontroverted truth between parties in this dispute that Mans first original is in sin his first estate not by Creation but by birth not as he came out of the hands of God but as he comes into the world is in full opposition against heaven The imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth Gen. 8.21 The word as Ainsworth and Rivet on the place with Mr. Hildersam on Psal 51.5 observe signifies infancy the same title which is given to Moses when he was new-born Exod. 2.6 Compare with this Psal 58.3 The wicked are estranged from the womb they go astray as soon as they be born speaking lyes The sin of all begins then the sin of bad men still remains no change is wrought in them nor amendment seen but a progresse in evil Psal 51.5 Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me The cavils of old Anabaptists to take off the force of this text are vain That by iniquity here is not meant sin but sorrow which for sin came upon women in child-bearing and that by sin in the later part of the verse is meant the height of lust in Davids parents Let any man look into the context and see whether it will bear any such glosse David is there upon a serious humiliation of his soul for sin and aggravating it in the circumstances of it and how his mothers sharpe throwes in travel or either of his parents height of lust can add any thing at all to aggravate his guilt or increase his sorrow none can understand he presently prayes that this may be cleansed and taken away which can be understood of neither of those particulars which are in the objection This pollution by birth sin abundantly appears in reason Arguments evincing it 1. By the necessity of regeneration or new-birth in all those that enter into the Kingdom of heaven As the Apostle saith of Covenants If the first had been faultlesse there had been no need of a second Heb. 8.7 so we may say of births there is a necessity of a second therefore there was a fault in the first take away this birth-sin or original pollution and then you destroy regeneration If all be as it should be in our former birth then there needs not any other 2. By the Lord Christs Incarnation in order to the work of Redemption taking mans nature he began as man begins in sin even with infancy he dyed in our nature for all of all sorts conditions and ages infants partake of the fruit of his death and were upon that account admitted as his by Circumcision and are in Baptisme and are therefore under the defilement of sin 3. By the stroke or judgement unto which infants are subject being lyable to sicknesse taken away by death subject to miseries of all kinds sin goes before as the cause where these follow as effects Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entered into the
afterwards perish through unbelief and impenitence Therefore faith charity and other Spiritual qualities wrought by the Spirit in the regenerate are sometimes lost And having delivered himself thus in the negative that Baptisme works not these graces or habits in infants His first proposition in the affirmative tending to shew what Baptisme does work is w Omnes infantes baptizati ab Originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur That all baptized infants are acquitted from the guilt of original sin for which opinion many Fathers and Schoolmen are quoted by him as they were for the former So that I think the first part of my position is fully made good that the most eminent that ever have appeared for this power of Sacraments to conferre grace on the receivers either utterly deny or else doubtfully hold that Baptisme works any real change in infants but onely that which is relative and that it conferres not habits but onely priviledges on Infants baptized For the other part of the position that the Scriptures which these bring for proof of this power of Baptisme almost all speak of such a change that is real not relative of habits and not of priviledges The proof is easy What those Scriptures are which by them are produced in this Controversy may be seen in the former position and that almost all of them speak of a real change not barely that which is relative is evident The alone Old Testament text that I can find is Deut. 30.6 with Jer. 9.25 where circumcision of the heart is mentioned which texts as they can hardly be interpreted to speak at all of the Sacrament of Circumcision in the outward rite so it is certain that a real change is spoken to by Moses in Deuteronomy and by the Prophet also complained of to be wanting Reverend Dr. Ward yields that Spiritual Circumcision of the heart is there meant but he saith that by this Spiritual Circumcision the remission of original guilt is understood To which x Cordis circumcisione peccatorum remissionem denotari ut credam nihil adhuc quod suadeat video quod cogat multo minus Certe si quis verba illa Deut. 10.16 Circumcidite ergo praeputium cordis vestri aut illâ—d etiam Jer. 44. Circumcidimini sive circumcidite vos Jehovae exposuerit Remittite vobis peccata vestra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Gataker replies that he sees nothing that can perswade much lesse force him to believe any such thing Adding that If any should expound Deut. 10.16 Circumcise the forskin of your heart or Jer. 44. Circumcise your selves to the Lord to be as much as forgive your own sins it would be thought strange Disceptatio pag. 147. yea he makes the contrary plainly to appear As for those texts Titus 3.5 1 Corinthians 6.11 Ephesians 5.25 26. they speak all to the same thing In every one of them a real habitual change is mentioned Acts 2.38 Remission of sinnes is indeed mentioned and very probably Acts. 22.16 But in what sense to be understood I have shewed in the last place so that I think there is so much yielded and so little proved by the eminent advocates in this cause that according to Scripture there is any such causality in Baptisme for the pardon of sinne in every Infant that is presented to that ordinance and received that even upon this account it is justly to be susspected Besides that the blood of Christ and his Spirit are not onely distinguished by them but