and received by a Whale and after three dayes and three nights cast safe upon the shore Satan must set up his Arion and make him famous in his Historians and Poets A skilfull Harper of Greece having by excellency in musick gained a great summe of money in Italy and Sicilia returning to his own Countrey with his treasure Mariners with whom he agreed for his Fare greedy of his money cast him into the Sea a Dolphin delighted with his musick carries him safe and landed him at Taenarus See the relation and application elegantly brought home to this purpose by Dr. Abbot Lect. 15. on Jonah making notable observations of Satans policy In case the Narrative carry any truth in it by his wonders so far as his art and power can reach Satan then makes it his business to disgrace Gods miracles and cast dishonour upon them by his imitation though he falls farre short of the Originall as he there shewes and followes him as little Ascanius his Father with very unequal steps And in case we take it for a meer fiction which is his judgement upon it his art is no lesse observable to discredit as farre as in him lyes the writings of Scriptures When this miracle of Jonahs shall be Preached and published in the world Arions fable shall be produced that like faith may be yeelded to either of both See Mr. Burges Spiritual Refining Pag. 131 132. Where this thing in many particulars is enlarged And the more high the wayes of Religion are raised of God in a Spiritual way the more easie it is for Satan who is a spirit to delude The Spirit is the great Gospel-promise to be poured out on all flesh that is on men of all sorts Joel 2.28 God will be served in types and shadowes no longer but in Spirit and truth Joh. 4.23 When the Jewes gloried of Circumcision as that which did denominate them a people of God and distinguished them from all other Nations and urged the necessity of it to salvation the Apostle tells us that they are the Circumcision that worship God in Spirit Phil. 3.3 Satan now on the other hand can take the hint and heighten his way in a destructive manner to Gospel wayes All outward Ordinances shall now be decryed as formes and beggarly rudiments and with Circumcision in the letter laid aside though they be Ordinances of the Spirit it self in which the Spirit expresses its power and efficacy 1. The written Word which was dictated by the Spirit 2 Pet. 1.19 is the sword of the Spirit by which it exercises his power on the soul must be laid aside as a dead letter and over carnal The Ministers of the Word that great gift from the Fathers right hand Ephes 4.11 set over the flocks by the holy Ghost Act. 20.28 on this pretence are to be cast off with Moses and Aaron taking too much upon them when all the Congregation is holy notwithstanding for a real confutation when this Spirit was first given in glory it came upon the heads of his Ministers in forme of tongues fiery cloven Act. 2.3 To let all know is that great appearance that was there that their tongues are sanctified of God to Preach the Word in power and life to all Nations And as the gifts of the Spirit encreased so the Ministers of the Spirit were multiplyed and that very title and name given Ministers of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 And the mind of Jesus Christ made known that these in a peculiar order distinct from other men are set apart to preach the Gospel as the Priests under the Law in a peculiar order were to wait at the Altar 1 Cor. 9.13 14. Upon the same pretence Sacraments must be laid aside the Baptisme of the Spirit is pleaded for the overthrow of the Baptisme of water Though the Apostle that first spake by the Spirit after it was given in glory doth argue the clean contrary Act. 10.47 Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we They that have the Spirit will be raised in zeal for the honour and establishment of every Ordinance of God by the Spirit the more spiritual men are the more care they will take to advance the Word the Ministers of the Word Sabbaths Sacraments Let us then observe his imitations his falsifications He vents doctrine of his own sets up wayes of his own that carry a resemblance of Gods wayes And similitude is mater erroris we shall never heed them as long as we know they are the Devils but when he transformes himself into an Angel of light and puts the stamp of God upon his own coyn we must not be ignorant of his sleights but to have our senses exercised to discern between good and evill CHAP. III. Whether there were any Sacraments from the fall to the institution of Circumcision THe next consideration of Sacraments is in mans fallen condition under a Covenant not of works but grace not for mans preservation in life but his restitution to life A further distribution of Sacâ—aments And these are to be distinguished according to Gods way of dispensation of us Covenant to his people which is wont to be done into three periods The first is from the fall till Abraham or unto the time that God entered Covenant with him and his seed which Suarez saith according to the common account doth end at the giving of the Law by Moses when the old Law began yet Circumcision which was in use long before the Law continuing the same under the Law he determines the law of nature at that time when Circucision began The second from Abraham till Christ The third from the first comming of Christ in the flesh till the second comming of his to judgement The first juncture of time hath usually been known by the time of the Law of nature The second the time of the Old And the last the time of the New Covenant Why the first of these should bear the name of the Law of nature I can read of none that have given satisfaction The phrase should seem to imply that then men had no more light then that of nature for their guide in the wayes of God But this is evidently false God did not then begin by way of supernatural revelation to speak to men in the world Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae Tom. 3. Disput 4. Sect. 1. taking upon him to answer the question hath much to amuse the Reader nothing to satisfie him he sayes a Lex naturae intelligitur dictamen rationis non solum ex naturali sed etiam ex supernaturali lumine ortum The law of nature is the dictate of reason arising not onely out of natural but supernatural light And in ihat sense the Gospel is the Law of nature Concerning this space of time whatsoever is the period of it much enquiry is made whether there were any Sacraments at all instituted of God and enjoyed
that God himself and not John was the Author of it Let John himself speak whether he went on his owne head on this work He that sent me to baptize with water the same said unto me Vpon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost Joh. 1.33 The people of the Jewes certainly had another opinion of his Baptisme as appears by their reasoning when Christ demanded The Baptisme of John whence was it from heaven or of men and they reasoned with themselves saying If we shall say from heaven he will say unto us Why did ye not then beleeve him But if we shall say of men we fear the people for all hold John as a Prophet Matth. 21.25.26 When the opinion among the people was so generall that the Chief Priests and Elders were afraid to oppose it had it been an errour doubtlesse Christ would not in that way have nourished them in it And to say with Bellarmine that Deus solum in genere inspiravit inspiratione illa mandavit ut baptizaret sed ritum in particulari quo baptizandum esset ipse Johannes instituit non a Deo prae scriptum accepit God did command him to baptize but the particular rite was left unto John himself is nothing When Christ demanded of the Baptisme of John whether it were from heaven or of men the Priests and Elders to whom he spake understood the whole work and to conceit that the work was commanded and the way of doing concealed is an ungrounded fancy All that are confest to be Sacraments are we see yeelded to be of Divine institution which is further plain in reason First Sacraments are parts of worship a piece of the homage that is due from man to God And it is God and not man that is to prescribe in his own worship here God hath declared himself to be jealous Exod. 20.5 that not any thing of the invention of man come within that worship that is Divine And if Nadab and Abihu fell for adulterating the worship of God bringing in strange fire when fire from heaven was provided to their hands How shall they stand that coin a worship it self as do our adversaries or put a new stamp upon it when it is set up of God which is their way likewise Marriage which is an Ordinance without the Church they make a Sacrament in the Church Of duties they make ordination and repentance Sacraments and in case Pharisees made the Commandements of God void by their tradition when they imposed a necessity of washing of hands before meat when yet they did not raise it to the honour of a Sacrament How much more had John offended if out of his own fancy he had set up such an Ordinance as Baptisme David hath been charged that he appointed singers and other officers in the house of God without any command or direction from heaven but the contrary to this appeares 2 Chron. 29.25 where in the life of Hezekiah it is said He set the Levites in the house of the Lord with Cymbals with Psalteries and with harpes according to the commandement of David and of Gad the Kings Seer and Nathan the Prophet for so was the Commandement of the Lord by his Prophets Secondly Sacraments are notes of distinction between the people of God and others that beare not that relation to him as we have heard Circumcision and uncircumcision divided the world The Circumcised were a people of God when all others were children of a strange god so we may say of all Sacraments And as men of place alone have power to give liveries to their own servants to distinguish them from those that have their dependance on others so God hath alone power to give differencing Cognizances to his servants likewise Thirdly God onely can give strength and efficacy to the Sacraments what that is rests to be enquired and is not a little controverted but whatsoever it is that it is wholly of God was never doubted and he onely that can give efficacy to them is to ordaine them This is Thomas Aquinas his reason in the place mentioned Fourthly Sacraments are teaching signes visible words whereby man is instructed in Divine mysteries but God alone is the author of the Word It is given by inspiration of God 1 Timothy 3.15 God alone therefore is the author of Sacraments Fifthly Sacraments are seales put to promise annext for confirmation of Covenants as shall be further shewen But he onely that makes the promise and appoints the Covenant can give the seal The Schoolman then quoted by Bullinger de Sacr. Decad. 5. Ser. 6. hath well minded the Church that she is no Lady over the Sacraments but barely a servant and can no more appoint a Sacrament then abrogate a Divine Commandement And Bellarmine puts this for the first reason that Ministers are Stewards of the Mysteries of God therefore they are not to institute them but being instituted of God are onely to administer them This holds true not onely of Sacraments in their essence that none may adde any to the number of those that God hath instituted But of all that is of the integrality of Sacraments likewise there is not the least Sacramental rite that is to be of humane but all of Divine institution There is the same reason of the whole and of every part He that may not appoint a Sacrament may appoint no piece of a Sacrament A worship made up of Divine and humane Commandements stands in the Church like Nebuchadnezzars image the head of Gold but the feet of earth The Poets device of a mans neck joyned to a horses head is not so great a soloecisme Thomas Aquinas saw that this might be objected against much in the Sacraments in the Church of Rome and therefore when he had put the question Whether Sacraments have their institution from God in the first place objecteth c Ea quae sunt divinitus instituta t aduntur nobis in sacra Scriptura sed quaedam aguntur in Sacramentis de quibus nulla fit mentio in sacra Scriptura puta de Chrismate quo homines confirmantur oleo quo Sacerdotes inunguntur de multis aliis tam verbis quam factis quibus utimur in Sacramentis Illa quae aguntur in Sacramentis per homines instituta non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti sed ad quandam solennitatem quae adhibetur Sacramentis ad excitandam devotionem reverentiam in his qui Sacramenta suscipiunt Ea vero quae sunt de necessitate Sacramenti ab ipso Christo instituta sunt qui est Deus homo that there are some things done in the Church of which there is no mention in Scripture as Chrisme wherewith men are confirmed and oyl wherewith Priests are ordained and much else as well words as actions saith he which we use in Sacraments and answeres that those things which are done in Sacraments instituted by
