never speak of the terms or means to attain it are no other then deceivers To speak largely of the Fathers bowels to receive and not a word of the Prodigals duty to come in or the multitude of sins that were forgiven that sinner in the City supposed to be Mary Magdalen and conceal her tears of repentance to be large in one and silent in the other is the way to heal with slight words Whereas as Mr. Baxter sayes The ungodly that I deal with are so confident that their sin is forgiven and God will not damn them for it that all that I can say is too little to shake their confidence which is the nurse of their sin When he makes this his businesse he does the work of the Prophets of John Baptist and of Christ Jesus and I wish that all the labourers in the Lords work may joyn with him in that way and that the Lord may give successe Yet I still believe that all this is to be done in order to a well setled and firmly grounded confidence when he tells those that come to Christ and hear his words and do them not clayming salvation by him and not obeying him that they build their hopes on a sandy foundation and foolishly deceive themselves I believe that he tells those that hear and accordingly yeeld obedience that their hopes of salvation have a firm bottom as a house built upon a rock But I know not why all of this should here in this place be brought in in the close of all that hath past as he sayes concerning himself unlesse it be to bear men in hand that my doctrine of conditional sealing in the Sacraments which he yet confesses differs little from his own may be charged with this danger when I suppose it is the alone way of prevention of it If I should make the words of the institution an absolute tender and the seal wholly unconditional I know not how to avoid it and I may very well fear that he cannot be without some such meaning First In that he puts into his Index as we have heard The danger of teaching men that they are bound to believe that they are justified and shall be saved amidst those things in which none but I are concerned and Secondly Where he first begins with me he utters like language pag. 3. I doubt not sayes he but the difference between you and me is onely about the methodizing of our notions and not de substantia rei and yet presently adds but I doubt lest your doctrine being received by common heads according to the true importancy of the expression may do more against their salvation then is well thgouht on and that not by accidence but from its own nature supposing the impression of the soul to be but answerable to the objective doctrinal seal How unhappy am I in methodizing of wholesome truths which are the same in substance with a mans of such eminence If that alone should have such a sad influence upon mens understanding though age growes upon me and many other weaknesses yet were I sensible of the truth of this charge I would travel on foot to the remotest ground in England to learn from any hand a more happy way and I have therefore been more large that the Reader may see the whole of my thoughts in this where I may seem to be under so heavy a censure that he may help me in prayer that in all that I do I may edifie and not destroy SECT II. Corollaries from the former doctrine LEt us here see the goodnesse of God the singular tender care of Christ thus to condescend to our weaknesse Christs tender care evidenced in his condescension to our weaknesse as to vouchsafe these visible sensible pledges and confirmations of our faith in the promises All that can be thought upon to ratifie and make good whatsoever from any hand we have in expectation Christ hath been pleased in his condescension to vouchsafe unto us In such a case we desire 1. A promise that he from whom we expect it would engage himself by his word for it This Christ hath done in the Gospel-promises we have his promise frequently repeated still inculcated Gen. 32.12 And thou saidst I will surely do thee good and make thy seed as the sand of the Sea which cannot be numbred for multitude 1 Tim. 4.8 Godlinesse is profitable unto all things having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come Joh. 11.25 I am the resurrection and the life he that believeth in me though he were dead yet he shall live 2. When we have a word we yet desire an oath that the person by that sacred tye may be obliged not to recede or go back from that which he hath spoke This God hath vouchsafed when God made promise to Abraham because he could swear by no greater he sware by himself that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lye we might have a strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us 3. When we have both word and oath yet we desire his hand that it may be subscribed that we may have somewhat to produce and shew for that which we expect This God hath vouchsafed Joh. 20.31 These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Sonne of God and that believing ye might have life through his Name Rom. 15.4 Whatsoever things were written afore-time were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope 4. Yet we desire earnest a pledge in hand to make good what is in Covenant and promise past and by oath under hand confirmed This God is pleased to vouchsafe Ephes 1.13 In whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance untill the redemption of the purchased possession 2 Cor. 1.21 22. Now he which establisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us is God who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts 5. We yet desire a seal As Jeremy had the evidences of his purchase Jer. 32.10 This God hath also vouchsafed and this is of two sorts 1. Inward by his own immediate hand the stamp of his Spirit the impresse of his grace This is the character or mark that we are his these God sets apart for himself Ephes 1.13 Ephes 4.30 1 Cor. 2.21 22. 2. Outward put into the hands of his Ministers and these are Sacraments these outward visible assurances The former needs no conditions but it self all sanctified are saved and sanctification is the seal there are all Gospel-conditions The latter requires all the gracious qualifications of a people in Covenants All that are thus qualified according to the Gospel have here full confirmation and assurance of interest in all promises so willing is God every way to
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