divided The vertue of his blood is ascribed to those that have no portion in his Spirit as though that Christ came both by water and blood unto some and by blood onely unto others SECT III. Objections against the former doctrine Obj. 1 HEre it is objected Where the blood of Christ on Gods part is offered and applyed for pardon of the guilt of sin and no impediment put on his part that receives it there the guilt of sin is remitted But in the Baptism of Infants the blood of Christ on Gods part is offered and applyed and no impediment put by him that receives it Ergo in the Baptisme of Infants the guilt of sin is remitted Answ 1 Answ 1. This Argument will hold with equal strength for proof of that which these deny as for that which they would assert Where the Spirit of Christ is offered on Gods part and applyed for regeneration and true sanctification and no impediment put by him that doth receive it there regeneration sanctification and all other gracious habits are wrought But in the Baptisme of Infants the Spirit of Christ is thus offered and applyed and no impediment is put Ergo. The Major in this syllogisme can be no more denyed then in the former The Spirit of Christ is as efficacious for regeneration as his blood for pardon It were over-much boldnesse to put any difference between them And for the Assumption none can deny but the Spirit is as well applyed in Baptisme as blood either then both must hold or both must be denyed 2. I utterly deny that the blood and Spirit of Christ that either Answ 2 blood or Spirit are thus applyed in Baptisme In case of such application they would produce their effects above and against all resistance there is no vain application of either of these to any person If the Spirit of Christ had been in Baptisme applyed to Simon Magus it would so have seazed upon him and wrought in him that Peter would not have addressed himself to him in that language which he heard from him and so I may say of the blood of Christ such an application of it to his soul would have had that effect that Peter would have said to him in the words of the Seraphim to Isaiah when he had applyed the coal from the Altar to his mouth Thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged and not as he did that thou art in the gall of bitternesse and the bond of iniquity The blood of Christ upon the soul of an Infant or man of years must needs be as efficacious as a coal from the Altar on Isaiah's lips Universal redemption we know is asserted by these Authors though it be with such limits as not to close with Arminians but to remain their opposite If now there be not onely impetration of the merit of Christ but also application in that latitude as Baptisme is administred I know nothing that can stand in the way of salvation of all those that are baptized He that would see the consent of modern Writers of the most eminent note in the denyal of this proposition let him consult learned Mr. Gataker Discep pap 6 c. whereby his industrious pains after his manner many are multiplied Danaeus leads the way He is deceived saith he that thinks that Christ and his benefits are applyed by the sign of water which is onely the seal of such application 3. According to these principles laid by these
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 calefactâ—o sed per imputationem Quod si sicret per motum admodum impâ—oprie 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
our heart the grace of justification and so also the Ministers of the Church and others which teach us the way of salvation Dan. 12.3 Gomarus Matth 5.4 pag. 46. denying any affections or work of man preceding faith to be the procuring cause of justification and affirming that faith it self is no such cause but an instrument onely gives this reason e Nullae hominum affectiones ac praeparationes nullaque opera fidem antecedentia justificationis causae nedum proreantes esse possunt imo nec fides ipsa causa illius est procreans cum ealaus soli gratiae Dei ac merito Christi efficaciae Spiritus sancti comperat Rom. 3.24 28. Ephes 2 8. sed tantum instrumentalis That honour belongs onely to the grace of God and merit of Christ and efficacy of the holy Ghost so far are these Divines from excluding the Spirit from having any hand in this work such a Gospel instrumeâ—â—ality as that it should do nothing at all on the souls of men I have not before read or heard of As it tenders conditions so it is employed to work the conditions that it tenders It makes known the mind of God that men believing have right to Christ and in him to justification and it works faith for justification onely believers saved by it and it is the power of God and not nudè signùm voluntatis divinae to salvation And as the Simile brought by Mr. Baxter of a Fathers bequeathing by his testament an hundred pound a peece to each of his sons To one on condition he will aske it of his elder Brother and thanke him for it to a second and third upon conditions at pleasure with this demand upon it Do any of these conditions give power to the testament No yet the testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed why is that saith he because all such instruments work morally onely by expressing ut signa the will of the agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his will that they shall not work till such a time and but upon such termes c. He might easily see how little this serves to our present purpose 1. That which he speaks of is a bare testament and no more but the Gospel as elsewhere I have shewed is a Covenant truly so called and not barely a testament 2. Those Legacies are such gifts that each son would be apt to imbrace being ready to put a sufficiently high estimate upon them But this Gospel-gift if nothing further be done will for ever lye contemned and neglected 3. The will is a meer instrument of donation leaving the Legatee to himself to accept or refuse The Gospel is the instrument of Gods power by the Spirit to change the heart and work upon the will for acceptance 4. These testament-legacies presuppose the condition not yet performed and so the Legatee without all right upon Testament-termes But Mr. Baxters Gospel-donation supposes the conditions already done and the soul upon that account in full possession before this Gospel-donation comes It conveyes right to a believer and if he be a believer as hath been abundantly shewed he is in present possest of Christ his righteousnesse and justification by him And whether or no I have acquit my self from the double charge brought against me I shall leave to the Readers consideration 1. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture in a work in which there is as much of God and as little of man seen as in the work of justification then there is no reason but that faith also hath an instrumental efficacy in the work of justification This is clear The reason given why faith should have no instrumental efficacy is because this takes from God who alone is the efficient and ascribes to man who is justified and doth not justifie himself But an instrumental efficiency is ascribed in Scripture to faith in a work on which there is as much of God and as little of man as in the work of justification This is clear in miraculous cures wrought upon diseased persons The work upon them was Gods not mans They were cured and did not cure themselves yet an instrumentall efficiency is ascribed to their faith If those words spoke to the two blind men Matth. 9.29 According to your faith be it unto you nor that of Paul concerning the creeple at Lystra That he had faith to be healed Act. 14.9 nor yet that of Christ to the Canaanitish woman Matth. 15.28 O woman great is thy faith be it unto thee as thou wilt will not hold it out which yet seem to speak very much this way other graces were qualifications yet none but this is taken notice of yet that to the woman with the bloody issue is full Matth. 9.22 Mark 5.34 Thy faith hath made thee whole not onely made whole by faith which is an exception against faiths justifying but faith made her whole Quemadmodum fidei ascribit Christus quod mulier soluta est à morbo corporis ita certum est fide nos consequi remissionem peccatorum adoptionem filiorum Dei juxta doctrinam Evangelii words speaking as much of instrumental efficacy as may be The conclusion then followes That faith hath its instrumental efficiency in justification likewise Pareus his notes upon the words are worthy observation As Christ ascribes it to faith that the woman is healed of the disease of her body so it is certain that by faith we obtain remission of sins and adoption of children of God according to the doctrine of the Gospel 2. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture respective to salvation then there is an instrumental efficacy ascribed to faith respective to justification This is plain nothing can instrumentally work to salvation that takes not in justification But an instrumental efficacy is ascribed to faith respective to salvation Luk. 7.59 He said to the woman Thy faith hath saved thee In the context there is a full proof of the Major The great priviledge which she of grace received there is the forgivenesse of her many sins and this is acribed to her faith The Minor is fully proved Her great love is mentioned as a consequent of this grace received But it is ascribed to her faith as that which had its alone efficacy Thy faith hath saved thee As we are saved by faith or through faith Ephes 2.8 so faith saves The conclusion then followes that faith hath its instrumental efficacy in justification 3. That which puts a man into possession of that from which justification necessarily and inevitably followes that is either a principal efficient or an instrument in justification This cannot be denyed He that puts me into a place to which a plentiful livelihood is necessarily annexed is either the efficient or an instrument of my livelihood But faith puts into possession of Christ from whom justification necessarily followes
making good a lesser crime with high treason And whilest these add all this of their own they leave out the very whole of that which according to Scripture is essential to repentance which is a thorough change and amendment of our wayes And how they got it into their heads to thrust it among Sacraments a man might think of it even to amazement And they themselves are so confounded about it that they know not how to find any thing of a Sacrament in it Bellarmine sayes Papists agree not what that is in pennance that makes up a Sacrament that they affirm with great consent that Pennance is a Sacrament but confesses that there is difference among them to assign what in Pennance is the Sacrament here then sure is a glorious agreement And it were easie to multiply arguments against it 1. There is no outward visible sign appointed of God in this Pennance of theirs with any promise annext Arguments evincing pennance to be no Sacrament which even adversaries confesse is of necessity to the being of Sacraments Bellarmine who makes every thing to be visible that is any way sensible sayes That both confession and absolution is a visible sign in Pennance so that the words of the Pennance-taker and Pennance-doer concurre together to make a visible sign and this sign in that way visible as he can make it he onely affirms but never proves to have any Divine institution And his brethren Scotus Major Gabriel Dionys Cistersiensis deny that confession is any part of Pennance as Amesius observes and Soto denyes that absolution is any part of it 2. Repentance was in use in the Church and of equal efficacy as now when yet by their own confession it was no Sacrament viz. in the time of the Law in the time of John Baptist and of our Saviour Christ and therefore now it is no more a Sacrament then it was then 3. Baptisme is of the same use and serves for the same purpose as that which they imagine to find in their Pennance and engages to Gospel-Repentance for remission of sins And this is an undoubted confessed Sacrament and there needs not therefore any fiction of a second And the Reader may find this so at large disputed in Chamier Vorstius Amesius that I shall cease to add any more concerning it SECT VIII Extream unction no Sacrament THe third which