that we receive as Sacraments whether extraordinary as the Cloud the Red-Sea Manna and the Rock which the Apostle parallells with Baptisme and the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 10.1 2. But also in the ordinary stated Sacraments by a standing law to be observed In Circumcision there was a foreskin to be cut off in the Passeover a Lambe to be eaten In Baptisme there is water to be applyed and in the Lords Supper bread and wine to be taken eaten and drunk God condescending in mercy to our weakness by earthly things to informe our judgments and strengthen our faith in that which is heavenly Though Papists are much put to it to find an outward sign in some of their Sacraments as indeed in some of them there is none at all yet they yeeld to this truth that Sacraments have their signs knowing that to be a true though not a full definition tnat a Sacrament is an outward visibie sign of an inward spiritual grace That we may come to a right understanding of Sacramental signs we must First know what a sign in general is Secondly the several sorts and kinds of signs so farre at least as will conduce to a right understanding of the point in hand and Lastly enquire what Sacramental signs are and their properties What is meant by a sign A sign Austin hath long since defined to be that which shewes it self to the senses and somewhat more besides it self to the understanding and in other words a Signum estres praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex sefaciens in cogitationem venire A sign is a thing which brings to mens thoughts another thing besides that which it offers to the senses As the Rain-bowe offers it self to the eyes we see the shape of it and the colours in it and brings the promise of God into our minds that the Floud shall no more return to destroy the earth It were an endless labour to undertake to lay down the several kinds of signes with all their sub-divisions I never saw such a Scheme of them but I have thought many more might be added to them Neque enim hujus generis quisquam enmeravit omnia nascuntur enim nova pro homi num arbitrio Pulling Deca 5. Ser. 6. A distribution of signs Natural signs yet those at least that are notable may be reduced to certayn heads Some are naturall some are prodigious and some are signs by institution Natural signs are those that of themselves and of their own nature are apt to signifie somewhat beyond themselves As smoke signifies fire a Rain-bowe showres palenese sickness Teares trouble and grief of mind of these Christ speaks Matth. 16.2 3. When it is evening ye say It will be fair weather for the skie is red and in the morning It will be foul weather to day for the skie is red and lowring Now these signes are sometimes as signes so also causes of the thing signified As the Sun beames in the dawning are a sign and also a cause of the day approaching The interposition of the Moon between us and the Sun and of the earth between the Sun and Moon foreseen in their motions are signs and causes of Eclipses Sometimes they are effects of the thing that they signifie As smoke is the effect of fire and paleness of diseases Some are barely signs and neither causes nor effects as the colour of the skie is no cause of rain but barely an indication that there are those watry vapours in the air that will dissolve themselves on the earth They may be effects of that which is the cause of the thing signified but not the effects of that which is a sign The Rain-bowe is an effect of that which is a cause of rain Rules for the right understanding of natural signs Remote causes are not signs Here we might lay down some rules or observations First Remote causes which have their effects at a great distance so that many things may interpose themselves as remoraes cannot be looked upon by any as signs When that book of common-prayer was imposed by authority upon Scotland upon counsel then over-much heeded it might have been easily concluded upon as a sign of troubles and dissensions in present there But no rational man could then have made it a prognostick of all those tragical stirs which in three Nations have already happened and we yet know not upon the flame kindled what may follow The spark then kindled might in probability have been quenched The Stars say our Stargazers have their influence upon mens bodies and by consequence indirectly upon the operations of their soules Hereupon by the posture of the Stars at mens birth they will conclude the trade of life in which men shall be employed the Arts that they shall profess the fortunes as the world calls them to which they shall be advanced and the very last period of their dayes But here so many things may interpose that the childs Genius supposedly thus disposed cannot sway all these things Parents friends wayes of Education thousands of obstacles and diversifications so intervene that no judgement can be given If more were granted then ever will be proved of the heavens influence on mens minds and bodies to incline or dispose them yet that of the Wise man would utterly spoyle all Predictions Eccles 9.11 The race is not to the swift nor the battel to the strong neither yet bread to the wise nor yet riches to men of understanding nor yet favour to men of skill but time and chance happeneth to them all Seeondly Partial causes in nature cannot be looked upon as signs Patrial causes are no signs but all must concurre that have any influence This if I do not mis-remember good Mr. Perkins doth set down in a similitude to this purpose The heat of an Hen sitting upon Eggs is the cause of a brood of young ones but suppose an Hen should sit on Eggs of divers kinds some of a Dove some of a Partridge some of a Phesant some of a Hawk some of a Kite who could now from the heat of the Hen give his judgement of what kind the birds should be that this heat would hatch would they not be different in kind according to the variety of subjects that this heat works upon If we see flint before us this is no sign of fire to be kindled unless we see steele with it nor yet flint and steele without tinder nor yet flint steele and tinder without a hand employed to strike fire all put together make up a sign and not otherwise To apply this to our purpose First Let it be granted that the heavens have their operations on mens bodies on earth no otherwise then the heat of the Hen hath for procreation of such a kind or the flint to the working of fire yet the heavens have their influence upon divers and diversified objects not diversified by their influence only but done to their hands
another will by no means excuse neglect of it this were to sin because another sins to despise an Ordinance because another prophanes it when one came without a wedding garment no invited guest for his sake did keep from the wedding Fourthly No one Communicant is bound to examine what all are that are his fellow-Communicants there is neither expresse command for it nor yet reason to evince it each man is bound to see himself arrayed as he ought and not to find fault in others addresses Let a man examine himself and so let him eat though he be to admonish as his brothers visible sin gives him occasion Fifthly The penalty of him that comes unworthily reaches his own self that comes in his unworthinesse and extends no further Legal uncleannesse defiled the man that was personally unclean and not his neighbour so it is here He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself c. Sixthly If one mans sin this way do defile another the sin of one Communicant doth defile all other Communicants then it must be either from the nature of sin thus to defile all in so near Communion or from the nature of the Ordinance thus to be defiled to all when one in defilement comes to it or from some positive precept forbidding all to come when any that is unclean is there I doubt not but this is a sufficient enumeration But 1. It is not of the nature of sin thus to defile all in such communion then it would every where thus defile wheresoever any have society or do accompany together Then the chief Priests had done well to keep out of the Judgment-Hall that they might be clean to keep the Passeover John 18.28 and the Pharisees to wash when they came from Market 2. It is not of the nature of the Ordinance to be thus defiled to all It is not so in other Ordinances Cain's offering defiled not Abels nor did Hophni and Phinehas in their offerings defile Elkanah and Hannah when they offered 3. Nor yet is there any positive precept forbidding a cleansed soul upon the account of the uncleannesse of another to come to this Table Seventhly If one mans presence in this way defile another then it is either his simple presence such a ones being there in his infection or else a willing and witting presence with such a one If simple presence do defile then there is no man that can be secure The closest hypocrite that creeps in unawares would be the undoing of all when Christ said Ye are clean but not all Joh 13.10 according to this opinion it had been a contradiction the uncleannesse of one had been the defilement of all Neither is it willing or witting presence that can in this way defile then it must be in every single mans power to determine him to be such and exclude him thence or else of necessity exclude himself When the Eldership hath judged and received according to the general way of Reformed Churches or the plurality of votes of believers as it is with men of the Congregational way he must make an after-search a further scrutiny he that one judges fit that most judge fit some will judge unworthy and upon that account must shut themselves out of Communion Men of such principles must everlastingly avoid all Church-fellowship or act against their principles and we need not to speak it it is too plainly visible what manner of persons men of such high pretences have in their Congregations There are multitudes of Arguments heaped to nourish this scruple but I shall not further trouble the Reader there is nothing I think can be said but that which here hath been spoke will afford a sufficient answer CHAP. IX The being of Sacraments depends upon their use Another Position yet followes from the words The being of Sacraments depends upon their use they are no Sacraments to those that do not partake of them This is grounded upon this act of Abraham appointed of God and accordingly done by him The being of Sacraments consists in their use He received the sign of Circumcision All that he did was in obedience of the Divine Commandment Gen. 17.11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you It was not the foreskin but the foreskin cut off that was the token of the Covenant So also in that of the Passeover Israel had a command from God to take every man a lamb and to eat the flesh rost with fire and unleavened bread and with bitter herbs ye shall eat it Exod. 12.3 8. It is not barely the Lamb but eaten in the way that God prescribed that made the Sacrament In Baptisme the command is Baptize them in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost It is not water that makes up Baptisme but water applyed to the subject or the subject to the water In the Lords Supper there is bread and wine in their significancy held out not for bare sight but a Command is added Take eat drink ye all of this bread and wine makes not up the Sacrament without breaking giving taking and eating In those Sacraments extraordinary The Sea was no Sacrament but Israels passage through it The Cloud was no Sacrament but Israels guidance by it or the cloud guiding Israel and Israel following after it Neither was the Manna a Sacrament or the rock considered in themselves but the Manna eaten the water of the rock drunk by the Israelites Even the fictious Sacraments of the Church of Rome consist in their use Their Order is no Sacrament where there is none Ordained and Marriage is no Sacrament where none are married Their Chrisme in confirmation oyl in extream unction not applyed are of no use or efficacy This is plain in Reason Arguments to â—vince it First The being of Sacraments depends on their institution Take away their institution and they have no being at all But the institution leads us not barely to an element but prescribes the use not onely to a sign but the application of it not onely to water but to be baptized with water not onely to bread and wine but the eating of bread drinking of wine and the beholding of both Secondly the being of Sacraments depends upon the relation of the sign to the thing signified with the analogy and proportion that is held between them This is plain Take away such relation and the element is a common element and not a Sacrament set aside the consideration of the blood and Spirit of Christ and water is an element for common use to take away the filth of the flesh but for removal neither of the guilt nor filth of sin Take away the consideration of the body and blood of Christ and bread may strengthen nature but not nourish the soul But the relation is not barely in the signs or elements but in their applications to the subject water