the day that he was to dye he held a passeover In New Testament-times not onely through the Apostles times but to this time Baptisme and the Lords Supper have continued Reasons may also enforce this as to Sacraments in general so to Baptisme and the Lords Supper in particular 1. The Covenant is to be kept for ever there is no dispensation at any time for the breach of it The seals then which by Divine institution are appointed as appendants to it must be continued As reason it self may speak enough for the validity of this consequence so the Text of Scripture likewise confirms it Gen. 17.7 13. compared I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant 2. We have as much need as ever this generation as any other generation to have our weaknesses supported our faith strengthened there is not any benefit ever gained by a Sacrament but as primitive times did so we may reap spiritual advantage by it For reasons for the perpetuity of Baptisme Mr. Baxter pag. 341 342. of his Treatise of Infants Church-membership and Baptisme hath furnished the Reader with plenty of ten that he urges I judg nine at least to be unquestionable to which I shall adde onely one and that is such a one that with weaknesse enough hath been brought by some for warranty of the disuse of it If the gift of the Spirit be lasting and continuing in the Church then the use of Baptisme is lasting and continuing likewise But the gift of the Spirit is lasting and continuing Ergo. The assumption that the Spirit is a lasting gift I suppose none will question The major Proposition is grounded on the Apostles words Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we When others do reason from the having of the Spirit to the needlenesse of Baptisme the Apostle disputes in the direct opposite manner where the Spirit is there Baptisme is not to be denyed For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper we may likewise evince the constant standing necessity of it 1. The death of Christ is to be shewed forth constantly and every way preached This is a shewing forth of the death of Christ a means of declaring of him crucified 1 Cor. 11.26 2. The memorial of Christ is to be preserved and endeared This is for his memorial done in remembrance of him Matth 26. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. If the deliverance from Egypt must be kept as a memorial for ever in that Ordinance of the Passeover then much more the remembrance of Christ in his Supper 3. Every way of Communion with Christ is to be preserved and upheld This is a way of Communion with Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 4. Union with the Members of Christ is to be studied This is the way of our union with the Members of Christ and therefore this is to be continued I shall not enlarge much for refutation of Objections of those that in our times are contrarily minded seeing I have read little of any thing that they have to say a noise is abroad of such with whom I have had small converse that cry down rebaptisme by the denyal of Baptisme as Lucian made it his businesse to confute Polytheisme by bringing in of Atheisme made himself merry with the Pagans rabble of gods by believing no God Opposition of errour ordinarily leads men into opposite errors but a better way may be found for the overthrow of a double Baptisme then by the nullifying of all baptisme One God asserted by the Apostle will overthrow Atheisme and Polytheisme and one Baptisme asserted by him in the same place will overthrow Anabaptisme But these are not the first founders of this opinion Austin speaking of the Manichees Heres 46. saith e Baptismum in aqua nihil cuiquam perhibent salutis adferre nec quenquam eorum baptizandum putant That they hold that Baptism with water not at all usefull for salvation neither do they think it meet to baptize any that they deceive and speaking of other Hereticks Heres 49. Seleuciani and Hermiani he saith f Baptismum in aquâ non accipiunt They do not hold any baptisme with water And Philastrius who as Bellarmine witnesses de Scriptor Ecclesiasticis pag. 93. wrote before Austin of Heresies and is quoted by Austin saith g Seleucus Hermius haeretici animas hominum de igne Spiritu esse existimantes isti baptismo non utuntur propter verbum hoc quod dixit Johannes Baptista ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu igne Seleucus and Hermius the hereticks hold that the soul consists of fire and the Spirit These use not Baptisme by reason of John Baptists words He shall baptize you with the Spirit and fire Socinus in this last age hath revived this opinion and saith h Baptismum aquae habere praeceptum Christi aut saltem non perpetuum universale That Baptisme with water hath no command from Christ or at least no perpetual and universal command The Reader if he please may see the Scriptures by him wrested and Reasons by him brought Refert Vossius vindicated and answered by Vossius de necessitate Baptismi pag 381. to pag. 388. Rule 2 Secondly There appears a greater degree of necessity of the initiatory leading Sacrament Initiatory Sacraments are of greater necessity then those that follow which serves for our first admission whether in the dayes of the Old or New Testament into the Church of God then of the other that succeeds for our further strength and growth Both of them are necessary neither of them are arbitrary but in case we may enter comparison the greater weight lyes on the former as may several wayes appear unto us Arguments evincing this necessity First There was a leading Sacrament for initiation many years in the Church before any was ordained to follow after it Circumcision was given in charge 400 years before the Passeover that of Circumcision was not long after Abrahams call and the promise of the land of Canaan being before Isaac's birth which was onely 25 years distant from his first removal out of Haran for Canaan as appears Gen. 12.4 21.5 compared The Passeover was given in charge upon Israels departure out of Egypt Exod. 12. one year before the Law was given which was 430 yeares after the promise to Abraham Gal. 3.17 All this time the seed of Abraham entred into the Church by Circumcision and enjoyed no other Sacrament properly so called Secondly Gods displeasure never shewed it self so high upon the neglect of the Passeover as upon the neglect of Circumcision though the penalty threatned
necessity to suffer Though it is a matter of consolation that guilt by suffering is removed and an atonement made in which there is either present assurance or at least a possibility of future actuall interest Twelfthly That Ordiinance unto which Christ calleth none but such that have spiritual gracious qualifications is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual and gracious qualifications Ergo. The Assumption is proved Matth. 11. 28. Joh. 7.37 Isa 55.1 Matth. 22.12 1 Cor. 11.28 Cant. 5.1 Answ Onely one of these speaks of the Lords Supper the rest have immediate relation to Christ not to this Ordinance of the Supper and positive spiritual qualifications as preceding all coming is not required in any of them upon sense of want we may come to Christ for spiritual qualifications as wen may come with them though without positive spiritual qualifications there is no assurance of interest in him 2. As to that worthinesse which is spoken to in that Text of the Corinthians there is an usual distinction of worthinesse of merit and worthinesse suitable to the work in hand It is the latter onely that as is confest is called for There is yet a double suitablenesse to the work One is compleat answering to all that the work can call for which comprises grace not onely in the habit but in the act an actual improvement of our graces for the participation of it and this is alike required in other Ordinances of hearing praying c. as in this Orainance of communicating The other is a worthinesse respecting the person that doth communicate such a worthinesse of suitablenesse and conveniency whereby according to the measure of grace vouchsafed whether common or saving he addresseth himself to it Now though the regenerate man alone receives to the acceptation of his person as he onely hears and prayes with such acceptance yet a man in unregeneration may be so far suitably worthy for this work that he may know himself called untp it and that it would be his sin to hold back from it and he may hopeuMlly expect blessing in it and such a worthinesse was in Christs and John Baptists hearers so many of them as have their commendations in the Gospel for such ready and forward hearing and such a worthinesse as I take it is mentioned Matth. 10 11. Let the Learned Consider whether either the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indigne or the context in that place will necessarily take in every unregenerate man or rather the irreverend prOphanation of that duty and whether arguments drawn from want of saving faith and sincere repentance in performance of this work do not bring unregenerate men under like danger in fasting praying thanksgiving hearing Sabbath-keeping and every other duty of worship whatsoever Thirteently That Ordinance which is instituted for the Communion of Saints is intended onely for such as are Saints and not for unconverted sinners But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints and those that are members of the same body of Christ The assumption proved 1 Cor. 1016 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1.2 Answ Saint is either such that are so by calling and separation for God or else by qualifications and regeneration from God In the former sense unconverted sinners prosessing the Gospel are Saints as of old they were of the people of God and called by his Name Saint is a New Testament-word taking in all of a Christian profession and outward Covenant-interest and then the Proposition is to be denyed Saint being taken in the latter sense the assumption is false This Lords Supper is a priviledge of the Church as visible dispensed by visible officers not as invisible as those very Texts quoted do manifest Fourteenthly If Baptisme it self at least when administred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance far lesse is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance But Baptisme it self at least when ministred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance Ergo. Answ This Argument seemeth to suppose an opinion of regeneration or conversion by the very work done in Baptisme and the Lords Supper which seeing I do not own but in either of both disclaim I need to give no further answer Fifteenthly If the Baptisme even of those that are at age must necessarily precede the receiving of the Lords Supper then the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But Baptisme even of those that are of age must necessarily precede the Lords Supper Ergo. Answ I see no necessity of this consequence unlesse I should believe that all that are baptized are ipso facto regenerate and that not with an initial regeneration of which some speak that may be lost but the immortal seed of the Spirit that abides for ever But being not as I am not of that faith I suppose a baptized man may be to use Pareus his phrase Christianus non regeneratus sed regenerandus a Christian not regenerate but to be regenerate and so regeneration may as ordinarily it doth not precede but follow Baptisme Sixteenthly There is an Argument drawn from the Parable of the Prodigal There is a robe ring and shoes put upon him and a fatted calf killed for him but this when he comes to himself and sayes Father I have sinned c. But this is done in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more especially and manifestly then in any other Ordinace Ergo. Answ All Ordinances as I take it are to bring a prodigal unto such a returning posture in the discovery of the hatefulnesse of sin against such a Father and the riches that are in his Fathers family There are some Arguments of this nature follow which may seasonably be spoke to in the close of these Propositions I shall onely here by the way hint so much to the Reader that in case these Arguments had been framed against the power of this Sacrament for conversion the sense as generally the opposers of it understand it that it works as a medicine to heal and hath an opus operatum in it I should not at all have undertaken them how inconcluding soever I had judged them But seeing a tendency in them to interest alone men already in grace in this Ordinance and denying all hope of benefit by it to the majority of those that men of all interests ordinarily admit to it to the necessary ensnaring of all that are concerned in the administration of it I could not be silent let the Reader impartially weigh and determine SECT XV. Proposition 12. THose that are in a present inaptitude All of present incapacity to receive benefits by the Lords Supper are to be denyed accesse to it and incapacity to improve this Sacrament to any spiritual advantage but are under an inevitable necessity either to receive no good or much danger and damage
an error of the lower size And I am very well contented to sit down and hear his judgment and if it be upon this determined against me I shall say the authority of man is mightily prevalent I have yet seen no title of Scripture nothing of reason onely that which I take to be Scripture-Paradoxes are laid down as Maximes Restraint of Covenant denies any breach of Covenant There followes As for that you adde that then there is no Covenant-breaking I reply 1. quoad essentiam et possibilitatem there is 2. quoad existentiam there is a breaking of mere verbal and erring half Covenants but if you think that sound Covenanting may be utterly broke then you are against the certainty of perseverance Real Covenants may be broke I desire to know whither this essence possibility and existence refers whether to the Covenant or to the breaking of Covenant If it refer to the Covenant as the words seem plainly to imply then here is a new piece of learning that the essence of a thing may be broke and the existence stand firm I have learnt that existencies may be destroyed and essences remain and instance is commonly given in Roses in winter But I have not untill now heard the contrary But if these referre to breaking of Covenant then the meaning is there is a possibility but there shall not be a futureity But this is flatly to gain-say the Scriptures that complain so frequently of actual breach of Covenant Somewhat therefore is granted and somewhat denyed It is granted that there is a breaking of mere verbal and of erring half-Covenants but I am told that if I think that sound Covenanting may be utterly broke then I am against the certainty of perseverance If by sound Covenanting truth of Covenant be meant this may be broke and no Saint apostatize but if integrity of heart and such soul-qualifications as might be desired in Covenanters be understood the truth of a Covenant stands where this is wanting otherwise none but upright honest sincere men can ever make bargains It follows They broke their particular Covenants about reforming Idolatry and such particular sins And these particular Covenants were branches of their grand Covenants and so habemns reum confitentem It is farther said They broke their verbal and equivocal Covenant or promise to God whereby they seemed to accept him on his own terms but did not But it should be remembred that this Covenant they broke was a marriage-Covenant as is frequently testified in Scriptures as Jer. 31.32 where the Lord speaking of the Covenant made with Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt Which my Covenant they brake saith he although I was an husband unto them which is further clear Jer. 3.1 14 20. Hos 2.17 This then was a reall and no equivocal Covenant or else Mr. Baxters similitude on which he puts so much stresse is spoyled And I never knew that verbal Covenants where sincerity of intention for faithful performance was wanting were equivocal Covenants much lesse where a man did not fully understand himself in covenanting All want of integrity is not equivocation Men may promise and not perform men may promise and never mean to perform which I think few unregenerate men directly do and yet not equivocate If a Gentleman shall promise a Tenant a Lease for life provided that he will give him a dogge he brings him one and accordingly expects his Lease the Landlord puts him off in telling him that he indented with him for a dog-star or a dog-fish here is equivocation but had he directly promised and broken faith it had been no equivocation but falsification I have heard of one of quality that often solicited one to serve him after long importunity he got a promise from the man that such a day he would come and serve him he kept his day and came and served a writ upon him This was equivocation but if he had not come at all as the son in the Parable did not work in the Vineyard when he had said he would that had been plain falsification If those were equivocal Covenants and no reality of the being of a Covenant between God and them in them then all the honour that followed upon them and mercies enjoyed were equivocal likewise Then whensoever God calls Israel his people we must understand him his equivocal people when he calls them his portion we must understand it his equivocal portion when he sayes Judah is his inheritance we must understand his equivocal inheritance and Christs word Matth. 