they obtrude is Extream Vnction A rite which they administer upon mens departure out of this life as a viaticum to carry them hence And Bellarmine undertaking to make it good by reason saith It is meet that men should have support by divine providence in their departure out of the Church as they have in their entrance into it As they are saluted with a Sacrament so he would have one for their farewel likewise It is then wonder that the Jews had not one to answer Circumcision as they have novv found out one to ansvver Baptisme Providence it seems vvas then vvanting in that vvhich the Jesuite thinks meet should then have been provided The matter The matter of this Sacrament is oyl olive blest by the Bishop The form The form is in these words By this holy oyntment and his most tender mercy God forgive thee whatsoever thou hast offended by sight c. The effect The effects of it is first the healing of the body if it be found good for the soul though they never apply it till this be desperate Secondly the taking away of the remainders of sin but what sin they cannot determine The Minister The Minister of it is a Priest consequently a Bishop if he please For the subject capable of it six qualifications are required Qualifications of the person capable of extream unction 1. He must be a Christian 2. A weak one 3. One dangerously sick and weak 4. One of years with the use of reason 5. One not excommunicated 6. One that hath taken confession and absolution if he be found guilty of sin Ceremonies Ceremonies used in this Sacrament are two 1. The Letany and certain other prayers must be repeated 2. Seven parts of his body must be anointed viz. eyes ears nose mouth hands by reason of the five senses and the reins where is the seat of concupiscence and the feet upon account of the loco-motive faculty But whether all of this be essential they are loath to determine They have two onely Texts which they offer to produce to establish this Sacrament The first is Mark 6.13 And they cast out many devils and anointed with oyl many that were sick and healed them Mar. 6.13 vindicated This Bellarmine denyes to hold out any Sacrament and see also Jansenius upon the words likewise Ruardus Soto as Bellarmine tells us Bellarmine is induced to this opinion as he sayes because Luther Calvin and Chemnitius hold that the ointment Jam. 5. Mark 6. are both the same And he will make an hard adventure towards the losse of a Sacrament rather then he will joyn so far with such hereticks in opinion And this Text also together with that of James 5.13 is rejected by Cajetan as he is quoted by Chamier and Amesius It doth not appear saith he either from the words or from the effect that these words speak of the Sacramental anointing of extream unction but rather of that oyntment which the Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be applyed by his disciples to the sick For the Text doth not say Is any sick to death but absolutely is any sick And the effect is the raising up of the sick And it speaks of forgivenesse of sins no otherwise then conditionally when extream unction is not given but even at the point of death And as the form of it speaks it tends directly to the pardon of sin Besides James commands that many Elders be sent for to one sick person and many for prayer Jam. 5.14 15. vindicated which is not done in extream Vnction So that when there are but two texts pretended for this Sacrament one Cardinal hath robb'd them of one and another of both Against the Sacramentality of this oyl we have these arguments 1. Sacraments are for all the covenant-people of God in general without respect had to this or that condition and this is for the sick onely 2. Sacraments are signs and seals of spiritual grace this is a sign onely of recovery from sicknesse being appointed for the sick to raise them up And whereas it is objected that pardon of sinne is here mentioned it is plain that it is onely mentioned in order to the cure of the bodily infirmity and to be obtained by prayer not wrought by the oyl The pardon of such sinne that may have brought upon the patient any such sicknesse as 2 Chron. 7.14 When the Land is under famine or pestilence there the Lord saies If my people that are called by my Name do humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn
or the sacrifice to be offered Bellarmine tells us that the Ordination of Presbyters is a Sacrament by the consent of all and he himself determines that the Ordination of Bishops is a Sacrament and according to him there is no other Scripture-Ordination seeing all the Scriptures that speak of it speak as he sayes of the Ordination of Bishops Most of these doubted among themselves whether they be Sacraments though he multiplies Authors denying their Ordination to be any Sacrament Ordination of Deacons he sayes is very probable and to be believed that it is a Sacrament though it be no Article of faith to believe it which he proves because it cannot be evidently deduced out of the Written Word or tradition Neither is there saith he any determination of the Church for it For Sub-Deacons he sayes there is not that certainty as of Deacons yet he sayes it is very probable that it is a Sacrament though he hath such an argument against it as that none but himself will be ever able to answer Imposition of hands he sayes and proves out of the fourth Councel of Cartharge Canon 5. is not used in it and yet his whole nineth Chapter is spent to prove that imposition of hands is essential in this Sacrament It is a Sacrament save onely that it wants the essentials of a Sacrament as do indeed all their five supposititious ones The four last which with them are the lesser Orders have not as he sayes that probability that they are Sacraments as that of subdeaconship yet the opinion that affirmes their Sacramentality The matter of these Sacraments not agreed upon is far more probable then that which denyes it Their learned Councel are not yet agreed what is the matter of this or these Sacraments whether it be the imposition of hands or the holding out of such an instrument as belongs to their function as a Chalice to the Priest