beares no relation to the cleansing of sin but washing with water and bread and wine no relation to the setting forth of the Lords death remembrance of him or life by him but the breaking eating and drinking Thirdly That which being removed nulls a Sacrament that is necessary to the being of Sacraments This is plain Nothing can destroy being but the want of that which is necessary to being But the removal or taking away of the use nulls and destroyes the bring of Sacraments Let not the foreskin be cut off nor the Lamb rosted and eaten the water not be applyed to the person nor bread and wine eaten and drunken there is no Sacrament therefore the use of Sacraments gives being to them Fourthly All benefit of and in the thing signified consists in the application therefore the Sacraments for their being use and benefit consist in their application likewise The consequence is grounded upon the analogy that is between the sign and the thing signified The antecedent is clear the blood of Christ the sufferings of Christ not brought home to the soul and interest obtained by application doth not benefit or profit Fifthly That which enters the definition of a Sacrament is of the being of it This none can deny But the use or office of a Sacrament enters the definition of it Ergo. The Apostle defines it to be a sign and seal which plainly speaks not the nature but the use of Sacramental elements Here is no Conroversie in this thing among parties save with the Church of Rome neither is there any with them save in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper They confesse that the being of Baptisme doth so consist in the use that without it it is no Sacrament Onely the Lords Supper for Transubstantiations sake though never used is still a Sacrament when they reserve it in a box carry it about for pomp hold it up for worship it is still a Sacrament The body of Christ is still there and if a mouse falls upon it the mouse receives a Sacrament knawes upon Christs flesh But when worms breed in it as they may by their own confession they are hard put to it They cannot breed upon accidents the shape the colour of bread cannot give being to worms And to say that the substance which remains there which is the flesh of Christ breeds them is no low blasphemy The generation of one is the corruption of another and God will not suffer his holy One to see corruption I remember an answer to this great difficulty when I first read Philosophy out of Conimbricenses Physicks That learned Society did determine that God by miracle did create matter and laid it by the consecrate host and that did putrifie and not the consecrated bread and so Worms were generated They sure believe that it is an easie thing to put God upon miracles Against this permanency of this Sacrament out of the use of it we say First If the use of this be instituted The Sacrament of the Lords Supper equally transient with Baptisme as well as the use of Baptisme and given in command then this Sacrament consists in the use as well as Baptisme This cannot be denyed for the institution and Comman of Christ must equally lead us in both But in the Lords Supper as well as in Baptisme the use is within the institution and given in Command by Christ Therefore this Sacrament of the Lords Supper consists in the use as well as that of Baptisme Whereas Bellarmine replyes to this that Christ commanded the bread to be eaten but not presently after consecration therefore to delay eating is not against the institution To this we answer 1. Neither did he command water as soon as set apart for Baptisme to be applyed to the party to be baptized yet till it be applyed the party is not baptized water is no Sacrament and so the bread and wine in that interim still applyed still wants the nature of a Sacrament 2. He did command it then to be eaten by Bellarmin's confession though not instantly to be eaten and he gave the like command of the cup as of the bread yea with more exactnesse a note of universality added Drink ye all of it yet their Laity have a Sacrament and never drink of it 3. That which the Apostles did that Christ enjoyned as Amesius well replyes they understood Christs intimation as well as the most nimble-headed Jesuites but they did not reserve it but did eat it Secondly If there be no footsteps in all the holy Scriptures of any other way of dealing with the elements of the Lords Supper then the eating and drinking of them then according to the institution they must be eaten and drunken But there is no footstep there of any other dealing with the Sacrament then eating and drinking Therefore according to the institution it is not to be reserved but to be eaten and drunk Indeed Chamier quotes Croquet replying that some of the Ancient have said that Judas took one part of the Sacrament and reserved the other for scorn but this may be well reckoned among others of like nature in their Legends And I would advise all those that believe it if they be ambitious to be disciples of Judas to follow it Thirdly The promise in this Sacrament is not to be divided from the precept by any that will expect a blessing But where the promise is This is my body this is my blood in the New Testament in the institution There is a precept Take eat Drinke ye all of this therefore they must eat and drink that will have benefit in the promise It would little I suppose please the Reader to hear Bellarmine Suarez and other Jesuits to exempt this Sacrament from the common nature of Sacraments and to make it permanent when the other as they speak are transeunt Thomas Aquinas Part 3. Quaest 73. art 1. resp ad 3. makes this difference between the Eucharist and other Sacraments This Sacrament is perfected saith he in the consecration of the matter other Sacraments are perfected in the application of the matter to the person to be sanctified Suarez disp 42. Sect. 4. quotes it with approbation and Scotus in quanto Dist 8. quaest 1. as he is quoted by Amesius All the Sacraments except the Eucharist consist in their use so that in them the Sacrament and the receiving of the Sacrament is the same He that pleases may read Bellar. Arguments lib. 4. de Eucharistia Cap. 2 3 4. Suarez in the place named with Whitakers Amesius Vorstius in 3. Tom. Bellar. Thes 9. pag. 406. Chamier against them both with others of that party de Eucharistia lib. 7. cap. 4 c. I shall desire to take up the Reader with that which I judge more necessary Gerard in his Common places Cap. 4. de Sacramentis makes it his businesse to find out the Genus in the definition of a Sacrament in which the general form of Sacraments he sayes is to be
a body that darkens the place neer to it There are a third sort of signes of a middle nature that have their resemblance of the thing signified but in that indeterminate confused manner that they may rather be said to be fit to signifie that whereof they are signes then that of themselves without further declaration added they do signifie And such are the signes in Sacraments as Thomas Aquinas observes part 3. quaest 60. artic 6. and after him Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere and Chamier gives his assent to both lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere Cap. 11. Water hath a faculty to wash as also to refresh and cool when water is set apart for Baptisme though there be a fitnesse in it to signifie washing yet there must be a word to explain that it is to signifie washing and with it the thing that is cleansed 4. Ritual Fourthly They are not barely substantial signes but rituall also The outward elements do not barely signifie but the instituted actions likewise are significant In Circumcision the foreskin alone was not a sign but the cutting of it off in the way appointed of God seemes the chief in signification In the Passeover there is not onely a lamb but rosting eating c. all which are significant In Baptisme there is not onely water but the application of the person to the water in dipping or the water to the person by infusion or sprinkling The word in Scripture use comprizes any washing and therefore in Baptisme it is of it self indifferent In the Lords Supper there is not onely bread and wine but the bread is broke the bread and cup delivered receiving eating and drinking Some indeed question whether the breaking of the bread be any Sacramental rite or at all of the integrality of the Sacrament but all confesse that in case it be within an institution it is then necessary About the beginning of the reformation some that stood for the ejection of Ceremonies pleaded for sitting at the Lords Supper as an instituted Sacramental rite signifying our coheireship with Christ But others that in after times did manage the same cause saw that mistake and therefore urged not the necessity of sitting upon that account but onely did except against kneeling either as Idolatrous or carrying too great an appearance of it Fifthly They are distinguishing and differencing signes separating a people that receive them 5. Distinguâ—shing from all others that are not interessed in them so they have the nature of badges or cognizances Calvin justly rejects those that make the Sacraments no more but bare testimonies of our profession or distinguishing marks That as a Roman was known by his gown from a Grecian in his cloke and in Rome the several orders had their distinctions The Senatour was distinguished from the Knight by his Purple and the Knight from one of the Commonalty by his ring as with us a Knight of the Garter is distinguished by his blue Ribband and a Knight of the Bath by the red yet they cannot be denyed but that they have this distinguishing use By these Sacramental signes the people of God are known from others which is herein plain in that they are signes of the Covenant and by an usual metonomy called by the name of the Covenant Gen. 17.20 Act. 7.8 And therefore distinguished those that received them from all that are out of Covenant So Circumcision distinguished a Jew from all others A man in uncircumcision was an heathen Circumcision in the flesh did denominate a Jew outwardly as Circumcision of the heart which is that to which Circumcision in the letter did engage did denominate a man a Jew inwardly That which Circumcision was in this respect Baptisme is As soon as any joyned himself to Abrahams family and afterwards to the seed of Abraham in Covenant he was to be circumcised Gen. 17.13 Exod. 12.48 None were to be as one born in the land but a circumcised man As soon as any joyned himself to the body and society of Christians he was baptized so was Christs Commission Disciple all Nations baptizing them No sooner was Paul the Eunuch the Jaylour Lydia yea Simon Magus made disciples but they were forthwith baptized The Passeover as well as Circumcision the Lords Supper as well as Baptisme are distinguishing signes But these find men before-hand distinguished The preceding Sacraments whereby men are initiated and first enrolled are more properly distinguishing Sixthly They are congregating uniting and closing signes 6. Congregating this may seem contradictory to the former which makes them distinguishing and differencing To unite and difference are evidently contrary but these well enough agree the contradiction being not ad idem They are not the same that they unite and difference They distinguish men in Covenant from strangers and they unite men in Covenant as one among themselves A Souldiers Colours difference him from all other companies and unite him to those of that body into which he is received As Philosophers say of heat that it doth congregare homogenea and dissipare heterogenea gather together those things that are of a like and separate those that are of a different quality so it is with Sacraments This the Apostle takes for granted 1 Cor. 10.16 17 18 19 20 21. His business there is to take Christians off from joyning with heathens in their Idol-sacrifices because such joyning makes them one body with those Idolaters Which is clear in the 19 20 21. v. What say I then that the Idol is any thing or that which is offered in sacrifice to Idols is any thing but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devlls and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils ye cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord and of the Cup of Devils ye cannot he partakers of the Lords Table and of the table of Devils And this he had also argued against Chap. 8. Vers 10. And he proves that this makes them one Idolatrous body with Gentiles in their sacrifices to Devls by way of an analogy with Christian and Jewish worship Because joyning in the Lords Supper to partake of one bread makes men one body Christian and partaking with Jewes after the flesh eating of their sacrifices made partakers of the Altar of the Jewes and one body Jewish vers 17 18. therefore joyning with heathens in their worship makes one body heathenish A text which some weakly enough have brought against mixt communions to prove that none must joyn with a bad man in a Christian Sacrament when it onely serves to prove that Christians may not joyn with Idolaters in the Devils Sacraments They difference us from all those that want and joyne us unto all those that enjoy these badges of a Christian profession 7. Engaging Seventhly They are engaging signes to answer the profession that we make the company or family to which we relate The name that we bear and
included and concludes 1. In the negative that it is not to be defined a sign and in the affirmative that it is an action Though this perhaps might rather have been taken into consideration when we spake of Sacramental signes and laid open that part of the definition yet being slipt there it may not inconveniently be spoken to in this place In this determination of his he supposeth he meeteth with a double error One of the Papists but now examined that the Eucharist is a permanent thing and not transient which it cannot be in case it be an action And the other both of Papists and the followers of Calvin as he calls them both of which affirm that it is a sign and that must supply the place of the genus in the definition and though he professes willingly to yeeld that Sacraments may be called signes in respect of their office and end yet he will not have it put into the definition forgetting it seems for he doth not once take notice of it that the Apostle in the Text so defines it His Reasons to conclude that Sacraments are not to be defined as signes are 1. a Aliud est res ipsa aliud ejus officium ac finis aliud appellatio ejus ex officio aliud definitio ex essentia Definitio est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo genus in definitione peti debet ex rei definitae essentiâ jam vero esse signum non pertinet ad quidditatem sed ad ejus finem usum A thing it self is one and the end and office is another The appellation of it by the office is one and the definition by the essence is another Now to be signes and seales is the end and office of Sacraments To which I answer That Sacrament denoteth the office and use for which such and such an element according to Divine appointment serves If we should go about to define bread or water which are appointed to be signes to be signes and seales we should run upon a great errour For it is neither of the essence of bread nor wine to be a sign But defining a Sacrament in that way we hold forth the very essence of it 2. He saies b 2. Definitio debet constare ex prioribus notioribus Sacramenta esse signa sigilla ex prioribus notioribus quia ipsorum cognitio pendet ex actionibus ceremioniis hae enim cum fine qui est signare conjunctae dicuntur signa sigilla The definition ought to consist of that which is before and better known then the thing defined But signes and seales are not before and better known then Sacraments The minor which every one will be ready to deny he proves Because the knowledg of them depends on actions and Ceremonies as though the Elements alone were signes without consideration of the actions which in the institution are enjoyned His third reason is because c 3. Proprium genus debet esse propinquum signum autem est genus Sacramenti remotum tum quia à fine petita est haec denominatio tum quia mediantibus actionibus certo verbo externo elemento constantibus signant to be a signe is not the immediate but the remote genus of a Sacrament which he proves in that it is no sign oterwise then by reason of actions