8.12 The children of the Kingdom shall be cast out must be interpreted the children of the equivocal Kingdom and Matth. 22.14 Many are equivocally called and Rom. 9.4 the Apostle must be understood To whom pertaineth the equivocal adoption and the equivocal glory These certainly broke Covenant and yet we have no example of Saints apostasie in them When the Jesuits forced Texts of Scripture to find if it had been possible one or two equivocal speeches in our Saviours words as Joh. 7.8 I go not yet up to this feast leaving out Yet that so there might be either an untruth for he did go up or an equivocation as also in those words of his quoted from the Psalmist Joh. 10.34 I have said ye are gods how would they have gloried in case they had learned that Scripture was almost all over equivocal Give them this and the day is theirs in the doctrine of equivocation Mr. Baxter addes Your second absurdity is That then there are no hypocrites and replyes rather Then all unregenerate professors are hypocrites They pretend meerly to real proper covenanting and they do covenant but verbally and equivocally But the great falshood of this I have sufficiently discovered and therefore my Argument which he notably curtails still stands firm It were too tedious to trouble the Reader with all my words and his The third absurdity which I presse Mr. Baxter doth not vouchsafe to name but onely refers to his answer to Mr. T. I shall therefore let it alone not intending to interpose between them Argument 3. vindicated My third Argument to prove That a faith short of justifying may give title to baptisme is To make the visible seal of baptisme which is the priviledge of the Church visible to be of equall latitude with the seal of the Spirit which is peculiar to invisible members is a Paradox To which he answers The seal of the Covenant and the seal of the Spirit not of equall latitude But you take it for granted that we do so which is too easie disputing and I may well take it for granted seeing in the next words he yields it where he sayes We give the seal of Baptisme to all that seem sound Believers and their seed and we say the seal of the sanctifying Spirit is onely theirs that are such believers Their seeming faith works then onely by way of cheat to procure that which is none of their right
plain in the whole visible Nation of the Jewes as appeares Deut. 4.7 Psal 147.19 20. 148.14 Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Admission to this nearer relation Arg. 3 3. Those that God ordinarily calls his People and ownes as his openly avouching himself to be their God have right in the sight of God to the Signs and Cognisance of his people and are to have admission into the Society and fellowship of his people This is plain If God in Covenant will own Servants then his stewards may open the door to them if he will own sheep his servants doubtlesse may mark them But God owns all in visible Communion though short of faith that is justifying as his people and openly avouches himself to be their God as in abundant places of Scripture is evident see Deut. 26.18 these have therefore right to the signs and Cognisances of his people to admission into the society and fellowship of his people Arg. 4 4. Those whom the Spirit of God ordinarily calls by the name of Circumcision they had right in Gods sight to Circumcision and those of like condition have like right to Baptisme This I think is clear The Spirit of God doth not misname doth not nickname nor ordinarily at least give equivocal names But men short of justifying faith are called by the Spirit of God by the name of Circumcision as needs no proof Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 and he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Those then of a faith short of that which is justifying have right in the sight of God to Baptisme Arg. 5 5. Those that are the servants of God whom God owns as his servants have right in his sight to be received into his house and to be entitled to the priviledges of his Church This we think should not be denyed and that God will take it ill if any shall deny it But men short of that faith which justifies are owned of God as his servants as is clear Levit. 25.41 42. There every Israelite that was sold to any of the children of Israel and his children are called of God his servants and that as Israelites of which a great part were void of that faith which justifies Therefore those that are short of faith which justifies have right in the sight of God to be thus received This argument me thinks might be of force with Mr. Baxter when he had urged it for proof that infants are servants and ought to be baptized he adds pag. 18. Is not here then direction enough to help us to judge of the mind of God whether infants are his Disciples and servants or no Doth not God call them his servants himself What more should a man expect to warrant him to do so Men call for plain Scripture and when they have it they will not receive it so hard it is to informe a forestalled mind If God took such care upon that account that they should not be held in bondage under any of his people he takes like care that they should not be kept from the society of his people 6. Those that bring forth children to God have a right in Arg. 6 the sight of God to be of his houshold and to be taken into it This is plain especially to those that know the law of servants in families that all their children in right were the Masters and had their relation to him But those that are short of justifying faith bring forth children to God Ezek. 16.20 21. 7. Children of the Kingdom of God or those that are subjects Arg. 7 of his Kingdom have right in the sight of God to be received into his Kingdom This Proposition Mr. Br. hath proved pag. 21. therefore I may save my pains But those that are short of faith that justifies are children or subjects of this Kingdom Matth. 8.12 The children of the Kingdom shall be cast out into outer darknesse Those therefore that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to be thus received 8. The children of the Covenant have right in the sight of Arg. 8 God to the seal of the Covenant This is evident the seal is an affix to the Covenant where a Covenant is made and a seal appointed there it is not of right to be denyed But those that are short of faith that justifies are the children of the Covenant Act. 3.25 The Apostle speaking to the people of the Jewes saith Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers 9. Disciples of Christ have right in the sight of God to Baptisme Arg. 9 as appears in Christs Commission Matth. 28.19 But many are Disciples of Christ that are short of a faith that justifies Therefore those that are short of faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptisme If all that I have said pag. 208. of the Treatise of the Covenant to prove this assumption be too weak as I think it is not Mr. Brs. proof pag. 21. of his Treatise hath sure strength sufficient there he proves that infants are Disciples because they are subjects of Christs Kingdom and what Kingdom he means he there explaines himself I speak not here saith he of his Kingdom in the largest sense as it containeth all the world nor yet in the strictest as it containeth only his Elect But in the middle sense as it containeth the Church visible as it is most commonly used And therefore by the way not aequivocally used Those then of this middle posture non-Elect are Disciples Arg. 10 10. Christians have right in the sight of God to Baptisme This is Mr. Brs. proposition in the page before quoted and in reason is plain Christians must not be kept out of Christian fellowship This is Mr. Baxters likewise in the place quoted he makes Disciples Christians and subjects of Christs visible Kingdom to be one and the same Therefore those that are short of justifying faith have right in the sight of God to Baptisme If he object that that particle in the sight of God is an addition they have no such right being but aequivocal Christians yet as is the Christian with him so is the Church or Kingdom as aequivocal Christians they may have right to an aequivocal Church or Kingdom Arg. 11 11. All that ought to be admitted visible Church members ought to be admitted in the right of God to Baptisme This none can question unlesse they charge it as Tautological and it is Mr. Brs. pag. 23. and the medium of that argument which he makes the chief of all he useth But those that are short of justifying faith are members of the Church visible Ergo those that are short of justifying faith are to be admitted to Baptisme The assumption is his likewise where he distinguisheth the visible Kingdom from the Elect and no man can deny it that grants the
down a ladder at the same instant he is climbing up it When I bring this similitude for illustration of the point in hand that a promised service and fidelity in war is enough to get listed and to do service is of necessity to be rewarded I am told that this runs upon the great mistake which I have been so often told of and am further informed that the formal reason and denomination of a condition is from the donors constitution or imposition giving this benefit onely on the terms by him assigned and not upon our promise to perform them If I have been told of it often it is well if I can be convinced of it now I utterly deny that the denomination of conditions of a Covenant in actual being is from the one and not from the other that is exclusively to the other I well know the donour is to prescribe and the receiver is to accept without putting in Exceptions But if there be no acceptance of terms there is no Covenant and there being no Covenant there can be no Covenant conditions as is plain by the usual definition of Covenants where the Gospel is preached and no entertainment at all given there is no Covenant people of God they stand bound by Law precepts but are under no obligations to Covenant conditions Argument 4. reviewed The next Argument in which I am concerned and the last which in this thing is produced is That the Eunuch must first believe and then be baptized upon his desire of Baptisme Philip saith If thou believest with all thy heart thou maiest This I have confest carries more colour then all the former and indeed I never met with any thing either in Scripture or reason produced that carries with me so much as any colour for it this excepted Yet this is not unanswerable One difficult text does not use to take us off our hold of many plain ones I answer 1. Philip may call for that de bene esse when the Eunuch was to be admitted which was not yet essential to his admittance Those that preach preparatory Sermons for the Lords Supper call for allthat may give the highest comforts and not barely for that which is the Minimum quod sic to give admission 2. As I have said so I say still that dogmatical faith is a true faith and to prevent needlesse Criticisms it is truly a divine faith so that none can say that Jesus is the Christ can believingly subscribe that Article but by the holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12.3 And whosoever sayes with assent of judgment and understanding that Jesus the Son of Mary is Christ the Son of the living God speaks more then flesh and blood can suggest and is not attainable but by Divine revelation And whereas it is objected that it is a false faith when it pretends to be that which Scripture calls faith in Christ and denominateth believors I answer 1. I have shewed before that our prosession qualifying for Baptisme is not a profession that we have such faith which cannot be done without an eminence of faith to assurance but a profession of the necessity of it to salvation and an engagement to it 2. It denominates believers in the ordinary and common language of Scriptures and wheresoever believer is put in opposition to unbeliever or infidel faith of this nature is still understood In that famous text 1 Cor. 7.14 every man and woman is a believer that was removed from heathenish Idolatry to the profession of Christianity or as Paulinus whom Jerom so much magnifies speaks was a baptized person Otherwise the case there put about the validity of marriage and lawfulness of marriage society were not between an infidel and a professour of Christianity but between a regenerate man whom this language onely makes a believer and one unregenerate which in this language are infidels which were a case never yet put to question When mention is made through the History of the Acts of so many thousands that upon the Apostles preaching believed it can denote no more then the embracing of the way of Christianity in opposition to Judaisme or Heathenisme If it imply a through Regeneration of the soul there could be no unregenerate ones among them which is wholly against the nature of visible Churches and all experience as hath been abundantly manifested As for that distinction which seems to be hinted between believing Christ and believing in Christ Mr. Ball in his Treatise of Faith pag. 5. hath sufficiently shewed the groundlesnesse of it pointing out Scriptures where a preposition is added to the word believe when nothing but assent of mind is signified And where it is put without a preposition when trust and confidence is implyed Abraham believed God Rom. 4.3 where no preposition is added and it was counted to him for righteousnesse And on the contrary the Rulers believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or on Christ and loved the praise of men more then the praise of God Joh. 12.42 43. It followes I think if a man say This is the Son the Heir Come let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours we will not have this man reign over us that these are not true believers nor have right to Baptisme though their belief that he was the heir be a dogmaticall faith true in its kind I am sorry that such things should be mentioned where inquiry after truth is contended and contention not studied It is well known that I speak to a faith of profession which is theirs that take to that party which is for Christ and not with those that professedly go in a full opposition against him and are in a high rode any such conviction of spirit supposed of sin against the Holy Ghost I know not why Dr. Ames should be brought in telling us that in those places where saving faith is spoke to trust in the Messiah is ever included seeing we are speaking of a faith that is short of saving nor yet that I should be told that words of knowledge and assent do in Scripture oft imply affection and consent unlesse that it be to let me know that it doth not generally hold which in case I were in a strait and at want for a present answer would well help me out And whereas I am demanded whether I do not know how ordinarily saving faith it self is denominated from the Intellectual act alone I answer that I do know it and if I were ignorant of it before Mr. Burgesse hath taught me the same thing with the same reason of it in his Spiritual Refining page 170 171. Pos 8. And I know also that it hath its denomination often from the act of the will alone But will it follow that the understanding is never fully perswaded for assent but the will is also not alone somewhat moved but throughly inclined for consent and acceptance If the understanding at any time be brought to a reall assent whilest the will is swayed by lusts