c. The words uttered to each respectively The form when such an instrument is delivered are the form The effect The effect of these is 1. A Spiritual and perpetual power for discharge of their function of which the indelible character is a token 2. Saving grace for a right discharge of their function The Minister The Minister of these is a Bishop and the Ceremonies Anointing and Shaving That the Ordination of Ministers for their function is Gospel Ordinance we willingly grant and that no man should take upon him this honour to deal for men in things appertaining to God unlesse he be called as Aaron Tymothy was this way called to the work 1 Tim. 4.14 and he hath a directory given him for the call of others 1 Tim. 5.22 Titus is left in Crete for this purpose Tit. 1.5 and Paul and Barnabas in every City where they come act in it Yet it is far short of the honour of a Sacrament properly so called Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament The outward rite of imposition of hands was used not so much for significancy as decency being an usage in religious acts of solemnity before the Law under the Law and continued in Gospel-times as standing with the simplicity of it yet we dare not with Bellarmine make it essential to Ordination finding no institution of it for a sign much lesse any saving grace annext to it by way of promise so that here both an outward instituted sign and inward grace are wanting â—â—ither is it such in which all the people of God are interested One peculiar order onely can claime to it In the time of the law this was in use and yet by their own confession it was then no Sacrament And it is very strange that not onely power given for administration of Sacraments should be a Sacrament but authority to open the door for these that come for the Sacrament as for other Ordinances should be a Sacrament likewise The greatest thing that adversaries talke of is that Calvin in Instit lib. 4. Calvin vindicated cap. 14. sect 20. saith that he can willingly suffer Ordination to be called a Sacrament but they are unwilling to take notice that he denyes to number or reckon it among Ordinary Sacraments and therefore it is plain that he takes the word in a more large acceptation then ordinary which is further clear in that in his Comment on Jam. 5.14 he makes the oyl which Christs Disciples used Mark 6.13 for the time that the use of it continued to be a Sacrament when yet he restrains the whole effect or fruit of it to the health of the body onely which falls far short of his famously known definition of a Sacrament so that Ordination neither according to Scripture nor Calvin is to be accounted a Sacrament SECT X. Marriage no Sacrament THe last Sacrament which they would obtrude upon us is Marriage which they have determined to be a Sacrament as well as the rest that serve to make up the number whilest the solemnizing of it holds and the parties are upon the work The words or signes expressing consent according to Bellarmine is both matter Matter and form Form of this Sacrament But when the work is over then the married couple in their persons are the matter and the words or signes are the form The married persons expressing their consent in any manner whatsoever are themselves the Minister Minister of this Sacrament Canus seeing how great a dishonour it is to Sacraments to make that which is acted in the most prophane and clandestine manner a Sacrament resolves that the words of the persons thus expressing consent are the form of the contract of Marriage and that upon that account marriage is valid but it is no Sacrament according to him unlesse it be done by a lawful Minister but this Bellarmine opposeth as a singular and new opinion A Sacrament then according to him is wheresoever a marriage is and marriage is where consent of Parties is expressed though in the lewdest way by persons under Parents power and not at their own dispose by divine appointment We willingly yield it to be an Ordinance Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament established by God but very short of the nature or honour of a Sacrament for divers reasons 1. It was the same as it Reas 1 is now from the beginning and yet all that space of time from Adam to Christs coming in the flesh it was no Sacrament by our adversaries confession 2. It is an Ordinance Reas 2 in common for mankind and no Ordinance peculiar to the Church The whole world of mankind have their interest in it and Sacraments are known to be onely Church-priviledges 3. All the people of God are not tyed to it some Reas 3 have their liberty to abstain from it and all Sacraments are under a precept yea according to our adversaries it is a degree of perfection unto merit in all to keep out of it and unto men of some orders a defilement
an enemy of the Churches peace that dissents in judgement from the Church in some particulars as in ages past it was or he that confessedly dissents from the Church whereof he is and where he lives and as that present it stands I think here the determination is easie Let us enquire whether of these dissents will work more heart-broyles quarrels contentions envyings mutuall oppositions and needless disputes and let that be agreed upon as well it may to bear the blame If all must be tyed up to keep peace and be at one with the Church as to all particular tenents in the revolution of all these ages they are then tyed to know and their Pastors are bound to teach what in all successive ages hath been the Churches opinion But this were a great burden for Pastors and far more intolerable to be put upon the people If a man may be secure in this that he goeth not against truth I think he need not trouble himself as to ages past in the matter of peace Had you produced the vote of Antiquity as a probable inducement to perswade that you had truth according to Scripture and reason on your part it had been somewhat such appeals to humane Authority after Divine Testimony produced is ordinary but to dissent from the Church in which a man lives and of which he is to avoid the danger of a breach of peace with the Church that sometimes was is such a way of