accompanying Where we meet with the same mistake as before If it be by the help of actions that they are signes it is then by help of themselves Elements with their actions and not otherwise are signes 4. He saies d 4. Pars rei non est genus rei ut totius signa in oculos incurrentia sunt pars Sacramentorum una terrena scilicet cui adjuncta res coelestis invisibilis Sacra mentum proprie dictum constituit One part of a thing is not the genus of it as whole But signs are but part of a Sacrament There being two parts one terrene and the other heavenly and therefore it is not the genus To which I reply 1. The action which he puts into the definition is but one part sure and the earthly part whether it be the action of the dispenser or receiver that he understands by action 2. It seems that he would have a definition of an outward Element and Christ put into one notion together 3. We define that which lies upon our hand by divine institution which is the office of such and such Elements with the actions about them leading to the thing signified Lastly He saith e 5. Genus non debet esse ambiguum at qui vox signi est ambigua c. that the genus in a definition must not be ambiguous But this is ambiguous for men speak of signes ambiguously But this is nothing to those that speak distinctly of signes when they put them into a definition and make it to appear what signes they mean So that the Apostles defini-nition making Sacraments signes is yet uncontroulable And defence being made that they are rightly defined to be signes all that is said to prove that action is to be the genus may easily be answered 1. The author by an induction proves that actions are enjoyned in all Sacraments which we easily yield and as easily prove that those are significant actions and so make up the sign and that they are Sacramentall not quâ actions for then as often as we eat bread or drink wine we should be at a Sacrament and as often as a woman puts water upon her childs face she should be about baptisme 2. Sacraments saith he are actions Circumcision is an action so the Paschal Lamb Baptisme and the Lords Supper The first is the cutting off the foreskin the second is the rosting and eating of a Lamb the third is dipping or sprinkling with water and the fourth eating and drinking bread and wine Answ 1. And all these are significant actions in and about an outward element and so we are where we were 2. These instances are no proofes that Sacraments are actions but that action is required to the making up of a Sacrament It is not simply action but an action with restraint to such an Element in and about such a subject Circumcision in any other part could have been no Sacrament nor yet eating of any other creature in the time of the law then a Lamb of the flock or of the herd nor yet any other eating and drinking of bread and wine then in the manner prescribed And so we may say of dipping pouring or sprinkling 3. He does not tell us whether it be the dispensers action or the receivers that makes a Sacrament In Circumcision and Baptisme he speakes nothing of any action in the receiver In the Passeover and Lords Supper he saies nothing of any action of the dispenser And it is for the receivers sake that the Sacrament is appointed and Isaacs Circumcision and every infants Baptisme if not Abrahams Circumcision and Baptisme
of men of years may rather be defined by passion then action And passion may as well challenge the seat of Sacraments as action where he placeth it He concludes that ancient and modern Writers yea Calvins followers call them by the name of rites and Ceremonies which we know to consist in action Here is a manifest mistake rites and Ceremonies are not alwaies actions neither humane nor divine Ceremonies The high Priests Ephod with the rest of those holy garments prescribed were Ceremonies and so was the surplice while in use in England and yet these were in the predicament of Habitus and not of Actio It is true that the putting them on was an action but that was not the Ceremony but the wearing of them in the work of worship and the putting it on was no act of him that wore it but his that waited upon him And kneeling at the Sacrament was esteemed a Ceremony with us yet no action but a gesture or posture of the body and in the predicament of Situs Dr. Burges indeed in his rejoynder defines a Ceremony to be an action pag. 29. But presently he explaines himself and saies I call it an action because nothing is or can be a Ceremony in respect of existence or being but onely in respect of acting or usage thereof as a ceremony so that he takes action abusive for any manner of usage whatsoever upon the publishing of the book I spake with the author of this thing and he acknowledged action strictly taken was too narrow to be the Genus of a Ceremony and that it was holpen by the word usage So Dr. Sanderson that renouned Logician speaking of the execution done by Phinehas in the division of his text calls his standing up an action but presently addes Though I call it an action yet it is a gesture properly and not an action so that when rites and Ceremonies may be postures or habits it cannot be said that they consist in action so that it is clear that Sacraments consist in their use and though actions be seen in every Sacrament either done by the dispenser or receiver or both yet those actions being upon and about some visible element and the Elements themselves with the actions being all significant Sacraments are yet rightly defined to be signes and not actions Then it must necessarily follow by way of Corollary that there is no holinesse remaining in the elements There is no continued holinesse in Sacramental elements no relative holinesse abiding upon them further then according to the institution they are applyed and received The water in the vessel that containes it is no further as I may say consecrate then as it is applyed to the person baptized The river of Jordan nor yet the waters near Aenon in Salem had no more holinesse then other waters in Jury The reliques of bread and wine in the Lords Supper have no more of holinesse when they are taken from thence then they had when they were brought thither Tipling off of the wine in the place where it was immediately before received as a Sacrament of which I have heard is undecent and unsuitable to the work that they have been upon yet it is no other then common wine that then is taken Care should be taken not to defile the person who remaines consecrate to God and in participation of these elements makes profession of it no such fear of prophaning the elements themselves But for a great part these are well contented to be prophane provided that the elements may be esteemed and honoured as holy This high opinion of holinesse in the consecrated wine robbed the people of it Many of the Laity have beards that may lick some drops of it up and the number encreasing it must passe through so many hands or be put to so many mouthes that some may be spilt and those fears here so wrought that they may not meddle at all with it And how great disputes there have been what shall be done with it if a weak stomack vomit it up while the species of it doth remain unchanged they that are verst in Popish Casuists well know And all this from that monster of Transubstantiation But when a right use of the Sacraments is understood all these superstitious conceits will vanish and come to nothing when a sealed indenture hath done its office we no longer look much after the wax and parchment Secondly Their touch or abode upon any thing or utensil does not make it holy If their Sacramental nature remain no longer then their use so that themselves are no further holy then their touch or former abodes cannot make any place or utensil holy it cannot leave any such remaining holinesse as some conceit behind So it would follow that in case the words of consecration be pronounced over all the bread in the greatest pantry or to be sold in the market place which men of that opinion say may be done then not onely every bit of that bread is turned into Christ but all the binges or panniers that receive the bread in them must have an holinesse remaining and abiding upon them and so in like case all the Wine in the cellar yea all the earth of the Land of Canaan would remain holy by reason of the Manna falling upon it which was spiritual meat therefore a prophaning of it to tread with the foot upon it much more for beasts to dung and graze it As much is said to prove that the rock was Christ as there is to prove that the cup is Christs blood If that had such a sanctifying power then all the ground on which the water ran yea every beast that drank of it was made holy The thought of this might have silenced that talk of bowing to the place of Gods special residence by which they meant the place where the Sacrament hath been celebrated which of a Table they made an Altar which then according to our Saviour Christ must make holy the body and blood of Christ offered upon it and the body and blood of Christ must not make it holy Ye fooles and blind whether is greater the gift or the altar that sanctifieth the gift Matth. 23.19 But with us the gift did put the sanctification upon the Altar that from the time that the gift had been upon it men must upon sight still worship ad versus coram amazing those that were offended at it with their distinction of inhesive and abstractive holinesse CHAP. X. SECT I. Sacraments are seales HEre followes a second use and office of Sacraments which being added to the former makes up the whole for which they serve As they are signes so they are seales from whence a double Observation followes Sacraments are seales All that the Sacraments work on the soules of receivers is by way of sign and seal First Sacraments are seales Sacraments are seales Before this can be proved by reason of the ambiguity of the word it is to be
a memorial of a temporal mercy It is the Lords Passeover Exod. 12.11 that is a memorial that the Lord passed over them when he smote the Land of Egypt v. 13. But this is no concluding Argument that it sealed not Christ or the righteousnesse of Christ by faith as may God willing be made to appear when we shall have occasion to speak of the Cloud that guided Israel out of Egypt the Sea that they passed through and Manna and the rock whereof they ate and drank This deliverance celebrated in the Passeover was in and through Christ as is gathered from the blood that was to be struck on the two side-posts and on the upper door-post of their houses Exod. 12.7 But most clearly from the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.9 He there sayes they tempted Christ but they tempted him from whom they had defence and present deliverance And therefore the Apostle expresly calls the Paschal Lamb by the Name of Christ 1 Cor. 5.7 For even Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us And John Baptist had respect to it as well as to other Sacrifices of the Law when pointing out Christ he said Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world Joh. 1.29 This is so clear in the Sacraments of the New Testament Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord that proofs do not need By Reasons And the Reasons of it are clear Reason 1 First Sacraments are for power against sin and pardon of sin as appears by those frequent Texts produced for the working power of Sacraments which need not to be repeated But by Christ we have power against sin Without him we can do nothing Joh. 15.5 We can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth Phil. 4.13 In him we have the Circumcision made without hands which is the putting away the body of the sins of the flesh Col. 2.11 By Christ we have pardon of sin God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 Christ then is signified and sealed in the Sacraments Reason 2 Secondly Sacraments are for salvation that is their end in common with all other Church-Ordinances whatsoever Baptisme saves 1 Pet. 3.21 But salvation is through Christ He is the Authour of eternal salvation Heb. 5.9 Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved Reason 3 Thirdly Sacraments lead to the Covenant and confirm by way of seal all whatsoever that there in word is made over This is done in all seals which serve for ratification of grants When you see a seal you must find the use and latitude of it in the Covenant so it is in Sacramental seals God entering Covenant with Abraham to be his God and the God of his seed which was a Covenant for true blessednesse Matth. 22.31 32. Circumcision was instituted for confirmation of it and put as we see in the Text as a seal to it When Christ had promised his flesh for meat and his blood for drink being to leave the world he iustituted signs for memorial which are seals of it With this explanation or comment of his own upon them This is my body which is given for you this Cup is the New Testament in my blood And that Christ is the great Promise for blessednesse in the Covenant and that in him all Covenant-promises are made good needs not to be proved Christ therefore is sealed in the Sacraments 1. This we are so to understand The doctrine by rules explained that as all happinesse and true blessednesse is comprized under the righteousnesse of Faith even all that the Apostle looked after and made his ambition to compasse in lieu of all those priviledges which he once had Rule 1 made and false teachers his adversaries still did make matter of their glory Phil. 3.8 9. so every Sacrament that is a seal of this righteousnesse of faith seales all whatsoever is given of God in Covenant to his people If there be thousands of things made over in any grant one seal is the confirmation of all and though the seales be many as Amesius observes yet all that is passed in Covenant is made good in each Our Justification Adoption Perseverance Glorification and whatsoever else in order to these or any of these a people upright in Covenant may expect from the hand of God is under seal in every Sacrament confirm'd unto them So that whatsoever it is that the Word promiseth that the Sacraments by way of seal ratifie and confirm unto us Abraham had this righteousnesse of Faith revealed to him by promise the Gospel being preached to him Gal. 3.8 He had also the Land of Canaan given in promise as a special gift to his posteriry This was now confirm'd also to him in his Circumcision The righteousnesse of faith was as the marrow and substance of the gift and therefore the Apostle puts it into his definition yet the gift of the Land of Canaan which was onely an adjunct annexed as Chamier observes is confirmed with it Every baptized man hath the righteousnesse of Faith in Promise and ratified to him in Baptisme and whatsoever else is made over in promise by reason of any special calling or relation which is of God is confirm'd in Baptisme likewise When we are put of God into any way we have his promise Psal 91.11 to be kept in that way This promise is assured and confirmed in Baptisme Ministers are called of God and commissioned for their work in which we know they have many and large promises all of these in their Baptisme are confirmed to them Rule 2 2. Sacraments seal these blessings not onely universally and in the bulk but with particular application to every one that doth partake of them The Word holding this out indefinitely unto us that he that hath the Son hath life and that unto whom God gives his Son with him he gives all things that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ believers have eternal life here a particular tender is made of his body and blood in these visible Elements of water and of bread and wine The water is passively received in Baptisme the bread and wine actually taken eaten and drunk in the Lords Supper In either whole Christ and the whole of all the benefits of Christ is tendred and to be received So that what miracles extraordinarily were to particular promises as we read in Scriptures for the confirmation of those that beheld them and for whose sake they were wrought that Sacraments ordinarily are and serve for as to true blisse and eternal happinesse This Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen cap. 24. charges on his adversaries quoting Melancton and Luther for it and we are content willingly to own it and among many others which he charges as errours he sayes this is the chief and diligently to be refuted therefore he