the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The water there is meant of Baptisme that laver of regeneration without this there is no entrance into heaven When Paul said Except these stay in the ship ye cannot be saved Acts 27.31 all will presently understand that their abode in the ship was of absolute necessity to safety and so also baptisme according to Christs words for eternity Answ Though it be not easy to determine what is the right meaning and genuine interpretation of those words yet it is of no great difficulty to vindicate them from them that would fasten this sense upon them and gather this consequence from them And before I come to a full answer I shall premise two things 1. That it is a wonder that Nicodemus coming to our Saviour in the night and as yet knowing nothing in the Mystery of Christ should hear that from him that others in the open light and farre more knowing in Christianity could never hear from his mouth 2. Bellarmine himself as Amesius doth observe confesses and if I do not much mistake Suarez somewhere that at that time of Christs conference with Nicodemus there was no such absolute necessity of Baptisme He puts the question when baptisme began to be necessary and determines it in four propositions Baptismus Châ—â—sti non fuit necessarius necessitate medii aut praecepti ante Christi mortem Baptismus Christi coepit esse necessarius necessitate medii praecepti a die pentecostes The third is That it was not necessary before the death of Christ neither necessitate praecepti or medii The fourth is that it was not necessary necessitate me dii praecepti before the day of Pentecost And let any judge whether it be probable instructing that novice in the faith Christ would in the first place inform him not what in present but what afterwards would be of necessity especially seeing that after that time by him set down when the absolute necessity should commence we hear of no such necessity of it For more full satisfaction I further answer First That text which names not Baptisme and cannot be concluded by an argument infallibly cogent to speak of Baptisme cannot enforce an absolute necessity of it This is cleare But this text names not Baptisme neither is there any argument to conclude infallibly that it speaks of baptisme probabilities are mentioned but no necessary concluding argument is by any produced Secondly A Scripture-text carrying like colour hath been urged for a like necessity for infants to receive the Lords Supper John 6.53 But this is agreed on all parties not to hold This then how eagerly soever it is prest may fail likewise Thirdly Either water there must be taken for Baptisme of water or else by way of Exegesis to hold out the same thing that was exprest before by the birth of the Spirit If the latter will hold as there are many parallel instances given and multitudes of Divines so interprete it Gerrard in his common places reckons up many more then I have to consult then this text comes to nothing in this particular And that this should be the meaning Chamier with fair probabilities argues seeing in this sense the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation All being of a corrupt birth there is a necessity of a new birth and that by the Spirit there being no more births then that of the flesh which is corrupt and that of the Spirit that comes to heal corruption If the former stand that water must of necessity hold out Baptisme of water as Papists and Lutherans generally contend and many Protestants yield then either the words must be taken in an absolute way without any limit at all or else with their just and due limitations If limits must be put then no absolute unlimitted necessity can be concluded and to understand it without any limit at all our adversaries themselves see to be lyable to dangerous absurdities Some therefore understand it of the Baptisme of water or some other that supplies the place and room of it and it is on all hands granted that Baptismus flaminis sanguinis the Spirit or blood in Martyrdome may supply the room of it for salvation And this Chamier saies is the limit that Arboreus puts Others understand it of Baptisme of water if it can be had and it be not contemned and despised and this Chamier saies is the limit that Lombard Bonaventure Gorran Carthusian and Villagadus put to it Others understand it of that regeneration that is ordinarily by baptisme of water though by other meanes it may be wrought And this limit Alexander of Hales puts to it as Amesius observes either of actual Baptisme or else of the desire of it and this Suarez sayes is the opinion of all Divines and charges it for an heresy to hold that none of years can be saved unlesse actually baptized notwithstanding their earnest desire of it and in his time he saies one a Michael Baius a Divine of Lovain held it But as he saies Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. in their letters published did condemne it And this text being subject to so many limitations our adversaries being judges I hope I may without any just exception adde one that it be understood of men of years such as Nicodemus was to whom it was spoken seeing so many helps are provided for men of yeares in the want of Baptisme it is altogether unreasonable to leave Infants in such exigents as to be irremedilesly under damnation for eternity when it is not in their power to make provision of it and so are holpen by Lombard and those of that party Any man may be their Compurgitor that they are not guilty of contempt of it Besides this Text there are many high speeches alledged out of some of the Ancient for the necessity of Baptisme and heavy doom of those that passe out of this world in the want of it But these are not onely under the dislike of Protestants but of those that these lay claim to be of their own party Bernard Epist 77. is large against them and Vossius hath a full quotation out of Petrus Blessensis who was Bernards contemporary c Sufficit Spiritus aqua Sufficit Spiritus sanguis si aquam non exclusit contemptus Religionis sed articulus necessitatis Sufficiet solus Spiritus quia testimonium ipsius pondus habet The Spirit and water sufficeth The Spirit and blood sufficeth if instant necessity and not contempt of Religion depriveth of Water The Spirit alone may suffice for his testimony hath weight in it And whereas Austin of all other is most frequently quoted for this rigid sentence as being in name most eminent my author sets Austine against Austin having in his 5th Book against Donatists these words d Etiam atque etiam considerans in venio non tantum passionem pro nomine Christi id quod ex Baptismo decrat posse supplere
farre as I could learn that it did succeed and spread as little as almost any error that ever I knew spring up in the Church Plain Scripture proof of Infants c. pag. 294. so inconsiderable was the party that stood for it And Vorstius speaking in the name of Protestant Divines in general saith b Id potissimum quaeritur an Sacramenta sint signa tantum sigilla foederis gratiae sive externa symbola signacula foederi gratiae appensa divinitus ad hoc institura ut gratiam Dei salutarem in foedere promissam nobis significent atque ita fidem nostram suo modo confirment simul publice testaram reddant quae quidem communis est Evangelicorum sententia an vero preaterea sint causae efficientes hujus salutaris justificantis gratiae sive an sint effectiva gratiae ejusdem organa nempe ad hoc divinitus institura ut gratiam istam realiter instar vasorum in se contineant omnibus illa percipientibus candem vi sua imprimant reipsa conferant quae Bellarmini Pontificiorum omnium opinio est It is disputed whether Sacraments are onely signes and seales of the Covenant of grace or outward signes annext the Covenant and appointed for this of God that they should signify saving grace of God promised in the Covenant and signifying seal and after their manner confirm our faith and give publick testimony of it which saith he is the common opinion of Protestants or whether they be further efficient causes of this saving and justifying grace or whether they be effective instruments of this grace appointed of God for this thing that they should indeed containe it in them and convey it which is the opinion of all Papists Vorstius Anti. Bellar. ad Contro 1 Gen. And our men further judge that opinion of the opus operatum or of the outward Sacramental action as though without the faith and pious motion of those that use it it could justifie any to be evidently false and pernicious And they teach that all Sacraments by the ordination of God himself have onely a power to signifie and seal and not to conferre the grace of the Gospel it self And whereas several passages in the Liturgy of this Church did seem to favour the opposite opinion affixing adoption membership of Christ and inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven and regeneration to Baptisme we know how great offence it gave to many eminently Learned and pious putting them upon omission of those passages And also what Interpretation as with a grain of salt others put upon them that they were onely Sacramentally such And doubtlesse these either hit upon the meaning of the Church which was held to these phrases in imitation of many hyperbolical speeches in the Fathers or else the Church had mist the meaning of Scriptures so loth were the sons of the Church to be quarrelling with their mother and yet more loth with her to run into errors The Observation it self if heeded hath a caution or limit in it Affirming that Sacraments work no otherwise then as signs and seals and that they conferre no inward graces or priviledges further then they work upon the understanding and faith of those that receive them it implyes that they do conferre what an outward symbole or sign is apt to and of powder to convey and that outward priviledges in Sacraments are either conferred of infallibly evidenced This is clear the Apostle having so far undervalued Circumcision in the flesh as to make it Parallell with uncircumcision so that a circumcised Jew and an uncircumcised Gentile differed nothing as to their Spiritual state and condition inferres by way of objection What advantage then hath the Jew and what profit is there of circumcision And answers not that outward circumcision is altogether unprofitable but that it hath much profit and instances in one eminent one To them are committed the Oracles of God This is the inheritance of the Congregation of Jacob Deut. 33.4 as Moses speaks and carrying with it this great priviledge it conveyes with it all other inferiour Church-priviledges right to the Passeover upon this account was theirs Exod. 12.48 and not otherwise So it is with Baptisme men are taken into the Church at this door according to the Commission given to the Apostles Disciple all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Whatsoever they were and whomsoever they professedly served before they are this way taken in as the consecrate servants of the whole Trinity and added to the Church Act 2.47 When they had by the Covenant a precedent title in Baptisme they have a solemn inauguration By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 It is the Spirits work to shape the heart of unbelieving Corinthians to enter into one visible Church-body as that work of Gods power whereby he did perswade Japhet to dwell in the tents of Shem Gen. 9.27 And therefore when c Durandus docet characterem esse ens rationis id est respectum advenientem ex deputatione ad certum officium qualis est relatio in Doctoribus Praetoribus c. Quae sententia vix distinguitur ab haeresi hujus temporis Durand denyed that the Character which the Church of Rome speaks of was any quality in the soul but meerly a relation comming as by way of deputation to an office or duty exemplifying it by the relation that is seen in Doctors Praetors c Bellar. lib. 2. de Sacramen effectu cap. 14. saith That this opinion can scarcely be distinguished from the Heresie of this time d Haeretici non negant neque negare possunt quin sit aliqua relatio rationis in Ministris quae non est in aliis qui non sunt deputati ad ministrandum And further saith That Heretiques do not deny nor can deny but that there is some relation in Ministers which is not in others who are not deputed to the Ministery We do confesse indeed that there is that relation in Christians to Christ by the work done in the Sacrament of Baptisme which is not in Heathens And though we deny Orders to be any Sacrament yet we confesse there is that relation in Ministers to Christ by vertue of their Ordination that is not in those that are not called to the work of the Ministery There are those indeed that do deny it But those that Bellarmine had to deal with and that he charges for Heretiques as Luther Melancthon Calvin Beza Peter Martyr Chemnitius willingly yeeld it And in case this were all the character that they talke of to be imprinted in Baptisme yea in Ordination we should never contend about it And as these priviledges are conferred as to actual interest in the initiatory Sacacraments both of Baptisme and Circumcision so the same priviledges in the following Sacraments are infallibly evidenced as appears in that text 1 Cor. 10.17 The Apostle there making it