peace that I never yet knew troden or taken 2. Whether Antiquity be as cleer for you as the Church in present is for me The latter you freely grant but the former will I think hardly be yeelded notwithstanding what you say Because a word or an opinion that is unsound hath got possession of a little corner of the world for about 150 yeers therefore I am suspected as a novelist for forsaking it Whereas it is to avoid singularity and notorious novelty that I assent not to your way The same I say about the interest of mans obedience in his justification as continued and consummate in judgement If either Clemens Roman Polycarp Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Athenagoras Tatianus Clem. Alexand Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius Cyprian Athanasius Eusebius Greg. Nazianzen Epiphanius Cyrill Hierosol Synesius Cyrill Alaxandr Macarius Hierome Salvian Vincentius Lirin Vigilius or any councill were of your mind in any one of these points and against mine then I will confess at least my supine negligence in Reading and my very faulty Memory in retaining their words How fully you have proved the unfoundness either of the word or opinion in question others must judge But whether the novelty be so notorious as you speak is to be enquired into and in order to that I shall request you Some things propounded to the Readers consideration To take into consideration who they be that make the loudest noyse and send out the greatest Cracks about the Fathers If the Church of Rome may be believed all Antiquity is theirs Hoping to put that cheat upon us as the Gibeonites sometimes did upon Israel Ad patres si quando licebit accedere confectum est praelium Tam sunt omnes nostri quam Gregorius 13. Papa filiorum ecclesiae amantissimus Pater Testes fenestrae omnes res reculae It is still their pretence that all former ages were on their side If we might but appeale to the Fathers saith Campian the controversie were ended They are all as fully ours saith he as Pope Gregory the 13. that most Loving father of the Sons of the Church As the windowes in the Church all other things and thinglings to take the liberty to coyne English as he doth Latine are their witnesses So all the Fathers also that the truth is with them I will say no more but that these naked names will appear to Judicious Readers but as an empty sound a voice and nothing more 2. That some of untainted integrity and of no lesse ability to give account of the Judgement of Antiquity in these controversies have asserted the full contrary to that which you here with so much confidence deliver Chemnitius was a man differing from you in every piece of this doctrine in which you dissent from me and particularly your adversary in all these three poynts in which you make this appeal to former ages He is a man zealous for the instrumentality of Faith in Justification he is large in asserting the promise of mercy in Christ to be the speciall object of Justifying Faith and against your distinction of Justification begun by Faith alone and consummate by works yea there is not a man that ever wrote that appears more your adversary in this poynt then he being judged the most learned grave and moderate of that party in the Reformed Churches wherewith you are most displeased in this Controversie yet he is full in quotation of Antiquity as of his side both in his Common places and in his Examination of the Council of Trent 144. After a List of authorities brought by him his close is worth observation (a) Haec pauca ideo annotavi ut ostenderem doctrinam nostram de Justificatione habere testimonia omnium piorum qui omnibus temporibus fuerunt idque non in declamatoriis rhetoricationibus nec in otiosis disputationibus sed in seriis exercitiis poenitentiae fidei quando conscientia in tentationibus cum suâ indignitate vel coram ipso judicio Dei vel in agone mortis luctatur Hoc enim solo modo rectissimè intelligi potest doctrina de justificatione sicut in Scripturâ traditur Quaeres put concerning this Appeale These few saith he I have noted that it may appear that our doctrine of Justification is attested by all the Godly of all ages that have lived in all times and that not in their Rhetoricall declamations or vaine disputes but in their serious exercises of Repentance and Faith in their Conflicts of conscience in temptation or with their own unworthinesse or before the Tribunal of God or in the Agony of death For this way saith he the doctrine of Justification as it is delivered in Scripture can alone rightly be understood What can be now more contrary then his Testimony and yours how high are both your confidences in full contradiction one against another That which you say is a notorious novelty he saith hath the attestation of all antiquity who shall he now believe that hath not nor cannot search the Authors themselves that have lived in your 1300. or 1400. years 3. I would have you to take into serious consideration these following Quaeres 1. Whether the doctrine of those that bore the name and outward face of the Church was uniforme through out that whole series of time that you take in in you◠challenge Whether in the time of Thomas Aquinas and the following ages the doctrine concerning Justification in the Latine Church was the same as in the daies