to tell him that the Religion of the Calvinists was most near to that of Mahomet And having ended his request the said Bashaw answered I see that you Calvinists and we are like to be shortly one Save only that leaving the drinking of water to us you willl keep your selves to wine and be drunk with it Charges of this nature Lutherans and Calvinists were wont still to hear but divine providence through grace hath so ordered that these Calumnies as with a beam of the Sun have been dispelled The holy lives of those that appeared for this doctrine hath been an abundant reall comfutation Not to look beyond the seas where we might be furnished with severall instances let Jewel Grindall Pilkington Raynolds Fulk Whitaker Perkins Fox Greenewood Dod Hilderson Pemble Ball and many others with their Followers witnesse In so much that by degrees shame hath caused them to forbear this Language And as for those who of latter times have receded from this doctrine of this supposed danger as Mountague and his followers as may be seen in his Gagg and Appeal whether their lives and zeal for the Gospel did at all outstrip those already mentioned whose supposed errors in doctrine they went about to correct I leave to all of impartiall judgement to witness How great a trouble is it then to have this by a man of your name and reputation now revived For that experience of yours of which we have already heard and you further enlarge The assertion that faith in Christ's blood is the only justifying act acquit from danger in your affirming that you never met with the most rebellious wretch except now and then one under terrors but when they have sinn'd their worst they still think to be saved because they believe and what is their believing why they believe that Christ died for them and therefore God will forgive them and they trust for pardon and salvation from Christ's death and Gods mercy To this I answer Though I do not in any other thing appear in competition with you yet here I may say my experience hath been of a longer standing then yours yet I can say it answers not that which you here mention When I have to deal with such that you name if they look out of themselves at all it is usually to Gods mercy He is say they a mercifull God and at what time soever a sinner repenteth from the bottom of his heart he is ready to receive and so relying on Gods mercy they will take their time for their return Which is answered also as is evident in the experience of others Read Practical Treatises and publish'd Sermons and see whether this plea be not commonly spoken to Ordinarily their answer is that their good doings their Prayers and Repentance must save them Few comparatively will have Christ in their mouths till he be put into their heads And if they hit upon faith as sometimes they will they yet know not how to terminate it on Christ's blood It is only a good belief that God will not deal so with them Such a faith the Plain mans path-way to heaven out of much experience of such mens answers doth notably decipher It is a rare thing to meet with one that will argue as you would put it into their mouths viz. He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified But that have I For I accept of Christ to forgive and justifie me by his blood Therefore I am justified But in case any shall thus reason you say you are not able to answer and I shall not presume to be your teacher But me thinks you might deign to learn of Mr. Gataker and tell such a disputant that it is not every thing that bears the name of faith that is an acceptation of Christ to justification You may acquaint him that there is a true and sincere faith and that there is a false and counterfeit faith and that it is not enough for justification to say that a man hath faith but soundly and sincerely to believe If he say that his faith is not dissembled but sincere put him upon that which Mr. Gataker sayes is Saint James his way of tryall If he will have faith to justifie his person let works then justifie his faith There is life in that faith that takes Christ's blood for justification and that faith that hath life to take hath life also to work Where a receiving or taking faith is there Christ is and where Christ is the soul can do all things through Christ that strengthens So thaâ— if the man be such as you speak his faith is cast at the first sight and evidenced to be no better then counterfeit and is no medium to justification He may talk that Christ is his but it is clear that it is on a crackt title and his faith being no better then you say had he all the Logick in the world here he must be non pluss'd And here I would willingly learn how you will convince such a man of whom you here speak upon your own principles If he shall argue He that hath the onely justifying act of faith is justified but that have I for I take Christ as my Saviour and Soveraign Lord Ergo. Seeing there are many that profess to take Christ for a Lord as well as a Saviour that must never enter into the kingdome of heaven Mat. 7.21 If they do not spit at Christ and defie him they perswade themselves that they serve him A service of Jesus Christ with their own most favourable and easie comment upon it they doubt not will save them And I know no viler persons in the world then those that say that they love and serve Christ with all their heart and that their good works and serving of God must keep them from hell and damnation As I once heard a man stark drunk on a Lords-day profess that fall back fall edge he would never leave serving God whilst he lived These if they may be believed have as good an heart to God as he that is most precise in all the world And if they be wanting in that acuteness of Logick that you before mention they may be wel holpen out of your principles which they may find anon thus to reason He that fals short of the precepts of the Law and requisites in the Gospel may yet be justified and saved if he answers to the conditions of the Gospel-covenant But thus do I although I come not is to the precepts of the Law not to what is required in the Gospel yet I answer to the conditions of it for according to you these come short both of the commands of the Law and the precepts of the Gospell Though they do not all that is commanded them neither in Law nor Gospell yet they hope they do that which will save them They have their faults they confess and who say they is free Few dayes pass over their heads but they say God
former as is concluded by Interpreters we must understand the like or somewhat much like it in the latter Man will have like immortality in sin as he had omniscience by sin Therefore he puts and keeps him out of Paradise that now being deprived of the thing he might not delude himself in the outward sign or Sacramental representation of it Sixthly It remains therefore that these trees were set apart of God from other trees of the garden for a Sacramental use having no more power of themselves to confer life or knowledge then water in Baptisme or bread and wine in the Lords Supper to conferre pardon of sin or spiritual life on the soul g Arbor igitur vitae non ab in sita vivificandi facultate sed à Sacramentali signifâ—câ—tione sic dicta est The tree of life was so called saith Wollebius not from any innate quickning faculty but from a Sacramental signification Paraeus indeed putting it to the question whether the tree of life be so called by reason of the effect that it had produced had man stood or by way of signification saith these two opinions in his judgment may be joyned and sayes h Sine dubio habitura erat haec arbor seu ut cibus seu ut medicina vim conservandi hominis sanitatem vitam ne corpora vergerent in senium aut sentirent defecâ—um donec in coelestem immortalitatem transirent Deinde data fuit homini in vitae Sacramentum The tree might give life as food or as physick and preserve from age till man should be translated into an heavenly immortality and then proceeds to shew how it is a Sacrament of life But sure these opinions are altogether inconsistent Sacraments are so signs that they are not physical causes of the thing that is signified If they had any such effect in nature then all mystery in the Sacrament ceased and there needed no word from God to clear it every man would know that food hath a natural tendency to life and physick to health if there were no Scripture If we were able to make it good that they were physical causes of life and knowledge then we must disclaime their Sacramental use but seeing that cannot appear and the contrary is evident This other must be asserted It may easily be made out that the tree of life was a Sacramen Man was to put forth his hand to eat of it as the Jewes did the Passeover and we do the Lords Supper i Voluit igitur hominem quoties fructum arboris illius gustaret in memoriam revorareunde vitam haberet ut se agnosceret non propria virtute sed Dei unius beneficio vivere Neqâ—e esse intrinsecum bonum ut vulgo loquuntur sed à Deo provenire And as often as he ate of it or had his eye upon it as Calvin well observes he was to remember from whom he received life and blisse and by whom he was preserved and upheld that he had no principle of life and blisse in himself but as he received it from God so by his favour and free Grace it was continued And to mind himself of his duty on what tearms he stood with God and upon what condition his life and blisse was continued whilest he sinned not he must not dye as long as obedience lasted he must enjoy a life in happiness Others add that it shadowed out Christ by whom both he and the Angels stood in happinesse but I have already spoke my thoughts to that particular But how to bring that other tree of the knowledge of good and evil so aptly to hold out the nature and use of a Sacrament is not so easie and I find many Interpreters asserting it but not any that I can meet with demonstrating it And it must be confest that this Sacrament did herein differ from all other Sacraments Those did consist in their use This in mans abstinence from it In this it is said thou shalt not eat In the Passeover and the Lords Supper the communitants must eat But God hath it in his power to institute Sacraments according to pleasure by way of prohibition as well as by way of injunction In other Sacraments in the due use men attain to the good that is promised In this by abstinence man should have avoyded the evil threatned In eating of the tree of life while man persisted in obedience he was assured of life that was a seal and pledge of it And while he abstained from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he had like assurance of freedom from death This alone was a negative Sacrament and it was proper to this Sacrament onely that not the fruition of good but the avoydance of evil was the thing signified The reason of the name is the enquiry of many why it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Some that would deny it to be any Sacrament say that it had the name from the natural effect that it was apt to produce being created to quicken or ripen man in the use of his reason conceiving that our first Parents were created weak in knowledge of an infant understanding And to know good and evil that is choose the good and refuse the evil in the Hebrew phrase setting out the use of reason as Esay 7.16 Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good They say this tree was to work them to this maturity in knowledge How false this is of our first Parents weaknesse in knowledge is clear by the names that man gave to all creatures upon sight as he had dominion over them so he understood the nature of them as also in that speech that he uttered concerning Eve when the Lord upon her creation brought her to him to give her in marriage The Wise man sayes that God made man upright Eccles 7.29 And this uprightnes comprizes mans whole conformity to God in all in which his image doth consist which was as the Apostle tells us in knowledge as in righteousnesse and true holinesse Col. 3.10 To avoid suspition of inclination to any such opinion some when they speak of mans first estate purposely avoid the word innocency and choose to use the word integrity And how unapt the fruit of a tree could possibly be in nature to produce any such effect that which was spoken concerning the tree of life being applyed hither may demonstrate And whence this opinion came but from the Devil I cannot tell who told our mother Eve that God did know that in the day that they eat thereof their eyes should be opened and they should be like unto gods knowing both good and evil Gen. 3.5 He was the first that vented it and she was the first that believed it when she saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eye and a tree to be desired to make one wise she did take and eat thereof Gen. 3.6 The taste