with the washing of water by the Word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy without blemish Ephe. 5.25 26 27. As the spot is taken off by his Spirit in working new principles in us and working us up to new obedience so the guilt is removed by his sufferings He blots out their transgressions for his Names sake He remembers them no more He hides his face from them He casts them into the bottom of the sea removes them as far as the East is from the West He doth not one of these to leave the other undone He vouchsafes purifying and he vouchsafes pacifying grace He delivers from the wrath to come and he makes meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light He conferres habitual graces and he honours with relative priviledges Fifthly These may be distinguished Blood and Spirit may be distinguished but must not be divided but they must by no means be divided Christ doth not impart his merit where he doth deny his Spirit We account it a great presumption in men of years to talke of justification and want sanctification and we can say to such If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his God writes his Law in the heart and puts it into the inward parts where he remembers sin no more Jer. 31.33 They are quickened together with Christ that have their trespasses forgiven them Col. 2.13 And it is an unwarrantable conceit to imagine that relative priviledges of adoption and pardon of sin are conferred on infants in Baptisme or otherwise when their natures remain still the same and unchanged who can think that God fits all of age for glory that he takes into glory and yet takes infants into glory their impurity and birth-defilement continuing Seeing that we have instances as of Gods love of infants Rom. 9.13 of Christs blessing of them Matth. 19.16 so also of the gift of his Spirit Jer. 1.5 Luk. 1.15 In case the former may be avoided yet certainly the later is above exception The reason given by Christ of that sentence of his holding forth an absolute necessity of regeneration Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God is the pollution of the first birth as appears by his own words ver 6. inferred immediately upon the repetition of the former That which is born of the flesh is flesh and this is of equal concernment to infants and men of years uncleannesse of birth as well as uncleannesse of life stands as a barre to our entrance into heaven and no unclean person must enter there Sixthly The Sacraments especially those of initiation whether in the old or new Covenant about which concerning this in question there is most dispute The Sacraments especially those of initiation have respeâ—t to both of these havo respect to this whole work both of the change of our nature and the removal of our guilt As the have respect to the one so also to the other and that the whole of their work and the way how it is wrought may be better understood we are to consider that First Somewhat is hinted and implyed in those respective signs of Circumcision and Baptisme and that is our uncleannesse in nature and guilt contracted upon it Why should either infant or man of years have the foreskin of his flesh in that way by Divine appointment cut off but to let us understand the propagation of corruption and derivation of it from man to posterity Why should water be applyed which is of an abstersive cleansing faculty but to let us know that there is uncleannesse to be removed Cleansing for that which is clean is vain and needlesse As Sacrifices for atonement did imply wrath so this cleansing implyes filth and consequently guilt filth and guilt being inseparable Secondly Somewhat is signified and taught us in them somewhat the bare signs themselves are apt to signifie viz. That the taking off of the staine and the removal of our guilt is to be done by anothers power Why is this applyed by another hand but to let us know that it is above our strength Somewhat not the signes of themselves but the Word of the Covenant that is annext teaches and that is That the blood of Christ removes this guilt and that the Spirit of Christ takes away this stain This the signes of themselves could never shew but the words of the Covenant abundantly do demonstrate that remission of guilt is the work of the blood of Christ and Regeneration or Sanctification the work of the Spirit That the water in Baptisme holds out the Spirit unto us for Sanctification and change of our wayes is that I know denyed by none and in the Scripture it is plain I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Deut. 30.6 Circumcision is that of the heart Rom. 2.29 which by the Apostle Col. 2.11 is interpreted the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Baptisme is the same as to the signification as we see in the same place from the Apostle Col. 2.11 12 13. In whom ye are also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptisme wherein ye are also risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead and you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickned together with him having forgiven all your trespasses And this death to sin and life in grace are both from the Spirit Rom. 8.11 12 13. and both of these Baptisme holds out to us Rom. 6.4 We are buried with him by Baptisme into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of life But whether the blood of Christ be at all signified by this element of water some have questioned Sticking so rigidly to that phrase of the Apostle Tit. 3.5 that they will not alone have it understood of Baptisme but they will have nothing else looked after in Baptisme but the work of regeneration But this doubtlesse is a clear mistake The blood that was shed in circumcision gave the circumcised to understand that the guilt propagated could not without blood be remitted And if any think that this is too dark and obscure a proof of a Mystery of this weight let them compare with it the text under hand and the Apostles scope and aime in it which as we have heard is to shew that Abrahams circumcision was not his justification seeing he was justified by faith in his state of uncircumcision and that he received circumcision as a sign and seal of it justification is by blood Rom. 3.25 Circumcision is a sign and seal of justification Righteousnesse of
seal and confirm in this that we have grace Answ Not to dispute the absolute Covenant in this place as many call it The Covenant to which Sacraments are annext as seales properly promises priviledges upon condition of graces and requires the graces though God in his elect ever graciously works what it is respective to grace that Sacraments do we have now heard that is to shew us our want of it and point us out the fountain of it engaging us to it and upon our making good our engagements through Grace they ratify these promised priviledges to us 7. Scriptures of two sorts are brought by those that would advance Sacraments above that which they work as signs and seales Seventhly The texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments above all that they do as signes and seales and to evince that they have an absolute work on the soul without respect had either to the understanding or faith of the receivers are of two sorts The first are such where no Sacrament at all is mentioned neither can it by any good argument be proved that Sacraments in those texts are directly intended Others are such wherein Baptisme indeed is mentioned but faith is evidently required to the attainment of the effect there specified when these two are proved a full answer is given to all the Scriptures which by the Adversaries in this behalf are objected Scriptures of the first rank are 1. Such wherein no Sacrament is mentioned nor can be proved that any is intended Titus 3.5 According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration Ephes 5.25 26. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word 1. Cor. 6.12 Such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Though the thing signified in Baptisme is here evidently spoken to and some allusion may be conceived to be here made to Baptisme yet I suppose that it can by no good argument be proved that the Sacrament of Baptisme in any of these Scriptures is intended First Arguments evincing that Baptisme is not intended in the Sacramental work of it The Lords Supper may be as fairely evidenced out of Christ words John 6.53 54 55. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed as Baptisme may be evinced out of any of those texts alleadged when yet Protestant Writers unanimously conclude and severall learned Papists yield that no Sacramentall eating is there intended To clear this they say there is a meer Sacramentall eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ when the outward signs are received and no more a meer spirituall eating and drinking when Christ is applyed by faith without any Sacramentall sign and an eating and drinking both Sacramental and Spirituall when the Sacrament is received by sincere believers and the text in John is understood as they conclude of bare spiritual eating and drinking The same we may apply to washing and conclude that it is meerly spiritual washing that in these texts alleadged is understood Secondly There are the same phrases or those that are parallell with them in Old Testament-Scriptures when no Sacrament of this kind was instituted and therefore could not be intended Psal 51.7 Purge me with Hyssope and I shall be clean wash me and I shall be whiter then Snow Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinckle cleane water upon you and you shall be clean from all your filthinesse And it must needs be that meer Spiritual and not Sacramentall washing for the reason alleadged must in these texts be understood Thirdly If outward Baptisme were there intended why should not the word Baptisme be there as in other places used when we see it is yet omitted when other words are in the stead of it industriously chosen when common washing is intended we know that the word Baptisme is frequently used as Mar. 7.8 Luk. 11.38 and so also when legall cleansing is spoken to as Heb. 9.20 And in case Baptisme it self were here purposely intended it is marvel that other words should by the Spirit of God be chose and this laid aside Fourthly This Interpreters of eminent note have seen Mr. Gataker disceptatio de Baptis Infant vi efficacia pag 51. saith It g Dubitari potest non immerito baptismine Sacramentum an interna ablutio hoc nomine eo loci designetur may justly be doubted whether the Sacrament of Baptisme or inward washing in that place of Titus 3.5 be understood then adds h Atque ego certe etiamsi ad baptismi ritum externum respectum aliquem haberi nullus negaverim de interna tamen ab lutione diserte dictum existimo quae externa illa lotione corporis designatur ut ex clausula mox sequente verba illa exponantur per lavacrum regenerationis non videtur apostolus significare baptismum sed ipsam regenerationem quam lavacro comparat Though I am not he that will deny that some respect is had in those words to the outward rite of Baptisme yet I believe that they are expressely spoken of the inward washing and that the words may be interpreted by the clause immediately following the renewing by the Holy Ghost quoting Piscator for his opinion Thes theol vol. 1. loc 25. Sect. 20. who saith By the laver of regeneration the Apostle seems not to intend baptisme but regeneration it self which he compares to a laver and also Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25 affirming That it is doubtful whether in Titus 3.5 there be any speech of the Sacrament or onely of the blood of Christ and of the Spirit and in his words as the Reader that pleases to consult him may see he takes in Ephes 5.26 likewise Vorstius speaks most fully of all to these Texts mentioning the Argument drawn from Ephes 5. Titus 3. for the opus operatum in Sacraments he sayes Our Divines answer i Aliena testimonia citari viz. quae res quidem in Sacramentis significatas metaphorice declarant attamen de Sacramentis proprie dictis non agunt That impertinent testimonies are urged which hold forth the thing signified in Sacraments by way of metaphor but do not speak of Sacraments properly so called Antibel Tom. 3. Contro 1. Thes 1. 2. And whereas Calvin is produced by some as interpreting Titus 3.5 of outward baptisme his authority will but little help them k Non dubito quin saltem ad baptismum alludat imo facile patior de baptismo locum exponi I do not doubt saith he but that the Apostle doth at least allude to baptisme and further saith I can easily bear
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