of Tertullian Cyprian and Austine If so then the doctrine of merit in the highest way as it is now taught in the Châ—â—â—â— of Rome was delivered by the Fathers the oppositioâ—◠〈◊〉 is as notorious a novelty as this of the instrumen◠〈◊〉 â—f Faith or justifying act by you is pretended How high Aquinas is for merit as also his followers all that cast their eyes upon him may soon see And in case in this time a change intervened and a new way be introduced you were not so advised to jumble together so many ages of so different a complexion even Lombard himself was not the same man as Schoolmen that in some ages followed him 2. Whether there be any important change in the doctrine of Justification in the Church of Rome since that time that closeth up your account viz. ann 1400. to this day As I take it their doctrine is substantially the same now as it was in Aquinas his age and some time before him The Council of Trent laid down the same doctrine in this thing that their Doctors had of severall ages held And though they put upon it their sanction yet they made no sensible variation as they expresly declare themselves Sess 6. Cap. 8. And the present Church of Rome rigidly adheres to it It being therefore the same for 1400. years time as the most Antient Fathers taught yea as Christ and his Apostles delivered as afterwards you take the boldnesse to assert and the same now as it was then The doctrine of Rome in the doctrine of Justification is now the same as Christ and his Apostles left it Being faithfully kept by Fathers Schoolemen determined by the Council of Trent now maintained by Jesuites their adhaerents This is too clearly by you implied If it be indeed your thoughts that there is none or very little difference betwixt us and them in this poynt see how much you dissent from your learned friend Mr. Gataker where he tells you in his second letter of that great difference that is between us and the Papists in the Dâ—ctrine of Justification As I heare you bring in the name of reverend Mr. Ball to give honour to this that the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches is one and the same or inconsiderably differing in this of Justification which you speak as you say being so informed and I believe you have heard as much For many years before his death I heard it from an eminent hand and acquainted Mr. Ball with it who with much â—xpression of trouble of Spirit that it should be so voyced disclamed if and afterwards in his Treatise of Faith not then published and his posthumus work of the 〈◊〉 â—nt hath given to the world sufficient testimony agains◠〈◊〉 â—his bâ—uit perhaps gave occasion to that which Mr. Cranâ—â— â—nconsidâ—rately vented and you have so praise-worthily vindicated and I judge it necessary that this of mine own knowledge as being an ear witnesse should be added 3. Whether the Fathers that you mention and others their contemporaries that you do not name were so distinct as might be desired in and about the word Justification and other words of concernment touching this controversie Though as to the thing it self they speak according to the Scriptures when thâ—y speak of Justification Reconcilliation Remission yet so farr as I have read find in the observation of others they too usually confound the word Justification and Sanctification together which you declare your self at least to dislike in others making it not verbum forense as you yeeld it is but rather relating to our inhaerent habituall Righteousnesse whereby we are not pronounced and acquitted as just upon the merit of Christ which otherwise they orthodoxly own but habituâ—lly so and therefore so denominated Being said to be Justified because of unjust we are made just which is the work of Sanctification and implies a reall and not a relative change such as is found in Justification And if some termes of theirs need amendment upon further inquiry into this doctrine then why not others 4. Whether it be the word only when you speak of the instrumentality of Faith or Faith in Christ quà Lord not to be the justifying act or the thing it self that you intend in that so large challenge of yours If it be the want of the words only instrument or quà Lord that you mention your charge is very low upon severall accounts 1. Words of art of this nature are seldome found in the Fathers There are few discourses in them about causes whether Efficient Finall Materiall Formall Instrumentall neither are there any so exact logicall distinctions under what notion they take that which they are upon in their writings Words of this kind were brought in by Schoolemen and little use made of them as I think before Lombards daies Protestant writers finding them in the Church are necessitated to make use of them as well that their adversaries may understand them as with their own weapons to deal with them And the Schoolemen having found another instrument in Justification viz. Baptism as appears â—y the determination of the Council of Trent Sess 6. Cap. 7. it is no marvel that when the Fathers use not the word at all that these do not so use it as it ought according to Scriptures 2. You would be I doubt not as much wanting in making proofe of the use of your own termes among the Fathers as your adversaries of theirs we may find the word instrument and the restrictive particle quà in your twenty six Fathers ascribed to Faith in Justification as oft as you can find your causa sine quâ non or as I think your conditio cum quâ We may likewise find that distinction of fides qua and fides quà which you make the generall cheat as often as you can find your distinctions already examined which Pag. 3. Sect. 1. you heap together When you challenge the words of others as novel it lies upon you to assert the antiquity of your own If it be the thing it self that you challenge as not found in any Authors in this Compasse of time I believe you will not be found so happy in your defence of this provocation as B. Jewell was in the defence of his that he published at Pauls Cross I do not doubt but many Authors in this time ascribe that office to Faith and the whole of it that the Protestant Churches make the instrumentall work and that they assigne the same specificall object of Faith in the work of Justification as is by the Reformed Churches now asserted 5. To acquaint us how many of the Fathers by you mentioned have purposely treated upon particulary spoken to this doctrine of Justification and in what part of their works this subject is by them thus handled that they that do not know it may turn and read it I have a considerable part of those that you mention though some