the understanding or actions that are past and called into the thoughts Matth. 12.39 An evill and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the Prophet Jonas Though some Popish Writers have affirmed that this sensibility of the outward signes is not of the essence of the Sacraments seeing God might if he had pleased have instituted Sacraments with signes meerly spirituall yet they are disliked in this by their own party and themselves also confesse that the signes that God hath instituted are external and sensible and we enquire not after such as God might have given had he pleased but such that he hath pleased to give to his people Secondly They are visible signes 2. Visible It is not enough that they are the objects of other senses as such that may be heard felt tasted but Sacramentall signes must be the object of sight This is cleer by the induction of particulars The foreskin in Circumcision the lamb in the Passeover water in Baptisme bread and wine in the Lords Supper with all the actions of each of these are visible And thus a Sacrament by the Ancients hath still been defined An outward and visible sign of an inward and Spirituall grace which hath never been excepted against as unsound but only as insufficient It is too short but in no part erroneous And Austin lib. 19. Contra Faust Cap. 25. as he is quoted by Bellarmine demands what are all corporall Sacraments but certain visible words Other senses may accompany the sight but nothing can be a Sacramentall sign that excludes the sight nothing that is not in nature visible And therefore sounds or words are no Sacramental signes which being no object of sight nor of any other sense but of that of hearing they are not in any such capacity Here a man might think that Bellarmine and we were agreed Seeing he so often gives Sacramentall signes that Epithete of visible and lib. 1. de Sacramen Cap. 18. putting it to the question whether Sacraments consist of things as their matter and words as their forme he determines affirmatively and laies this down for his second proposition that b In Sacramentis omnibus novae legis inveniuntur res ut materia verba ut forma In all Sacraments of the New Testament things are found as the matter and wordes as the forme and none can doubt but things put in opposition to words as the matter of Sacraments are visible But he hath his art to come off by distinction or rather contradiction To the first he saies that c Prima particula vel accipit elementum visibile tractabile pro qualibet re sensibili ut accipiant Catholicic Catholiques take the word visible and tractable element for any thing that is any way sensible that may be perceived by the eare and not for that onely which by the sight and touch onely can be perceived lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere Cap. 14. And so a sound will make up his visible and tractable sign which is of necessity in Sacraments And he can explain that second proposition with a fourth which is * Ut Sacramenta constare dicantur rebus verbis non est necesse ut res non sint verba verba non sint res sed sat est si aâ—quid fungaâ—ur vice rei aliud vice verbi That Sacraments may be said to consist of things and words but it is not necessary that things be not words nor words be not things But it is enough that somewhat supply the place of thinges or words Cap. 18. And all this wild stuffe which scarce I think can be parallelled in the most unlearned Writer to make it good that their Penance and Marriage are Sacraments in both which we must take words which he saies are the form of those Sacraments for visible signes which also constitute the matter of them or else we have no visible sign at all and consequently no Sacrament Some here question the case of blind people by whom no sign can be seen but it is one thing to be visible and the proper object of sight and another thing to be actually seen visible and visum differre one from another It is in it self visible though through defect in the organ it is not seen of some Such are at a losse in receiving though not equall to the losse of deaf people in the Word which is to be heard seeing when the Word is not heard it affects no other of the senses but when bread and wine are not seen they are touched and tasted and where blindnesse is not from the birth there is some supply from the memory likewise Thirdly they are Analogicall signes 3. Analogicall such as carry Analogy and proportion with the thing signified they have ever an aptnesse in them for resemblance That of Austin is famous If d Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sunt Sacramenta non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent Sacraments carry no resemblance of the things whereof they are Sacraments they are no Sacraments at all Gerrard de Sacramentis Cap. 3. Sect. 3. in the name of the Lutherane party doth confesse e Non negamus signa Sacramentalia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandam cum fructu Sacramenti habere Sed analogia illa significativa est secundarium rei terrenae sive elementi in Sacramentis Novi T. officium primarium officium est ut sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vehiculum medium per quod res coelestis exhibetur that there is such Analogy in Sacraments but he saith that this Analogy in the Sacraments of the New Testament is but the secondary office of it The primary and chief office is to be a medium or vehicalum a means for exhibition of the grace of the Sacrament to the person But gives us no reason And Suarez as Chamier observes denyes this Analogy between sign and thing signified to be necessary yet confesses that in all Sacraments there is such Analogy found But as Chamier demands how shall an universall necessity be concluded but by particular experiments and what is found in every one we conclude to be of necessity in all finding upon observation this Analogy in every Sacrament we conclude it necessary in all Sacraments There are some signs have their signification wholly from their institution and of themselves carry no proportion As the sound of a trumpet which is the sign of a troop of horse the sound of a Bell which is the sign of an Assembly whether for civill or for sacred things An Ivy bush the sign of wine to be fold Distribution of Analogicall signes There are other signes that of themselves declare their own signification as the print of the foot on the ground whether of horse or man is a sign of the foot that made the impression A shadow is a sign of
to do the duty that we owe. What the name of Christian or servant or people of God speaks the same these signs call for As the Altar set up Josh 22.24 did witness that those two Tribes and a half did belong with the other Tribes to the God of Israel so these Sacramental signes witness the same thing likewise 8. Remembrancing Eighthly They ace remonstrative and remembrancing signes sometimes of mercy conferred The Passeover was a sign of Israels freedom out of the land of Egypt Exod. 12.26 27. The Lords Supper shewes forth the Lords death untill he come 1 Cor. 11.26 being appointed to be done in remembrance of Christ Matth. 26.26 Mar. 14 20. Luk. 22.29 1 Cor. 11.24 of Christ dying giving his body and blood for us As those twelve stones taken out of Jordan by twelve men out of every Tribe a man were for a sign in ages following a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever that the waters of Jordan were cut off before the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord when it passed over Jordan Josh 4.6 7. So these Sacramental signs are memorials of the mercy mentioned They are alwayes memorials of the Covenant that we have entred the duty in which we stand engaged The Apostle having shewed that Baptisme doth signifie a death to sin and a life in righteousness Rom. 6.4 presently thence gives warning he that is dead is free from sin vers 6. Ninethly I might shew that they are ratifying and confirming signes but this is distinctly mentioned 9 Ratifying They are seals as well as signes which remaines to be handled SECT III. Corollaries from the former Doctrine SEveral consectaries follow from this observation which containes one part of the definition of a Sacrament First The sign and thing signified are analogically one That the sign and the thing signified in every Sacrament are one not properly and really one but in that manner one as all those things that remain distinct in nature one from other yet bear proportion and resemblance one with other are one One as Christ and a door Christ and a vine are one They are so one that one may be said to be the other when yet one distinct thing from other cannot be said to be the other in a sense that is proper my hand is not my writing my writing is not my hand but my hand is that which writes and writing is written with my hand and so my writing is usually called my hand and these speeches are in all mouthes vulgar common and are so far from being hard to understand that indeed they help the understanding A woman shewes a written peece of parchment and sayes Here is my Dower or Joynture when Dower or Joynture is in Lands not in Papers Every one knows that this speech means that it is that which vests her in it we shew a paper and say This is my will not meaning that faculty of the soul it self but a manifestation of what our desire is should be done with our estate after our decease such a man lives on my trencher that is on the meat which is laid on the trencher at my table so that men should blesse God for that he condescends to speak in such perspicuity and not complain in such speeches of difficulty Upon account of this oneness between the sign and the thing signified sometimes the sign is said to be the thing signified as that Bread is the body of Christ and the Cup the blood of Christ Matth. 26.26 27 So that that of Austin is famous that Christ said This is my body when he gave the sign of his body Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.9 10 11. Ast. 7.8 The Lambe is called the Passeover Exod. 12.11 21. Matth. 26.28 And the trees before spoken to are called the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil see Ezek. 5.5 1 Cor. 10.4 In all of these places the signe hath the name of the thing signified by reason of Analogy and representation and all by institution sometimes on the other hand the thing signified is called by the name of and is said to be the sign as 1 Cor. 5.7 Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us so Joh. 6.55 My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed fitly resembled by meat and drink Joh. 15.1 I am the true vine fitly resembled by a vine see Joh. 10.10 11. Sometimes the effect which the thing signified doth produce is called by the name of the sign so in that speech of Ananias related by Paul Act. 22.16 Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the Name of the Lord when it was not the water that he was then to use but the blood of Christ that could take away sin 1 Joh. 1.7 so Baptisme saves 1 Pet. 3.21 when as the Apostle there as may be further shewen explains his own meaning so the putting off the sins of the flesh is called by the name of Circumcision and of Baptisme Colos 2.11 12. Sometimes that which is the proper work of the sign is attributed to the thing signified Deut. 10.16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart and be not stiffe necked These and such like speeches as these would be familiar with us and we should be able to give an account of them in case we understood Sacramental relations and other resemblances frequent in Scriptures Secondly Then it further followes There is no such things as transubstantiation that there can be no such thing as transubstantiation The sign and the thing signified remain distinct and cannot properly be the same in any Sacraments Of all Scripture-Sacraments and all those additional forged Sacraments of the Church of Rome one onely is by them thus honoured The Paschal Lambe was not turned into the body of Christ nor is water turned into the blood of Christ in Baptisme Nor do any other of their supposed signes lose their nature onely in the Lords Supper bread is not bread though it be still called bread but flesh wine is not wine though called the fruit of the vine but blood we see bread we taste bread we handle bread and yet we must not give credit either to our eyes ears taste or touch but we must believe it is no bread It hath the natural properties of bread and wine it gives natural nourishment as bread and wine the bread if eaten in excesse and the wine drunken will cause surfeit and intoxicate as bread and wine As the natural force so the natural defects of bread and wine still remain after consecration The bread breeds wormes and the wine turnes to vineger yet we must believe that God by miracle hath taken away bread and wine given blood and flesh turned bread into flesh wine into blood and yet still by miracles keeps up the natural shape properties and defects of these outward Elements When God in Scripture wrought miracles the miracles were seen and