Authors no guilt of sin is taken away by Baptisme either in Infants or men of years for either it is pardoned before Baptisme or else a barre in Baptisme is put against the pardon of it If they are regenerate before Baptisme then sin is pardoned before they are baptized In case they are unregenerate when they are tendred to Baptisme then there is a barre put to it Original sin in Infants is mortal otherwise they would be saved without Baptisme as well as in it And sin in the unregenerate is mortal likewise There are therefore barres put by both of these or at least an impediment found and consequently no mans sin is thus remitted upon account of his Baptisme Obj. 2 Secondly It is objected Every Infant is conceived and born in sin ordinarily which David confesses of himself Psal 51.5 Of unclean seed Job 14.4 A child of wrath Eph. 2.3 and held under Original guilt But there is a promise of remission of sin made to the Infant when it is initiated by the Sacrament of Baptisme Repent and be baptized every one of you for remission of sins for the promise is made to you and your children Acts 2.38 39. Answ 1 Answ 1. It was not with good advice that birth-sin confessed by David is in the Major proposition branched out in that latitude as to comprize both uncleannesse and wrath For it makes way for the Assumption to be as large namely that in Baptisme the Spirit is promised and applyed to take away filth as well as blood to deliver from wrath otherwise the remedy doth not answer the malady And so we have more in the conclusion then they would have though no more then is in the premises viz. that in Infant Baptisme there is both remission of sin and regeneration The Infant is thus made both happy and inherently holy Secondly The fruit of Baptisme a right carried on conscience Answ 2 answering to baptismal engagements is indeed forgivenesse of sins But the promise that place mentioned is not remission of sins supposedly to follow upon the act of Baptisme but it is that which did denominate them children of the promise namely the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. and continued to them who were his off-spring which argued them to be yet in Covenant And the Apostle makes use of it as a motive to presse them to accept of Baptisme the present initiating seal of it See this text further spoken to Treatise of the Covenant Chap. 37 43. Thirdly It is objected That which Baptisme figures that Obj. 3 it works otherwise it is a sign that is fallacious But Baptisme figures out remission of sin and the taking away the guilt of it Answ 1. Baptisme also figures out a further work of regeneration Answ 1 and sanctification Rom. 6.4 Col. 2.11 12. 2. This Proposition universally understood without any limits Answ 2 is denied on all hands They that assert this Sacramental work will have it to be with this proviso that no barre be put by the receivers 3. Sacraments do effect what they figure as seales effect what the Covenant conveyes upon Covenant-terms all is effected Answ 3 that in Sacraments is figured The Apostle tells us with what limits this proposition holds 1 Pet. 3.21 4. The great objection is If Sacraments have no other work Obj. 4 upon the soul then by way of sign and seal as they have their influence upon the understanding and faith of the receivers then infant baptisme is uselesse and unprofitable there is no end why they should be baptized seeing there is no work wrought either upon their understanding or faith in this ordinance and so their Baptisme is vain and needlesse And therefore upon this account complaint is made by some friends of Infant Baptisme that the doctrine de nudis signis as it is called making Sacraments bare and empty signes is the ground of Anabaptisme And the greatest sticklers against Infant Baptisme have publickly professed that if that tenent of the opus operatum as we may call it in Sacraments could be clearly proved they would no longer oppose that practice Answ 1. If the doctrine de nudis signis were as is objected Answ 1 the ground of Anabaptisme then I marvel how it comes to passe that that doctrine ceasing Anabaptisme doth not cease with it I read Calvin and others to whom in this I subscribe opposing it I know none that now assert it As soon as Calvin hath done with refutation of one he presently falls upon refutation of this other I here oppose It is hard to say whether he be more zealous against the doctrin de nubis signis Instit lib. 4. cap. 14. Sect. 13. or against this other doctrine of Sacramental efficacy Sect. 14. And Chamier lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen cap. 10. Sect. 11. having mentioned that use of Sacraments as distinguishing signs saith y Hic tamen nec solus est finis nec praecipuus Sacramentorum itaque Anabaptistas aeque cum Bellarmino improbamus quos etiam ante illum Calvinus refutavit quibus Sacramenta nihil sunt quam signa instituta ad discernendum Christianos à Judaeis Paganis ut Romanis olim toga erat signum quo discernebantur a Graecis palliatis This is not yet alone or chief end of them therefore saith he we oppose Anabaptists as well as Bellarmine and Calvin also before him had refuted them in that they make Sacraments nothing more then signes distinguishing Christians from Jewes and Pagans as a gown sometimes was a sign whereby a Roman was known from a Greek I remember when in the Divinity Schools a respondent in his verses according to custome premised called the signes in the Sacraments surda elementa it may be metri causâ The Dr. of the chair made a sharp animadversion on it They that do not raise them so high as to make them instruments of conveyance of this nature yet do not set them so low as to be naked and empty signs They are not naked though such clothes that every one woul put upon them do not fit them 2. It is no marvel that Anabaptists are ready to offer to come in to us upon these terms when this doctrine is fully cleared being well aware that it never will nor can be proved and so they have a good ground given them to hold on in their opposition Our great revilers of the place of our publick meetings calling them by the name of Steeple-houses or thinking that too gentle Jeroboams calve-houses I doubt not but will promise to forbear that language if it can be clearly proved that they are of divine institution and that they have that holy sanction put upon them as once the Temple had at Jerusalem but when those that put so high an honour upon them rise so high in their elogies and yet fall so low in their proofs they put an argument into their mouthes and as I may say an axe or hammer into their hands to demolish
I hear 1 Sam. 15.14 If Gods command had been done a sheep had not been left to bleat or an oxe to low in his hearing Here is a real confutation as ready If Infant-baptisme cleanses from original sin the root being dead what means such abundance of living lively branches How come all those complaints of the timely growth of sin in Christians children Why have not Paedobaptists found a real confutation of their Adversaries in their issue being able to shew them their young ones as averse from sin as a fish is to a life in the ayr when the children of their adversaries wanting that nature-healing medicine are wholly addicted to it Neither Israelites nor Christians were ever able to hold out such an experiment And if this were our received doctrine it would necessarily herein infinitely strengthen Anabaptisme when Anabaptists have ever found the greatest opposition from their pens that never acknowledged any such power in Sacraments And in case it should fall out that our Adversaries were in the truth and we in an errour concerning this power in Sacraments I cannot possibly see what great danger can any way follow to us upon it seeing that if Sacraments confer grace this way so far above our expectation we among others shall yet have our shares in it Our Infants are in no such errour with us and they put no more bar to the working of Baptisme then the Infants of others And therefore all benefits which thus follow upon Baptisme are theirs And we urge all of growth to see that their consciences answer to all Covenant and Sacramental engagements which in case it be done will acquit them from putting any bar to any such supposed work As a man that takes a medicine not understanding the worth of it shall have equal benefit with him that most mightily extols it so we whether in Infancy or Age notwithstanding any such ignorance shall reap this unexpected benefit by either of both of the Sacraments Mr. Hooker who delivers himself in that manner touching the efficacy of Sacraments that a man cannot tell on what part he stands lib. 5. Eccles pol. Sect. 57. saith It greatly offendeth that some when they labour to shew the use of the holy Sacraments assign unto them no end but onely to teach the mind by other senses that which the Word doth teach by hearing Whereupon how easily neglect and carelesse regard of so heavenly mysteries may follow we see in part by some experience had of those men with whom that opinion is most strong For where the Word of God may be heard which teacheth with much more expedition and more full explication any thing we have to learn if all the benefit we reap by Sacraments be instruction they which at all times have opportunity of using the better means to that purpose will surely hold the worse in lesse estimation To this I may well answer 1. I know not who those be that have given offence that way They at whom this learned Authour is apt to take exceptions and most professedly opposeth do not limit the use of Sacraments within so narrow a compasse as barely to teach the mind or help the understanding that is not according to them their whole work As they are signs they have a twofold other use 1. As marks of distinction to separate Gods own from strangers 2. As bonds of obedience to God strict obligations to the mutual exercise of Christian charity provocations to godlinesse preservations from sin The Authour himself layes down both of these and I scarce think that in this he hath ever been excepted against by any As seales they have a further work upon the will for the strengthening of our Faith in assured confidence of the promises as our Authour hath likewise observed In regard of the weaknesse that is in us they are warrants saith he for the more security of our belief 2. I say they read the Scriptures with little heed and it may be feared as little benefit that do not conscienciously make use of all those helps to which Scriptures lead and that they lead to the use of Sacraments is evident 3. If that the Word and Sacrament were two distinct teachers without reference one to the other and it were left to my choyce which to take I should make use of the better and leave the more inferiour If I should be necessitated to take the one and leave the other the Word should be chosen But seeing that the Sacraments are an appendant to the Word given us in charge there and the whole use of them by the Word is taught no man can conscienciously use the one in neglect of the other But let us see whether that which the Authour himself delivereth be not as much offensive as this at which he seems so greatly offended Having laid down 3. several uses of Sacraments he addes But their chiefest force and vertue consisteth not herein so much as that they are heavenly Ceremonies which God hath sanctified and ordained to be administred in his Church first as marks whereby to know when God doth impart the vitall or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof and secondly as meanes conditionall which God requireth in them unto whom he imparteth grace For sith God is in himself invisible cannot by us be discerned working therefore when it seemeth good in the eyes of his heavenly wisdome that men for some speciall intent and purpose should take notice of his glorious presence he giveth them some plain and sensible token whereby to know what they cannot see For Moses to see God and live was impossible yet Moses by fire knew where the glory of God extraordinarily was present The Angel by whom God indued the waters of the pool of Bethesda with supernatural vertue to heal was not seen of any yet the time of the Angels presence known by the troubled motions of the waters themselves The Apostles by fiery tongues which they saw were admonished when the Spirit which they could not behold was upon them In like manner it is with us Christ and his holy Spirit with all their blessed effects though entring into the soul of man we are not able to apprehend or expresse how do notwithstanding give notice of the times when they use to make their accesse because it pleased Almighty God to communicate by sensible means those blessings which are incomprehensible Who would not wish that these elegancies might universally hold and that as sure as Moses knew that God was extraordinarily present in the burning bush and the diseased in Jerusalem knew that the Angel was present when the waters were moved and the Apostles that the Spirit was come down when they saw the fiery cloven tongues so in receiving of the Sacramental signes we might as assuredly know that vital and saving grace is imparted to us and that these sensible meanes do as assuredly communicate these incomprehensible blessings But seeing those marks of distinction between the
worthily be rank'd in the first place amongst those that you thus honour As soon as he enters upon the dispute of justifying faith in answer to Bellarmines first question What that faith is that is required to justification he sayes in the name of Protestants (a) Hoc ipsum vel imperitè vel sophistice in quaestionem vocatur Nam 1. Multa ad justificationem requiruntur quae non justificant 2. Non tam quaeritur quae aut quid fides quae justificat quam quae sit ratio quâ propriè dicitur justificare This is either unskilfully or sophistically put to the question giving in his reasons 1. Saith he There are many things required to justification which do not justifie 2. It is not so much enquir'd into what that faith is which do's justifie as in what notion it is that it is said to justifie And giving answer to farther words of Bellarmine he saith in the same page that (b) Observandum est nos non restringere fidem illam quae justificat sed tantum quà justificat ad promissionem misericordiae Arguments evincing that faith in the blood of Christ only justifies Protestants do not restrain the faith which justifies but faith as it justifies to the promise of mercy Much more may be seen in this Author in his next Chapter Sect. 1. Sect. 8. which I leave to the Reader to consult at pleasure And together with it that which may be seen largely in Chemnitius enquiring into the proper object of justifying faith in his Examen Concil Trident mihi pag. 159. under this head Quid verè propriè sit fides justificans quo sensu scriptura velit intelligi quando pronunciat impium fide justificari I shall here take the boldness to give in my arguments to make good that faith in Christ quà Lord doth not justifie 1. That which the types under the Law appointed for attonement and expiation lead us unto in Christ our faith must eye for attonement expiation and reconciliation This cannot be denied These Levitical types lead us doubtless to a right object being School-masters to lead us unto Christ and shaddows whereof he is the substance As also to that office in him who is the object of faith that serves for this work But these types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office for the most part as Sacrificing sometimes as interceding John 1.29 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 1.18 A great part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a proof of it 2. That which the Sacraments under the Gospel setting forth Christ for pardon of sin lead us unto That our faith must eye for Reconciliation Pardon and Justification This is clear Christ in his own instituted ordinances will not misguide us But these lead us to Christ suffering dying for the pardon of sin Mat. 26.28 This is my blood in the new Testament shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Here is a confirmation of both these arguments in one The types of the Law and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper lead both of them to his blood for this reason of attonement and forgiveness There was an old Testament enjoyn'd of God in which the people in convenant were