oppose it to works and not to other sects giving clear instances 2. They object That in the use of this particle sole the Fathers exclude all works going before Faith and Regeneration and denying only that the works of Infidels and unregenerate do justifie This Rule Franc. à Sanctae â— Clara doth produce out of Casalius but plainely enough signifies that it will not satisfie This Chemnitius also overthrowes by severall cleare testimonies out Origen and Ambrose 3. They object That by the particle sole the Fathers do exclude ceremoniall works and not all works which indeed is unworthy of answere the Law of Ceremonies being antiquated before their daies 4. Seeing none of these will hold Franc. à Sancta Clara produceth another Rule out of Aquinas Quando aliquod commune multis tribuitur specialiter alicui illud provenit aut quia in illo excellentissimè reperitur aut quia primò reperitur in Quaest de veritate Quaest 14. artic 5. ad 12. When any thing that is common to many is attributed specially to one that comes to passe either because it is most eminent or because it is first in it which Rule might serve with some reason as applyed to this purpose for answer both to Scripture-texts and testimonies of Fathers in case they only said that we are Justified by Faith But when the Scripture doth not barely give it to Faith but denies it to works and the Fathers do not only say that Faith Justifies but that Faith only Justifies and particularly exclude works this Rule therefore can do nothing here So that I conclude that Faith hath its office in Justification which other graces have not which is not by you denied And that this office is ascribed to Faith in words implying an instrumentality as in Scriptures so in the Fathers an no other office peculiar can be found for it according to your Confession therefore according to Scriptures and Fathers it Justifies as an instrument Before I go off this head let me mind you of that of Dr. Prideaux which you may find Lect. 5. de Justific Pag. 146. * Arminio minimè placuit ait ejus inter pres Corvinus quod fides dicitur instrumentalis Justificationis nostrae causa Bonâ igitur fide dic Armini pro tuo acumine qua ratione fides Justificat It did not saith he please Arminius as his interpreter Corvinus says that Faith should be called the instrumentall cause of our Justification Whereupon he addresses himself to him Tell us in good earnest O Arminius how it Justifies May not I put the same question to you He speaks for Arminius oâ—t of an Epistle of his to Hippolitus à Collibus the Palsgrave's Ambassadour The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere hoe est actum fidei dicit imputari in justitiam idque proprio sensu non Metonymicè quatenus objectum apprehendit in Ep. ad Hippolitum à Collibus principis Palatini legatum i. e. the act of Faith is imputed for Righteousnesse and that in a proper not a Metonymicall sense as it apprehends the object which he there refutes But it will not serve you to answer thus For with you works justifie and yet you confesse that Faith hath its peculiar way and prerogative which agrees not to works in Justification We must either then yeeld that it Justifies as an instrument or shut it quite out from the office of Justification or plainely confesse we know not what office it hath in this work notwithstanding Scripture speaks so much of it and still in those words which in mens common Language denote an instrument The second That Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the Justifying act is with you as the former a notorious novelty and comes within the same Challenge And if the Contention be alone about the termes in case it be yeelded what would you be advantaged Seeing I doubt not but we may say that it was never in Terminis by the Ancients put to the question and so you in affirming that Faith in Christ quâ Lord is the Justifying act are in as notorious a novelty as we on the other hand in denying it you can no more find the one in the Ancients then your adversaries can find the other But if the question be about the thing it self I doubt not but many testimonies may be easily produced In order to which the state of the question as it is laid down between Protestants and their adversaries is to be looked into which is Whether the whole word of God be the object of Justifying Faith or the speciall promises of mercy in Christ Thus Bellarmine states it Lib. 1. de Justificatione cap. 4. and saith that the Heretiques restrain it to the promise of speciall mercy but Catholiques will have the object of Faith to be as large as the whole word of God Here Protestants yield somewhat to Bellarmine somewhat they deny They yield that the Faith which Justifies looks upon the whole word of God as its object that it believes the History of the Creation the narrative of the years of Mathusaleh the floud of Noah that it acknowledges the equity of all Gods Commands and a necessity of obedience but not as Justifying We willingly grant that Justifying Faith is an obedientiall affiance yet it is the affiance and noâ— the obedience nor yet the assent to truths formerly mentioned or the like that acts in Justification Your self say that obedience is only the modification of Faith in the first act of Justification and the reforming party of Protestant Divines say the same in the consummation of it Now that these promises of speciall mercy or the blood of Christ held out in the free promises is the speciall object of Faith in this act of Justification and that it justifies as it applies such promises and doth interest the Soul in this blood may I suppose be made good by diverse testimonies Let that of Ambrose be consulted Lib. 1. Cap. 6. de Jacobo vitâ beatâ Non habeo unde gloriari in operibus meis possum non habeo unde me jactem ideo gloriabor in Christro Non gloriabor quia justus sum sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum sed quia remissa sunt peccata Non gloriabor quia profui neque quia profuit mihi quisquam sed quia pro me advocatus apud patrem Christus est sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est Facta est mihi culpa mea merces redemptionis per quam mihi Christus advenit Propter me Christus mortem gustavit fructuosior culpa quam innocentia Innocentia arrogantem me fecerat culpa subjectum reddidit And that of Gregory in Ezek. Hom. 7. Justus igitur advocatus noster justos nos defendet in judicio quia nos ispos cognoscimus accusamus injustos Non ergo infletibus non in actibus nostris