known There have been transubstantiations but those were never hidden Moses his rod was turned into a Serpent and it was seen to be a Serpent so that Moses on sight fled from it Exod. 4.3 It was turned again into a rod and known to be a rod vers 4. Christ turnes water into wine Joh. 2.9 that was not judged to be still water or called by that name but by the taste known to be of the most precious wine vers 10. But our senses having thus deceived us and made us believe that there is still bread and wine when by miracle bread and wine is gone where shall we find any Word to ground our faith to believe this delusion The words of the institution or nothing must carry it This is my body this Cup is my blood in the New Testament But such an interpretation 1. Destroyes the outward sign and makes it no Sacrament 2. Makes the speech wholly not Sacramental No Sacramental speech can be proper and we have enough from out adversaries to excuse our faith from the acknowledgement of any such a change If we look no further then three testimonies quoted by learned Mr. Gataker from three Romish Cardinals in his discourse of transubstantiation Pag. 2. 3. Cardinal Bellarmine saith he granteth that these words This is my body may imply either such a real change of the bread as the Catholiques hold or such a figurative change as the Calvinists hold but will not bear that sense that the Lutherans give it And Cardinal Cajetan acknowledgeth and freely confesseth that there appeareth not any thing out of the Gospel that may enforce us to understand those words This is my body properly And he addeth that nothing in the text hindreth but that those words may as well be taken in a metaphorical sense as those words of the Apostle the Rock was Christ and that the words of either proposition may well be true though the thing there spoken be not understood in a proper sense but in a metaphorical sense onely And he further q saith he finds alleadged out of Bishop Fisher whom Bellar. lib. de Scriptor Ecclesiast Pag. 209. makes both a Cardinal and a Martyr that there is not one word in St. Matthewes Gospel from which the true presence of Christs flesh and blood in our Masse may be proved out of Scripture it cannot be proved And being traduced for this quotation by an adversary as taking king it out of a nameless Author ignorant and unsincere in his assertions In his defence of the said discourse Pag. 44. he tells his adversary that his Author whom he thus brands as ignorant and unsincere is Bishop Andrewes in his answer to the Apology of Card. Bellar. against King James his admonitory preface Chap. 1. and I find Musculus in his common places de Coena Domin Pag. 365. quoting the same words out of the same Author and much more to the same purpose He that would be further furnished against this monster of transubstantiation in our own language let him read the fore-mentioned discourse of Mr. Gatakers together with the defence as also Bishop Mortons his Treatise divided into eight parts of the institution of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ Gods goodnesse seen in his condescension to our weaknesse Thirdly We may see the goodness of God in this way of condescension by earthly things carnal sensible and suitable to our natures to help our understandings and strengthen our faith in things heavenly If we were meer incorporeal substances and had spirits not shut up and imprisoned in bodies then saith Chrysostome we should have had spirituall things in an answerable way nakedly in themselves held out unto us then Parables had not been used nor similitudes borrowed nor Sacramental signs instituted But having souls affixt to bodies that which our spirits should learn these things of earth are imployed of God to teach God looked not at himself when he chose this method It is farre below him to fill up his sacred Oracles with these things but at our imbecillity In case he should speak as God that is in a language answering the Majestie of God we must be as gods to comprehend his words and understand his speech but dealing with us that have bodies made up of earth and minds over eagerly addicted to earth he is pleased in his transactions not to deal if I may so say as God but as with man seeking glory onely in manifestation of his goodness and tender regard of our weakness Christ saw a necessity of this way of dealing not onely as God by his omniscience but as man by his practical experience He taught Nicodemus the nature of regeneration by similitudes borrowed from water and from the wind Except a man be borne of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth So is every one that is born of the Spirit Joh. 3.5 8. Notwithstanding all this endeavour of Christ to cleare this truth Nicodemus still remaines ignorant he answers and saies to Christ How can these things be Christ after a sharp reproof ver 10. Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things not onely a Scholar but a Teacher and that not in any place of darknesse but in Israel that valley of vision addes ver 12. If I have told you earthly things and ye beleeve not how shall ye beleeve if I tell you of heavenly things Christ had not read a Lecture to Nicodemus of the water or of the wind neither had Nicodemus questioned either of those assertions The wind bloweth where it listeth thou knowest not whence it comes nor whither it goes that he should on this account charge Nicedemus with not beleeving doctrine of this kind But the meaning is If I speak of regeneration by earthly similitudes and expressions obvious to the senses and you are not able to apprehend and understand them how then if I speak to you of heavenly things in an heavenly manner without any such sensible representation at all would you then understand This interpretation of these words Maldonate doth give notwithstanding Bullinger Decad. 5 Ser. 6. had gone before him in it Ravanellus in his Thesaurus and Mr. Burges in his Ser. 35. pag. 211. give the same In which we see our need of help this way and the singular condescension of Christ Jesus in dealing this way for our help which place in my thoughts serves to cleere that speech of the Evangelist Mar. 4.33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them as they were able to beare it many are there reckoned up and more by Matthew Matth. 13. many more perhaps were uttered then either Matthew or Mark relate as they were able to bear saith the text according to their capacities say the larger Annotations And so Jansenius upon the words
man are not of the necessity of the Sacrament but are used for solemnity and to beget devotion and reverence in those that receive them But those things that are of necessity to Sacraments are instituted of Christ who is God-man But how the Angelicall Doctor can be reconciled to himself I cannot see when part 3. quaest 72. art 2. he concludes that Chrisme which with him is oyl mixt with Balsome is the matter of this Sacrament as also Bellarmine de Scramento Confirmationis Cap. 8. prop. 1. which he saies is certain among Catholiques from the Councell of Florence and the Councell of Trent and gallantly proves it out of 2 Cor. 1.21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us is God And certainly the matter of a Sacrament is of necessity to a Sacrament And secondly what devotion or reverence the things that are instituted of man can beget in the Sacrament appointed of God can hardly be shewen It is as an addition of Tinne to silver in our common coine As Ahaz his Altar fetcht from Damascus to the worship at Hierusalem It is true that a reverend way of solemnizing these Ordinances in order and decency keeps up their honour and addes to their honour comparative to that whith from some hands they had and much is variable about them in those things that are meer matter of order in which Scripture gives no precept But no device of man addes any thing to the honour of an institution of heaven God writes no imperfect work to leave it to man to adde his supplement SECT II. Corallaries from the former Doctrine Sacrâ—m nts must have the honour of divine Ordinances THen let them have that esteem that is due to the Ordinances and institutions of heaven Let not our thoughts be below God when our eyes are fixt on them or our hearts employed about them If we look at the terrene part of these institutions our thoughts may then fall flat and their esteem very low many a creature of God will stand in competition with them Themselves being of earth must needs fix our thoughts to earth and so there will be no more then bare formality in the work perhaps a confused conceit of some holy thing which is little understood begetting a superstitious blind devotion But when we consider from whose hand they are and the end for which they serve as seales appointed of God to ratifie to our souls his gift of Christ pardon of sin by him and consequently glory with him these despised Ordinances will be in more honour We look upon Parchment Inke Wax in the shops where they are put to sale as common Commodities thousand of shops have more high-prized wares How low do men look on them comparative to those things of which the Exchange glories But he that hath one skin of this Parchment made up into a pattent or deed with the Broad-seal to it confirming a grant of some large revenue eyes it in another manner and prizes it above thousands of all that we have spoken of as not with him to be named that day We may look upon water as an element as mean as it is common as low in our esteem as it is in price and upon bread and wine as somewhat more noble But a slender pittance of either is with us of slender value But when they serve for a seal of all that the Gospel tenders and are made up into a seal of the Gospel grant it should be and to a spiritual eye is of more high and honourable regard If this were duly considered Sacraments would be had in more honour with us The contempt or neglect of Baptismo censured First The Sacrament of Baptisme that door of entrance into the Church of Christ our matriculation into the society of Saints when other Ordinances are over in the Congregation and that entered upon we see the way of a great party immediately to post out The Apostles thought it too low a business for the Lord Christ to have to deal with infants that had not legs to carry them but must be brought in the armes of others and therefore rebuked those that brought them These think it below them to waite upon a business where such onely are concerned Infant Ordinances are below their attendance These are of two sorts 1. Those who out of judgement leave and are so principled that they think they must leave and declare their dissent from that practice 2. Those that out of neglect leave They judge that infants of right ought to be baptized It is the Ministers duty to do it and Parents and near friends and neighbours are to see it done but it might be done in a corner with more or fewer it doth not matter when they are gone it will be baptized and what is it to them to waite on the Baptisme of it The first of these that in departing act out of principles that they have laid and therefore in case they were better principled there is hope that they might act better are of two sorts 1. Those that protest against all title of infants to this Ordinance and therefore upon that account refuse to honour it with their presence And their very departure from it speakes this language Here is one that is to be dedicated to God in an Ordinance that is of God For I speak not of those that go above water-Baptisme they hardly come into us and therefore do not on this account leave but one that God will not own being within no Covenant of his and therefore no member of that society that appertaines to him to whom we say in case God will not who then must receive him If he be no member of this society nor in capacity of it then he is also in an uncapacity to be saved Act. 2.47 But they will not so determine they say but leave him to his own Master But denying him a Covenant interest and all title to Church-fellowship they deny that Christ is his Master though that expresly affirme it Levit. 25.42 yet they peremptorily deny it and so thrust him from all interest in his redemption Papists were the first in this cruel infant-damning principle That they are out of Covenant with God Anabaptists taking it from them fight for it with their weapons May we not think that Papists laugh in their sleeves to see these men of new light dispute for them reforme for them separate with them And do they not very well know that if by these mens help they can bring into the Protestant Church their premises we shall never be able to avoid their conclusions Others are not so rigid against all infants but appear more tender to some Infants of believers they judge to have their interest when parents make good their part in the Covenant and are steady in it then they judge the children to be in Covenant and this their charity as well as it can must determine These might do well
condescend to our weaknesse to answer what infirmity can expect or feeblenesse crave We might think that Gideon was exceeding bold with God to ask a double sign for the strengthening of his faith in the promise of God to save Israel by his hand yet we see God is pleased to gratify him Judg 6.39 40. yet God deales more abundantly with us not onely in a double but a multiplied confirmation to make good every truth which he hath been pleased to manifest And as he teacheth us by similitudes drawn from earthly things as we see in the Prophets and parables from our Saviours mouth so also to speak to our eyes in these signes and seales ratifying and confirming heavenly things unto us Those great mercies which no thought can reach are set out in so obvious a way that every eye doth behold and see That water which we employ for our common use and among other necessary services cleanses all filth that cleaves to us serves to set out that great mystery of the blood and Spirit of Christ taking away both guilt and filth of sin The bread which we have at our table the wine which we drink for our food and repast that sets out both the attonement and divine nourishment which our soules find in the flesh and blood of Christ crucified and dying for us There is abundant weaknesse and tottering in our faith that needs in this manner to be strengthened Abundance of sweet mercies in our God that will vouchsafe this to strengthen and support us Secondly If Christ thus condescends to our weaknesse Christs compassion towards us should move us to compassionate our selves in making provision of these helps let us learn to have compassion of our selves and not neglect or despise so great favours If Christ had judged us to have been of strength he had never tendred us this crutch and when he sees that we need it and therefore hath provided it let us see that we do not reject or despise it Is it not to imitate Ahaz in his obstinacy who when he could not believe the promise that God would deliver him and his people from the combined power of Israel and Syria that were then before Jerusalem and having a sign tendred him of God either in the depth beneath or the height above for his assurance in the thing he answers he will not desire a sign Isa 7.11 12. he will rather dwell in his unbelief and perish As that sign was to that promise so all Sacraments are to Gods great promise He that casts away Sacraments indulges unbelief and we may well fear that he shall dwell in it to destruction CHAP. XI SECT I. The whole of the work of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal THe next observation followes The whole office and use of Sacraments All that the Sacraments work on the soules of receivers is by way of sign and seal They have no immediate effects for the working of any inward graces or priviledges but as our understanding is exercised by them as Indicative signes and our faith as ratifications and seales of the promises The text that we have under our hand is abundantly full to his purpose Scarce any text holds out a truth I may say more clear and full then this text doth that which is here delivered if we take in the context with it The Context opened to which the copulative And leads The Apostle having in the former Chapter delivered the doctrine of justification by faith goes on here to make it good by the Example of Abraham and his argument rendred in syllogistical form appears to be this As Abraham the father of the faithful was justified so must all the faithful This is taken for granted as needing no proof But Abraham the father of the faithful was justified not by works but by faith The Assumption consists of two parts and the Apostle proves both 1. The negative that