sprinkled with blood Exod. 24.1 c. commented upon by the Apostle Heb. 9.20 c. That blood and this cup lead to Christs blood for forgiveness and in them the death of Christ is remembred A broken bleeding dying Christ in the Lords Supper is received 3. As the Spirit of God guides faith so it must go to Christ for propitiation and attonement This needs no proof The Holy Ghost is the best leader But the Holy Ghost guides our faith to go to the blood of Christ for attonement whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Ro. 3.25 It is blood is our propitiatory or mercy seat We are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 And faith is our way of interest and thither the Spirit of God by the Apostle leads our faith as we see in the words mentioned I am checkt indeed by you because I say through faith in his blood not faith in his command quo jure nescio say you My reason or warranty is because I durst not adde to the Apostles directory when he leads us one way I dare look no other If he had intended to have led us to Christ as a propitiation without further direction under what notion our faith should have look'd upon him It had been enough to have said that he is our propitiation but distinctly pointing out his blood and faith in his blood I think I have warrant sufficient to lead souls hither and only hither especially seeing I find him still in the same language Rom. 5.8 9. God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of our sins Ephes 1.7 The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 For as much as ye know that we were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ as a Lamb without blemish You demand Will you exclude his obedience resurrection intercession To which I only say I marvail at the question If I exclude these I shall exclude his blood His shedding of blood was in obedience John 10.18 Phil. 2.8 His resurrection was his freedom from the bonds of death and an evidence of our discharge by blood His intercession is founded on his blood He intercedes not as we by bare petition but merit He presents his blood as our high Priest in the holy of holies You tell me further that the thing I had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his commands but of faith in Christ as Lord and teacher I can no more distinguish Lord and command then I can blood and sacrifice it being the office of a Lord to rule as of blood to make attonement You yet tell me It was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connote both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what we are justified by ex parte nostri but the former principally To this I say If this were fittest for Paul then it is unfit for any to come in with animadversions and tell us of any other thing either ex parte Christi or ex parte nostri for justification I pray you rest here and we are well agreed Here is Christs Priestly office on his part alone and I am resolved to look no further 4. Our faith must look upon Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him by vertue of which we may appear before God as righteous But it is by his obedience as a Servant that we obtain righteousness and stand before the Lord as righteous Rom. 15.19 By the obedience of
you thus challenge never had any such thing in their thoughts Making the Scripture their study and Protestants writers their Comment they find Justification by the blood of Christ Rom. 5.9 and interest in this blood alone by faith Rom. 3.25 28. and works they find again and again excluded I wish you to consult the Homilies of the Church of England especially the Homilies of the Salvation of Man-kind by Christ our Saviour pag. 14. Having touched upon divers passages of Saint Paul This is added In the aforesaid places the Apostle toucheth especially three things which must go together in our Justifycation upon Gods part his great mercy and grace upon Christs part Justice that is the satisfaction of Gods Justice or the price of our Redemtion by the offering of his body shedding of his blood with the fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly and upon our part true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ And therefore Saint Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his Justification but only a true and lively faith And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance hope love dread and the fear of God to be joyned with saith in every man that is Justified but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying With much more to the same purpose Your Readers that are not so much seen in the Language of Bellarmine and Suarez as they are in the Scriptures or at least that do not so much heed them deny all that you take for granted In which also you have phrases more uncouth to your Readers then any that I have uttered can be to you to be righteous signifieth say you quoad legem novam non obligatus ad poenam cui debetur praemium This signification according to this new law I think was never found in any of our old and new Dictionaries Those that are righteous shall be thus acquit and rewarded we believe but not upon account of any righteousnesse inherent in them but the righteousnesse of Christ made theirs by faith and so their faith is accounted to them for righteousnesse You then adde So that you see that your first righteousnesse non reatus poenae vel jus ad impunitatem ad praemium as it requires Christs perfect satisfaction as a medium to it by which all the charge of the Law works must be answered So it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace as an other medium by which Christ and his benefits are made ours I had thought that our righteousnesse had not been non reatus poenae that is not the thing at best were it as perfect as Adams was but reather non reatus culpae If a man be charged with Murther his righteousnesse as to this charge is his not-killing and not his non-obligation to the Gibbet That follows upon it non reatus is not of the essence of righteousnesse nor is reatus of the essence of sin otherwise then consecutive And that Christs righteousnesse should be thus called a medium I do not see I think it is the thing it self and not a medium to it And that our righteousnesse is any medium to Justification as it is inherent I deny and that our inherent righteousnesse required by the Law of Grace stands in any such subordination to the righteousnesse of Christ as a necessary means to make it ours I see your word for it but I think and the reformed Churches are of the same mind that I have the whole current of Scripture against it You close up this discourse thus And thus I have done what at present I thought my duty that it might be not my fault that you are in ignorance all over But I have said the lesse because I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our righteousnesse in answer to the Animadversions of an other learned brother But it is worth inquiry whether this learned Brother have received satisfaction from that more exact paines of yours Perhaps his learning may serve to give as exact an answer And if his greater learning be not satisfyed with that which is more exact and elaborate my less learning may well remain as much unsatisfied with lesse exactnesse And your Reader will think you were not so well advised to publish your self and conceal your most exact opening of this poynt of so great concernement Though you might think that any thing might serve me yet all your exactnesse will I believe be litte enough in this poynt to give satisfaction to many Readers Whereas you had said in your Aphorismes pag. 122. Imperfect righteousnesse is not righteousnesse but unrighteousnesse Imperfect righteousnesse is no contradiction It is a contradiction in adjecto yet there admitting an imperfection in holinesse I answer'd I never took imperfect righteousnesse to imply any such contradiction more then imperfect holinesse To this you reply 1. By a way of concession that holinesse is taken first for the relation of a person or thing dedicated to God So it admits not of magìs and minùs more then righteousnesse 2. That the common use of the word Holinesse is for the qualities or actions of a spiritually-renewed man this is confessed to have its transcendent perfection as wel as righteousness Hitherto we are agreed but here say you is the difference Holinesse thus taken is a quality which though it have the truth of being yet it is intendend and remitted or doth recipere magìs minùs righteousnes is a relation which in suo formali is not intended or remitted And is not Righteousnesse a quality in like manner which is intended and remitted when Zachary saies Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted We are delivered out of the hands of all our enemies to serve in righteousnesse and true holinesse Is not the one a qualification by a new work of the Spirit as well as the other When the Angel said Rev. 22. He that is unjust let him be unjust still and he that is filthy let him be filthy still and he that is righteous let him be righteous still and he that is holy let him be holy still As unjust and filthy hold out vicious qualities from the flesh so Holy and righteous both signifie renewed qualities by the Spirit It follows Nay if you will exactly open it it will appear that the righteousnesse in question is a relation founded in a relation Yea more that the very subjectum proximum hujus relationis nec intenditur nec remittitur this is that I mean by perfection besides the aforesaid transcendentall perfection And how shall we know what the righteousnes in question is either it must be gathered out of your own words or out of their words that you censure as guilty of such ignorance as before Let us look upon your own words Thess 2.2 which you there comment upon In this fore-explained sense it is that men in Scripture say you are said to be
Page 111 Over much rigour in admission to Baptisme hinders the progress of the Gospell Page 112 The admission of some to Baptisme in prudence may be delayed Page 113 Papists expect not grace for but a convenient disposition to grace in the person to be Baptized Page 111 The restraint of right to Baptisme a breach in the Church of Christ Page 181 Baptisme a leading Church-privilege Page 161 In what sense Baptisme works what it figures Page 383 Babtisme engages to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The Bloud and Spirit of Christ are not alwayes applyed in it Page 381 Dangers attending the restraint of Baptisme to the regenerate Page 551 Baptized A man unbaptized is bound to believe in Jesus Christ for justification Page 144 The Author vindicated from a supposed assertion of the contrary ibid. Titles given by the Apostle to Baptized persons do not argue they were alwayes answered with inherent grace Page 149 Vpon what grounds Simon Magus was Baptized Page 160 c. Believers A title in Scripture not proper to the justifyed Believing What ordinarily meant by believing in the History of the Acts. Page 177 The distinction of believing Christ and believing in Christ groundless ibid. Bloud Faith in the bloud of Christ onely justifies Page 766 This assertion quit from danger Page 582 Bloud and Spirit may be distinguished but must not be divided Page 367 C. Call AN outward call asserted Page 169 Calvin Vindicated Page 118. 550 Catholick And universall in Authors use of them distinguished Page 155 Chemnitins His testimony for the instrumentality of the word and faith in justification Page 490 See Antiquity Christ The Covenant of works was without reference to Christ as Mediator Page 10 Whether the Covenant of works be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Faith in his bloud onely justifies Page 566 Faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship Page 562 Interest in him interests us in all other privileges Page 458 Scripture speaks of receiving Christ and not of the Species of Christ onely Page 459 The healing of our nature and the removall of our guilt is his work Page 366 Faiths instrumentality in receiviug Christ being granted it 's instrumentality in justification cannot be denyed Page 441 Communication of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448. 449 Christians Vnregenerates are reall and not equivocall members of visible Churches Page 153 Humane authority vouched for it ibid. c. Christian a title in Scripture not proper to the justified Page 149 Church-Membership What gives right to it Page 201 102 Circumcision How Infants were saved before Circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions for clearing of the truth Page 24 Circumcision and Baptisme engaged to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The right of Circumcision implyed the propagation of corruption Page 368 Circumcision was no earnall badge Page 425 Cloud Whether two or onely one Cloud with Israel in the wilderness Page 521 No ordinary one but supernaturall Page 522 The motion of it guided by an Angell ibid. The form of it in appearance as a pillar ib. The use of it twofold As Israels guide Page 522 As Israels guard ibid. It was of the nature of a Sacrament Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Communicants The Lords Supper must be administred for their edification Page 199 Communication Of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448 Conclusions Desperate conclusions often inferred from right principles Page 579 Condition The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite to the essence and being of Baptisme Page 143 44 The Authors meaning cleered Page 145 In what sense faith is the condition of the promise of remission of sin Page 171 Actuall existence not necessary to the being of conditions in a Covenant Page 462 One and the same thing is not the condition of both parties in a Covenant Page 632 Confirmation Preferred by the Church of Rome before Baptisme Page 528 Perfects what Baptisme begins ibid. The matter of it Page 529 The form Page 529 The fruit Minister Ceremonies at consecration at administration Page 529 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 530 The Apostles imposition of hands no proof of it Page 530 The ancient use of it degenerated Page 531 Consecration Respects not elements but participants Page 58 Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be Consecratorium or Concionatorium ibid. Contradiction The Author acquit from any Page 447 Conversion The Lords Supper with the word as an Appendant to it may be serviceable towards Conversion Page 200 Arguments evincing it Page 200 201 c. Whether the Lords Supper may be stiled a Converting Ordinance Page 211 Explicatory propositions ibid. c. The Lords Supper doth not necessarily suppose a through conversion Page 217 Covenant Law and Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Keeping Covenant failing in Covenant and forfeiture of it to be distinguished Page 392 The Covenant falling Sacraments annexed fall with it Page 18 c. Where God denies his Covenant there the seal must not be granted Page 20 The Covenant people of God the adaequate subject of Sacraments Page 74 All relation to God in tendency to salvation is founded in the Covenant ibid. Interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75 c. God enters a Covenant with his people exactly and properly so called Page 79 The word Covenant asserted ibid. The thing it self asserted Page 80 in the essentials of it Page 80 81 in the solemnities Page 81 Arguments evincing a Covenant between God and man in its proper nature Page 82 Covenant and seal are commensurate Page 120 Covenant outward and inward This distinction examined Page 83 The Author vindicated in it Page 124 The outward Covenant is most properly a Covenant Page 83 c. To it belongs the definition of a Covenant ibid. It usually bears the name in Scripture Page 84 Men enjoy privileges of Ordinances and interest in Sacraments upon account of the outward Covenant Page 86 Scripture characters of men in Covenant Page 115 Covenant God Gods Covenant with his people not equivocall Page 80 Men of a visible profession timely and really not equivocally in Covenant with God Page 128 Covenant of works Passe between God and man in an immediate way without any reference to Christ as Mediatour Page 10 11 Whether this Covenant be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Covenant of Grace Righteousness of faith the great promise of it Page 414 Duty and condition in it are one and the same Page 641 643 It requires and accepts sincerity Page 637 Arguments evincing it vindicated Page 639 Mr. Cramdons Arguments against Mr. Br. herein answered Page 645 Covenant absolute Conditionall Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant Page 626 Faith and Repentance are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Covenant Old and New Sacraments under the old and new Covenant one and the