he was not justified by works this he proves by two arguments 1. If he were justified by works then he hath whereof to glory ver 2. But he hath not whereof to glory before God Ergo he was not justified by works 2. If he were justified by works the reward were reckoned not of grace but of debt ver 4. But the reward is not of debt but of grace Ergo. Which he further confirmes by the testimony of David describing the blessednesse of man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin ver 7 8. As David describes blessednesse that way man is blessed But David describes it to be by imputation of righteousnesse and not by works Ergo. The affirmative that Abraham was justified by faith he proves by a full testimony of Scripture Gen. 15.6 He believed in the Lord and he counted it to for him for righteousnesse Now it might be objected that this justification of Abraham and blessednesse that David speaks of was nothing to the Gentiles uncircumcised but to the Jewes in the state of Circumcision and so Circumcision may yet have an hand in justitification This the Apostle denies ver 10. and proves the contrary by the time of Abrahams justification which was in uncircumcision not in Circumcision If Abraham were justified in uncircumcision then Circumcision hath no hand in justification But Abraham was justified in uncircumcision Ergo But then the greatest question is to what end or purpose he was circumcised having already that righteousnesse which doth justify what needs more Circumcision then might have been let alone The Apostle answers that he was circumcised on a twofold account for a double reason The first is in reference to his own estate in faith which equally concerns all in his state of believing He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised The second in reference to the whole Church that he might be the Father of all that believe in Circumcision or in uncircumcision so that we have both the Apostles authority and his argumentative discourse for confirmation of our point That the work and efficacy of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal We shall find Peter giving his vote with Paul in this thing where he enters a dispute about Baptisme as Paul here doth about Circumcision as you may find 1 Pet. 3.20 21. having mentioned Gods long suffering towards disobedient ones in the daies of Noah while the Ark was a preparing he saies Few that is eight soules were saved by water That element which as an executioner of divine vengeance destroyed the world of the ungodly as an instrument in the hand of God preserved Noah and his family It destroyed the world by overwhelming of them as after it did Pharaoh and his host It saved Noah and his household by keeping the Ark above trees rocks mountaines buildings or whatsoever might have been
his businesse to take off Christians from their resort to the Idols temples to eat there of that which had been offered in sacrifice which they judged to be within the verge of their liberty An Idol being nothing in the world tells them that as joyning with Jewes in their sacrifice offered on the Altar did declare them to be one body with the Jewes and eating of the Sacramental bread did make them one body Christian so also going to the Heathens sacrifices did evidence them to be one body Heathen The Apostle as we see Rom. 1.5 thought no understanding man would question it we must therefore readily yeeld it which holds true of the Passeover seeing onely the circumcised who were in saith Jewes were to be admitted do it Exod. 12.48 And this I suppose is that which Reverend Gataker means opposing that tenent that the Sacraments conferre grace by the work done where there is no barre put and having quoted testimonies of Bishop Abbot Calvin and Whitaker sharpely enough declaring themselves against it adds That for the axiome it self I will not contend about it if that effect of the Sacraments be understood for which they were instituted of God and the Word be taken in a more large sense for all that whatsoever it be that may be any impediment that the Sacraments cannot have their effect Though perhaps in these words of his he had some other intentions It were an endlesse labour to lanch out into the controversie and to gather up the various opinions of those of a contrary judgment and their different thoughts to make good their tenents whether of those that deny Sacraments to be Seales as generally the Papists whom Anabaptists in this follow at the heels as in most other things both about the Covenant and Sacraments Or Lutherans who yeelding them to be seales as well as signes yet affirim that these are lesse principal offices and uses of Sacraments the chief end is to be instruments of conveyance of grace to the soul Or dissenting brethren among Protestants some of them falling in with Popish Schoolmen wholly closing with their tenent that Sacraments conferre grace where no bar is put to hinder their working or others that hold it with limit onely to Baptisme and that to elect children not daring to put reprobates into a state of regeneration or remission of sin nor yet to assert that the elect are alwayes thus regenerate in Baptisme But that it holds so in ordinary Or of some that I have met with in discourse that suppose that Baptisme hath his work in those elect infants where God foresees that death will prevent their regeneration by the Word or others that say that God works by Baptisme to regeneration and forgivenesse of sin but according to pleasure they dare not assign to whom Some of these I judge to be more evidently opposite to the Scripture then others yet I confesse I see not foundation in the Word for any of them These that are thus agreed that the Sacraments as instruments conferre grace without respect had to the receivers faith yet are at odds among themselves what manner of instruments they are He that pleases may read in Suarez disput 9. quaest 62. art 4. Sect. 2. six several opinions about it some will have them to be no efficient but material causes onely as a dish conveying a medicine is no cause of health but a material instrument onely of conveyance Others hold that they conferre grace per modum impetrationis because the Minister and the Church obtaines of God by prayer grace by them Others say that they are conditions without which God gives not grace Others yet say that the Sacraments are causes of grace because when they are applyed they move God to conferre it As we say they work by way of sign on our understanding so they say they work by way of sign with God moving him to remember his promise Others say they conferre grace because God in a more special manner appears in them as a principal agent or efficient which my Authour complaines is very obscure But he that will consult the Authour of this opinion which is Henricus à Gandavo Quod. quart quaest 37. may find much against any power in the Sacraments to conferre or to speak in his language to create grace in the soul creation being solely the prerogative of God and above the power of any creature to be assistent in it yet lest he should run upon an heresy against the determination of the Catholick Church in making them no more then signs and seals he is put upon it to come off thus blewly that Suarez with all his high wit cannot find out his meaning Suarez himself concludes that they are Physical instruments in the conveyance of grace and that they are causes of grace because by a true Physical action they concur to the sanctification of men Having with much adoe endeavoured to prove a possibility of their working of grace in a Physicall way he concludes that this is their way of working and that not barely in working some disposition towards grace not reaching grace it self nor yet in working an union only of grace with the soul But in the most proper and rigorous sense Sacraments Physically work grace the very Physicall action by which Grace is wrought and drawn out of the obediential power of the soul truly really and Physically depending on the Sacraments which he judges to be most agreeable to the dignity of the Sacraments the phrases of Scripture and Councels and Fathers about them But it might pitty the Reader to see how miserably he comes off with this assertion of his only telling us that the Scripture sayes we are cleansed sanctified or regenerate of water or the laver of regeneration and washing of water in the Word of life without the least light given us to let us understand that these phrases must be taken in his Physical sense meaning adding some sentences of Fathers who ordinarily give that in their writings to the sign which is proper to the thing signified finding yet opposite sentences in them that much troubles him in which in an orthodox way they explain themselves sufficiently against his position In case in this position of his of the Physicall working of Sacraments he had only understood that they work according to the nature of the office and place assigned unto them there might have been just cause to have subscribed to his judgment It is of the nature of a sign to hold forth to us the thing signified of a relative symbole to ingage to the filling up of such a relation It is of the nature of a seal to confirm every grant past in Covenant but to give a Physicall power to those elementary substances to create Grace in or confer grace upon the soul is a monstrous tenent A little Philosophy will accquaint us with the natural properties of water and as applyed in washing experience will soon discover it The
Psalmist also shewes the efficacy which nature gives to bread and wine Psal 104. But for either water bread or wine to pardon sin infuse habits or new qualities into the soule or add to the strength of those that are already wrought is an unheard of secret Others yet say that they are hyperphysical or supernatural instruments in the conveyance of grace which might easily enough be understood in case it could be believed A power they mean put into them or exercised by them above that which in their naturall workings they have any possible activity to reach as in the water of the Poole of Bethesda upon the moving of the Angell to heal him that first stept into it and in the water of Jordan to cleanse Naaman of his Leprosie by seven times dipping in it Had it had that naturall power of cure Abana and Pharpar rivers of Damascus would never have been esteemed equall with it But that these elements should be standing instruments of the work of miracles of this nature we had need of full and clear texts of Scripture to make good to us I shall assoon believe a transubstantiation in the bread from hoc est corpus meum as such a transmutation or renovation of the soul or any such priviledges of glory as Scripture makes the peculiar inheritance of those in whom this change is wrought upon the bare application of these Elements Most say they are morall instruments in what they do but then there is so much work to understand what a morall instrument means that I dare neither without further expression of my self affirm or deny it Some make them such instruments by which God works according to pleasure sometimes working that which they signifie and sometimes working not at all by them as sometimes he works by the Word but sometimes it remains a dead letter Others make it an instrument of conveyance as a staffe of an Abbotship a pall df a Bishoprick a Book of a Canons place and this doubtlesse is according to the meaning of Scriptures as men vouchsafing gifts appoint at pleasure Ceremonies and Solemnities evidencing such donations so God hath appointed these elements as signs of that nature Having a precedent right the initiating Sacrament is a means of solemn inauguration and the following Sacrament an evidence of continued possession Baptisme takes into the body 1 Cor. 12.13 and Bread and Wine evidence that we are of the body 1 Cor. 10.17 And as a twig and turfe vests a man in his purchase of lands a rod vests a customary tenant in his Coppy-hold a Crown vests a King in his Kingdom so these elements having this office assigned them of God vest a man in Covenant in visible Church-membership and give him actual interest in all visible Church-priviledges But yet this difference The Staffe the Pall the Book the Twig and Turfe the Rod the Crown lead no further then to that which they immediately conferre which is the present dignities and possessing whereof they are solemnities and these dignities are also terminated in themselves and lead men into no expectation of any higher honour But Sacraments vesting us in Church-priviledges and these priviledges leading us to higher and greater things as they vest us in present in these so by way of sign and seal they lead and raise us unto all that Church-priviledges serve and are appointed to advance us unto So that God works as a Moral agent in appointing according to pleasure these elements as solemnities of his grant and they work according to the nature of the office assigned them that is by way of sign and seal for the help of our understandings the refreshing of our memories and strength of our faith in promises of greater things SECT II. Propositions tending to clear the doctrine IN order to the discovery of some further light concerning the operation of Sacraments and for detection of erroneous opinions about them I shall lay down several Positions Explicatory Propositions 1. Mans first original is in sin First This must be held as an uncontroverted truth between parties in this dispute that Mans first original is in sin his first estate not by Creation but by birth not as he came out of the hands of God but as he comes into the world is in full opposition against heaven The imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth Gen. 8.21 The word as Ainsworth and Rivet on the place with Mr. Hildersam on Psal 51.5 observe signifies infancy the same title which is given to Moses when he was new-born Exod. 2.6 Compare with this Psal 58.3 The wicked are estranged from the womb they go astray as soon as they be born speaking lyes The sin of all begins then the sin of bad men still remains no change is wrought in them nor amendment seen but a progresse in evil Psal 51.5 Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me The cavils of old Anabaptists to take off the force of this text are vain That by iniquity here is not meant sin but sorrow which for sin came upon women in child-bearing and that by sin in the later part of the verse is meant the height of lust in Davids parents Let any man look into the context and see whether it will bear any such glosse David is there upon a serious humiliation of his soul for sin and aggravating it in the circumstances of it and how his mothers sharpe throwes in travel or either of his parents height of lust can add any thing at all to aggravate his guilt or increase his sorrow none can understand he presently prayes that this may be cleansed and taken away which can be understood of neither of those particulars which are in the objection This pollution by birth sin abundantly appears in reason Arguments evincing it 1. By the necessity of regeneration or new-birth in all those that enter into the Kingdom of heaven As the Apostle saith of Covenants If the first had been faultlesse there had been no need of a second Heb. 8.7 so we may say of births there is a necessity of a second therefore there was a fault in the first take away this birth-sin or original pollution and then you destroy regeneration If all be as it should be in our former birth then there needs not any other 2. By the Lord Christs Incarnation in order to the work of Redemption taking mans nature he began as man begins in sin even with infancy he dyed in our nature for all of all sorts conditions and ages infants partake of the fruit of his death and were upon that account admitted as his by Circumcision and are in Baptisme and are therefore under the defilement of sin 3. By the stroke or judgement unto which infants are subject being lyable to sicknesse taken away by death subject to miseries of all kinds sin goes before as the cause where these follow as effects Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entered into the