the actually regenerate Page 189 192 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. It must be administred for the communicants edification Page 199 With the word as an appendant to it it may be serviceable towards conversion Page 200 Arguments evincing it Page 200 c. Objections answered Page 209 c. Generall charges Page 209. to 216 Particular arguments Page 216 Whether the Lords Supper may be stiled a converting ordinance Page 211 Explicatory propositions ibid. c. The Lords Supper supposeth not thorough conversion and faith justifying Page 217 Not instituted onely for justified persons Page 218 All of present incapacity to receive benefit by the Lords Supper are to be denied access to it Page 225 Scandalous persons of a vicious and profligate course of life are in an incapacity of profit by the Lords Supper Page 238 Arguments evincing it Page 239 Objections answered Page 240 Who are to judge of mens present aptitude for the Lords Supper Page 249 The judgement of the Church of England formerly concerning it ib. The judgement of the School-men ibid. The judgement of the antient Fathes Page 250 The judgement of a great party of the reformed Churches ibid. The Lords supper may be occasionally delayed Page 299 The argument borrowed from delay of the passeover vindicated ibid. Just occasions of delay instanced in Page 302 No prescript for the time frequency of observation of the Lords Supper Page 303 Directions for our guidance about it Page 304 When dispensed it may not without weighty reasons be omitted Page 306 Excuses for absence from it removed ib. The excuse of unfitness examined Page 307 The excuse of the want of a wonted Leiturgy examined Page 308 The excuse from the variation of a gesture or posture examined Page 310 The excuse from a call to give an account of knowledge examined Page 311 The excuse from mixture of such that are supposed unworthy examined ibid. See Sacraments T. Tree OF life in Paradise a Sacrament Page 9. 14 Tree of knowledge a Sacrament ibid. These Trees had somewhat that answered their name Page 12 Not by any naturall power ib. Reasons and experience making it good Page 13 Why the Tree of knowledge bears that name Page 15 16 Transubstantiation There is no such thing Page 51 Titles A communication of them between Christ and his Church Page 448 449 Titles given by the Apostle to Baptized ones do not alwayes argue that in their thoughts they were answered by inherent grace Page 149 Type Variously used Page 428 Leviticall types lead unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 U. Visible BAptisme and the Lords Supper privileges of the Church visible Page 187 Visibility Of interest the Churches rule in administring Sacraments Page 118.187 Extreme Unction The Matter Page 534 Form Page 534 Minister Page 534 Effects Page 534 Qualifications of the subject ib. Arguments evincing it so be no Sacrament Page 585 Unfitness For the Lords Supper no excuse for a continued neglect of it Page 307 Unregenerate Man may assent to the whole truth Page 178 W. Doctor Ward VIndicated Page 116 117 Water In Baptisme implies uncleaness with a possibility of cleansing not by our own but by anothers power Page 368 It holds out the Spirit for sanctification ib. With the bloud for pardon Page 369 Word One and the same word often repeated in the same verse or neer to it in a different sense Page 573 Word of God A necessary meanes of faiths nourishment Page 509 Works Paul excludes not onely works of merit but all works from justification Page 574 He excludes all works that we have done ib. He excludes all those works or righteousness which is inherent ib. He excludes all those works which the Law commands Page 575 He excludes all those works which any in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto ibid. FINIS A Table of those Scriptures which are occasionally cleared briefly illustrated or largely vindicated in this Treatise Genesis Chap. Verse Pag. 2 9 10 3 22 33 13 14 5 9 598 8 21 363 9 8 c. 516 Exodus Chap. Vers Pag. 12 25 301  43 44 45. 75. 78  48 49 75 13 4 5 399  21 22 521  45 301 14 19 20 521  21 22 523 16 14 15 ibid. 17 6 524 Numbers Chap. Vers Pag. 9 1. 300  15 521 11 7 523 14 14 521 20 9 524 21 17 18 525 Deuteronomie Chap. Vers Pag. 8 3 523 10 16 380 12 5 6 7 300  10 11 301 16 usque ad 8 299 300 30 6 376. 379 4 25 523  2 Chronicles  16 8 9 638 34 3 301  3 4 ibid. 35 19 ibid. Ezra Chap. Vers Pag. 6 19 301 Nehemiah Chap. Vers Pag. 9 19 521  20 523  25 524 Psalms Chap. Vers Pag. 32 7 8 352 37 25 26 30 51 5 363  7 373 54 3 363 78 13 523  15 524  23 ib.  24 523 98 14 521 105 41 524 112 2 3 30 114 7 8 524 Jeremiah Chap. Vers Pag. 9 25 379 10 25 299 11 3 4 281 23 6 449 31 32 33 84 85 33 16 449 Ezekiel Chap. Vers Pag. 12 10 204 Matthew Chap. Vers Pag. 5 48 645 6 30 590 7 6 230 9 22 486 11 28 460 13 11 12 54  39 40 49 269 15 26 260 20 29 166 24 32 269. 295 Mark Chap. Vers Pag. 4 33 54 5 34 486 6 13 534 10 14 227 16 16 170 Luke Chap. Vers Pag. 1 6 598  75 596 7 59 486 14 15 219 15 33 188 15 22 225 17 6 590 John Chap. Vers Pag. 1 4 645 2 23 220 3 5 290  5 8 10 12. 53 54 6 53 227  53 54 373  31 49 58 523 8 31 188 12 42 177 Acts. Chap. Vers Pag. 2 38 367  37 38 108  39 174  41 217  47 299 8 13 160  17 530  37 176 10 47 165 217 15 9 449 450 22 16 376. 380 Romanes Chap. Vers Pag. 2 28 128 3 25 432. 567  28 587  30 451 4 1. usque aed 12 352  3 177  11 33 35  17 218 5 9 587  8 9 567  19 365 9 4 151 7 22 594 1 Corinthians Chap. Vers Pag. 4 4 431. 575 5 11 261 6 12 372 7 14 150. 176 10 1 2 3 424  1 2 525  4 524  5 6 7 11 428  16 17 c. 48  17 358 11 28 227 12 12 4â—9  13 358 14 14 15 16 c. 199 15 34 100  56 604 2 Corinthians Chap. Vers Pag. 1 12 431  21 67 7 1 452 13 5 492  11 645 Galatians Chap. Vers Pag. 2 19 599 3 14 444  18 451 Ephesians Chap. Vers Pag. 2 12 299 3 17 444 448 4 24 592 5 26 372  32. 2. 541 c. 1 Thessalonians Chap. Vers Pag. 5 23 586 2 Thessalonians Chap. Vers Pag. 3 14 261 Titus chap. vers pag. 3 5 374. 380 Hebrews chap. vers pag. 4 2 471. 481 8 7 364 9 26 269 11 29 523 11 throughout 569 James chap. vers pag. 2 25 572. 577 5 14 15 535 536 1 Peter chap. vers pag. 1 4 17  22 452 3 20 21 353. 387  21 170 1 John chap. vers pag. 4 7 596 Revelation chap. vers pag. 22 2 10  11 592 2 7 10 FINIS
the Sacrament is taken And words about the Sacrament teaching and consecrating are not as they make them of an opposite kind All words tending to consecration as I baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. This is my body This Cup c. are words as well to instruct as to consecrate are Concionatoria as well as Consecratoria so that all words of consecration are words for instruction though all for instruction are not for consecration as might many wayes be evidenced 1. They are significant words to be uttered by the voyce of a publick teacher 2. They are Scripture words and whatsoever is there writen is for our learning Rom. 15.4 why is it wrote if not for reading Why do we read if not for learning 3. The Apostles to whom Christ gave charge concerning the Sacrament were to understand themselves what they did and to instruct those to whom they did commend it likewise But they had no other way to know the Sacraments either of Baptisme or the Lords Supper but from the words of institution which they call by the name of consecration 4. The Apostle going about to reforme the abuses about the Lords Supper and to teach the Corinthians a right way of celebration repeates the whole institution and layes down exactly that which they say is of the essence of consecration and that to instruct not to consecrate The words of consecration are his words of instruction 5. To this we may add that of Austin not barely his Authority but the strength of his reason Tract 80. in Jo. Commenting upon his own words The word is added to the element and it is made a Sacrawent m Unde ista tanta virtus aquae ut corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicumus ait Apostolus Whence is there that power saith he that water should touch the body and the heart should be made clean but the word working it not upon that account because it is spoken but because it is believed For in the word it self the sound that passes is one thing and the efficacy that remaines is another and this saith he is the word that is Preached There is none can deny but that the words of the Sacrament are to be believed and in case they are to be believed they are to be preached and heard for who can believe on him of whom they have not heard and how can they heare without a Teacher Rom. 10.15 This place of Austin n Locus hic mire torquere solet non nullos Bellarmine saith hath troubled many and Whitaker saith they have as much troubled him as any other He rejects Calvins Interpretation of it and then rejects several Interpretations of his own party and at last produces his own which Whitaker sayes is wholly borrowed out of Allen o Dico igitur Augustinum hoc loco non semper loqui de eodem verbo sed nunc de Sacramentali nunc de concionali that Austin sometimes speaks of the Sacramental word and sometimes of the Word as Preacht which two with him are altogether different and yet Austin must by all means be acquit from Equivocation we willingly yeeld that he doth not equivocate and therefore the Sacramental word is a branch of that word that is Preached He that pleases may read Suarez and Bellarmines arguments answered by Chamier lib. 1. de Sacra in genere cap. 17 18. CHAP. VI. SECT I. God is the Author of all Sacraments and Sacramental rites THese Sacramental signes have God for their Author as it followes in the definition and is implyed as we have heard in the text of the Apostle Abraham receiving it God appointed it Gen. 17.10 So that the Observation is God is the Author of all Sacraments and Sacramentall rites This is clear of it self and hath scarce any adversary Look through all Sacraments whether ordinary or extraordinary whether taken in the largest signification for holy signes or in the strictest sense as here defined we shall still find that they were by Divine appointment The Cloud the Passage through the Red-Sea Exod. 13. Manna Exod. 16. The Rock Exod. 17. The Rainbowe Genes 9. Gideons fleece Judg. 6. The shadow on Ahaz his dyal Isa 38. Circumcision Gen. 17. The Passeover Exod. 12. Levit. 12. Baptisme Matth. 28. The Lords Supper Matth. 26.1 Cor. 11. All of them are of Divine institution And though Popish Writers are much put to it to find any Divine institution for some of their Sacraments as may God willing be shewen yet with a joynt consent they acknowledge this that we say and give their reasons of it Thomas Aquinas puts the question part 3. quaest 64. art 2. Whether Sacraments be alone of Divine institution and determines it in the affirmative Bellarmine spends the whole 23. Cap. of his first book de Sacra in genere to assert that onely Christ is the author of the Sacraments And Suarez Quaest 64. disput 12. Sect. 1. laies down this conclusion a Christus Dominus immediate ac per se institut omnia Sacramenta novae legis Dico se cundo Sacramenta veteris legis omnia fuere ab ipso Deo immediate instâ—tuta that the Lord Christ immediately and by himself did institute all the Sacraments of the New Covenant And addes a second conclusion that all the Sacraments of the old law were immediately instituted of God himself either of them both quote Canon 1. sess 7. of the Councel of Trent that thus determines b Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia a Jesu Christo Demino nostro institua Anthema sit If any shall say that the Sacraments of the New Covenant were not in stituted by Christ let him be accursed which Canon they both understand to thunder out an ana thema against Protestants seeing we hold that their extreme unction and confirmation were never instituted of Christ to which thiey may adde matrimony for though the God of nature did ordain it yet not Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant which they affirme to be Sacraments and I think they did not mistake the meaning of the Councell seeing the Canon laies a curse not onely on thole that shall deny that Christ was the author of all the Sacraments but also on those that shall say there were more or lesse then seven reckoning up their seven in order But we may retort this curse upon them as well as they fling it at us Baptismus Johannis ab ipso Johanne institutus erat Baptisme of John of Divine institution seeing they deny the Baptisme of John to be of Divine institution and make it meerly humane as Bellar. lib. 1. de Baptis Cap. 20. which yet we know to be a Sacrament and able sufficiently to cleare it