afterwards perish through unbelief and impenitence Therefore faith charity and other Spiritual qualities wrought by the Spirit in the regenerate are sometimes lost And having delivered himself thus in the negative that Baptisme works not these graces or habits in infants His first proposition in the affirmative tending to shew what Baptisme does work is w Omnes infantes baptizati ab Originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur That all baptized infants are acquitted from the guilt of original sin for which opinion many Fathers and Schoolmen are quoted by him as they were for the former So that I think the first part of my position is fully made good that the most eminent that ever have appeared for this power of Sacraments to conferre grace on the receivers either utterly deny or else doubtfully hold that Baptisme works any real change in infants but onely that which is relative and that it conferres not habits but onely priviledges on Infants baptized For the other part of the position that the Scriptures which these bring for proof of this power of Baptisme almost all speak of such a change that is real not relative of habits and not of priviledges The proof is easy What those Scriptures are which by them are produced in this Controversy may be seen in the former position and that almost all of them speak of a real change not barely that which is relative is evident The alone Old Testament text that I can find is Deut. 30.6 with Jer. 9.25 where circumcision of the heart is mentioned which texts as they can hardly be interpreted to speak at all of the Sacrament of Circumcision in the outward rite so it is certain that a real change is spoken to by Moses in Deuteronomy and by the Prophet also complained of to be wanting Reverend Dr. Ward yields that Spiritual Circumcision of the heart is there meant but he saith that by this Spiritual Circumcision the remission of original guilt is understood To which x Cordis circumcisione peccatorum remissionem denotari ut credam nihil adhuc quod suadeat video quod cogat multo minus Certe si quis verba illa Deut. 10.16 Circumcidite ergo praeputium cordis vestri aut illâ—d etiam Jer. 44. Circumcidimini sive circumcidite vos Jehovae exposuerit Remittite vobis peccata vestra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Gataker replies that he sees nothing that can perswade much lesse force him to believe any such thing Adding that If any should expound Deut. 10.16 Circumcise the forskin of your heart or Jer. 44. Circumcise your selves to the Lord to be as much as forgive your own sins it would be thought strange Disceptatio pag. 147. yea he makes the contrary plainly to appear As for those texts Titus 3.5 1 Corinthians 6.11 Ephesians 5.25 26. they speak all to the same thing In every one of them a real habitual change is mentioned Acts 2.38 Remission of sinnes is indeed mentioned and very probably Acts. 22.16 But in what sense to be understood I have shewed in the last place so that I think there is so much yielded and so little proved by the eminent advocates in this cause that according to Scripture there is any such causality in Baptisme for the pardon of sinne in every Infant that is presented to that ordinance and received that even upon this account it is justly to be susspected Besides that the blood of Christ and his Spirit are not onely distinguished by them but divided The vertue of his blood is ascribed to those that have no portion in his Spirit as though that Christ came both by water and blood unto some and by blood onely unto others SECT III. Objections against the former doctrine Obj. 1 HEre it is objected Where the blood of Christ on Gods part is offered and applyed for pardon of the guilt of sin and no impediment put on his part that receives it there the guilt of sin is remitted But in the Baptism of Infants the blood of Christ on Gods part is offered and applyed and no impediment put by him that receives it Ergo in the Baptisme of Infants the guilt of sin is remitted Answ 1 Answ 1. This Argument will hold with equal strength for proof of that which these deny as for that which they would assert Where the Spirit of Christ is offered on Gods part and applyed for regeneration and true sanctification and no impediment put by him that doth receive it there regeneration sanctification and all other gracious habits are wrought But in the Baptisme of Infants the Spirit of Christ is thus offered and applyed and no impediment is put Ergo. The Major in this syllogisme can be no more denyed then in the former The Spirit of Christ is as efficacious for regeneration as his blood for pardon It were over-much boldnesse to put any difference between them And for the Assumption none can deny but the Spirit is as well applyed in Baptisme as blood either then both must hold or both must be denyed 2. I utterly deny that the blood and Spirit of Christ that either Answ 2 blood or Spirit are thus applyed in Baptisme In case of such application they would produce their effects above and against all resistance there is no vain application of either of these to any person If the Spirit of Christ had been in Baptisme applyed to Simon Magus it would so have seazed upon him and wrought in him that Peter would not have addressed himself to him in that language which he heard from him and so I may say of the blood of Christ such an application of it to his soul would have had that effect that Peter would have said to him in the words of the Seraphim to Isaiah when he had applyed the coal from the Altar to his mouth Thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged and not as he did that thou art in the gall of bitternesse and the bond of iniquity The blood of Christ upon the soul of an Infant or man of years must needs be as efficacious as a coal from the Altar on Isaiah's lips Universal redemption we know is asserted by these Authors though it be with such limits as not to close with Arminians but to remain their opposite If now there be not onely impetration of the merit of Christ but also application in that latitude as Baptisme is administred I know nothing that can stand in the way of salvation of all those that are baptized He that would see the consent of modern Writers of the most eminent note in the denyal of this proposition let him consult learned Mr. Gataker Discep pap 6 c. whereby his industrious pains after his manner many are multiplied Danaeus leads the way He is deceived saith he that thinks that Christ and his benefits are applyed by the sign of water which is onely the seal of such application 3. According to these principles laid by these
These Sacraments theirs and ours are not in that manner Rule 1 one but that there are many circumstantial differences between them 1. They differ in their outward signes appearing to us in several shapes That which was seen in Circumcision differed much from water in Baptisme and a Lamb whether of the herd or flock differs much from bread and wine 2. Ours are of greater ease then theirs There was pain and smart in Circumcision which the new Circumcised Shechemites felt to their cost Gen. 34.25 which happily might occasion the neglect of circumcision of Moses his sonne through the Mothers tendernesse as may be gathered from her words Exod. 4.25 Neither was the Passeover without cost and pains especially to them that lived at a great distance from Jerusalem 3. There is farre more light accompanying our Sacraments then theirs not in themselves for as much might be gathered if not more for significancy from their outward signs then from ours but by reason of the clear discovery of the promises and open full manifestation of their use 4. Ours were without blood theirs were accompanied with blood one of the person receiving the other in the sign received 5. Old Testament-Sacraments had their period and others follow in their place Ours must not cease until all time ceaseth Baptisme must hold to the end of the world Matth. 28.20 And the Lords Supper until Christ come 1 Cor. 11.26 But none of these make any substantial difference nor any more then that which is circumstantial or gradual The outward dresse in which they differently appear can make no difference in substance A seal is one and the same whether the wax be red green or yellow yea whether the impression be in wax or dough whether the signet have the Letters of a mans name or the Arms that he gives Men look at the grant to which the seal is put and not at these circumstances Neither matters it whether they be done with trouble or ease and where their worth is not known they are not therefore in themselves of lesse value And though they do not endure alwaies their efficacy is yet no lesse whilest they last If we eye circumstances of this nature ours may be advanced But if we eye the substantial work theirs will be equal Hereupon so different speeches are quoted from Austins pen Some highly advancing our Sacraments above theirs and others parallelling theirs with ours which with this distinction may be fairly reconciled and as we have heard the author himself thus reconciles them Secondly Those undervaluing phrases of Old Testament-Sacraments Rule 2 which are sometimes found in the Prophets and Apostles and brought by adversaries to put them at a great distance behind ours are either spoken as they were abused and misobserved by Jews in unbelief and impenitence and not according to their institution or lawful use in which case we might say the same of Baptisme or the Lords Supper Or else we must understand them as having an end by Christs coming in the flesh put to them and so in their use dead if not deadly to the observers Rule 3 Thirdly Though Bellarmine makes it one of the particulars wherein we and they agree that the Sacraments of the Jewes are types of ours in the daies of the Gospel Yet in case the word type be taken in that sense as it is ordinarily used we utterly disclaim it There are indeed very many and different acceptations of this word as may appear to any that will consult John 21.25 Act. 23.25 Act. 7.43 Rom. 6.17 Rom. 5.14 with Heb. 9.24 Phil. 3.17 Act. 7.44 1 Cor. 10.6 1 Pet. 3.21 And as it is used in that one place in Peter where Baptisme is said to be the antitype to the Ark which according to Interpreters implyes onely a similitude or correspondence we may well grant that their Sacraments were types that is theirs and ours carry a full resemblance but taking the word as it is ordinarily used for that which shadowes out somewhat that is to come by Divine institution whether person or thing as Adam Rom. 5.14 is said to be a type or figure of him that was to come and the holy places made with hands are types and figures of the true which doubtlesse our adversaries intend so it is to be denied and Protestant Writers unanimously deny them to be any such types wholly disclaiming that doctrine that the Sacraments of the Jews did onely shadow out grace and ours do conferre it And therefore when the contents affixed to the respective Chapters in our last translation seem otherwise singularly exact so that that great Critick Ainsworth who cannot be suspected to do it out of any humor of imitation in his translation of the Pentateuch and the Psalms very rarely differs from them it is wonder how that slip came into the contents affixed to 1 Cor. 10. thus exprest 1. The Sacraments of the Jewes 6. are types of ours 7. and their punishments 11. ensamples for us when it should rather have been 1. The Sacraments of the Jewes are the same with ours 5. their punishments are ensamples for us The four first verses making the Sacraments there mentioned to be of the same use with ours and the seven following verses to v. 12. shew that their sufferings for sin are our examples for admonition that we run not upon like practices See Ravanellus in verbum Typus Whitaker praelect de Sacram. quaest 5. cap. 1. pag. 109. Pareus in 1 Cor. 10.6 SECT V A third Corollary from the doctrine THen it followes by way of necessary Corollary that Christians should see All must see that they be rightly principled in the doctrine of this righteousnesse that they be rightly principled in this doctrine of the righteousnesse of faith as that in which the great mercy of the new Covenant and all that the Sacraments seal is comprized Ignorance of this being the undoing of the zealous Jew A mistake or flaw here must needs be of singular danger And here those of the Church of Rome may be supposed to be most of all secure seeing there is no imaginable righteousnesse but they hedge it in as may appear in a brief view of their doctrine That righteousnesse which must save either must be wrought by our selves and so stiled our righteousnesse or else it must be wrought by an other and made ours There is no righteousnesse of a third sort That which is wrought by our selves is either according to the command of God prescribed in the law or else over above and besides the Law assumed by our selves or received by tradition As Pharisees had an high zeal for both of these whereof Paul in his unconversion is an instance Phil. 3.6 Gal. 1.14 So it is at least pretended by these persons though their zeal for their righteousnesse of the law falls farre short of that for the tradition of the Church And for righteousnesse besides their own wrought by others they take in not onely the righteousnesse