the syllables themselves uttered with all the consecrating intention that the Priest can imagine to create a new Sacrament Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacram. in genere cap. 21. hath a proposition to the contrary k Non solum ses sed etiam verba in Sacramentis novae legis is à Deo determinata sunt ut non liceat quickquam immutate Not only the things themselves saith he in the Sacraments under the New Covenant of which he saith there is little difference between them and us but the words are so determinate that they may not anything be changed yet when he hath done he is put to it to limit his own proposition and shewes there may be a variation six wayes in some of which the essence of a Sacrament is lost the substantiall forme being taken away in others the accidental forme onely so that the essence continues notwithstanding such variation so that he doth not onely approve of the determination of Pope Zachary who in an Epistle to Bonifacius resolves that when some out of ignorance of the Latine tongue did baptize in nomine Patria filia speritua sancta that the substantial forme was not altered But also acknowledges that the Baptisme of the Greeks was valid and the substance not changed when they baptized in this way Let the servant of Christ be baptized in the Name c. yet allowing of it onely upon that account because the Church of Rome did tolerate it so that their toleration or prohibition can give or take away the very substantial forme of Sacraments Arguments evincing the truth of the proposition the essence of them is at their courtesie The truth of this proposition is clear 1. No prescribed forme of words is laid down in the Old Testament as is confest and therefore Bellarmine puts it into his proposition That in the Sacraments of the New Law the words are so determinate that nothing is to be changed And that the Apostles did use any such prescript forme in so precise a way cannot be proved yea the contrary is more then probable considering the multitudes in so short a space baptized Act. 2. Act. 8. Peter exhorts his converts to be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Act. 2.38 And those mentioned Act. 19.5 were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus And Bonaventure as he is quoted by Whitaker sayes that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ And Scotus as the same Author affirms sayes that if any should baptize in that manner he durst not say it were no Baptisme and this with good reason seeing Baptisme in the Name of Christ virtually comprizes the whole Trinity Father Son and holy Ghost His work being to reconcile man unto God essentially and not personally considered 2. Either the very syllables themselves in which the institution is set down is the forme and contains the essence of Baptisme or else the sense and meaning But it is not the very words and syllables themselves This is clear in reason and confest by the adversary First it is clear in reason then the same words and syllables must be used in which they were pronounced when they were first instituted That was the Syriack Tongue as is believed being the language in Judea at that time or at least the Greek in which Tongue the words of the institution were committed to writing But the forme of the Sacraments is never tyed to those Tongues to neither of them Papists officiate in Latine Orthodox Churches in their own language in which the same thing in other syllables is held forth This is confest by the adversary Bellarmine approves as we have heard the ratification of that Baptisme where scarce ever a word was aright uttered and that upon this account that it might be easily understood what he would have said as well by the act of baptizing as by the word In nomine In the name for that was aright pronounced It is not then the words but that which ought to be intended in the words that holds forth the institution which may be further from the Jesuite cleared in that he confesses Scripture to be too short to hold out the forme of Baptisme-institution which l Nos respondemus illud hoc facite referre ad totam actionem Christi ita ut comprehendat etiam verba Id quod ut omittam nunc alia argumenta discimus ex traditione usu Catholicae Ecclesiae quae traditio si non recipiatur in dubium revocabitur etià m forma baptismi nam unde quaeso colligitur dum aqua aspergitur dicenda esse illa verba Baptizo te in nomine Patris filii Spiritus sancti Certe non aliunde quam ex illis verbis Matth. ult Docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus sancti At ex hoc loco id non potest certe colligi nisi recipiatur Ecclesiae traditio Non enim Dominus ait dicite Baptizo te in nomine Patris c. Satis igitur erit si aspergentes aquam dicanus innomine Patris Filii c. can be gathered from no place he saith but that of Matth. 28.19 Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost But there it is not said I baptize as he observes nor doth Christ command to say in the Name of the Father of the Son and holy Ghost but to baptize in the Name of the Father c. If it be done in that Name by that authority it were saith he sufficient had we not tradition to the contrary De Sacramentis in Genere cap. 19. All which makes it appear that an institution is necessary and not a certain number of words of absolute necessity Fifthly A Sermon formally so called A Sermon formally so called is not essential to a Sacâ—ament to be preacht at the same time as the Sacrament is administred is no way of the essence of Sacraments This Chamier worthily rejects as a calumny put upon protestant Writers No protestant Writer ever did affirm it Bellarmine would fain fasten it upon Calvin and Beza but confesses that Calvin speaks doubtfully in it And sometimes seemes to speak of a Sermon as distinct from the Sacrament They that hold this opinion must not onely conclude it to be the greatest of prophanations to administer the elements when no Sermon is preached But whensoever they administer any Sacrament their Sermon must ever be of that subject for to make a Sermon essential to Sacraments which treats nothing about Sacraments is to make the body of a bird essential to a beast That which we say is that every word in the institutions of Sacraments is for instruction of communicants and without such instruction they can make no actuall improvement of them to any spiritual benefit either of justification or sanctification which yet is not of absolute necessity to be prest as oft as ever
the Sacrament is taken And words about the Sacrament teaching and consecrating are not as they make them of an opposite kind All words tending to consecration as I baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. This is my body This Cup c. are words as well to instruct as to consecrate are Concionatoria as well as Consecratoria so that all words of consecration are words for instruction though all for instruction are not for consecration as might many wayes be evidenced 1. They are significant words to be uttered by the voyce of a publick teacher 2. They are Scripture words and whatsoever is there writen is for our learning Rom. 15.4 why is it wrote if not for reading Why do we read if not for learning 3. The Apostles to whom Christ gave charge concerning the Sacrament were to understand themselves what they did and to instruct those to whom they did commend it likewise But they had no other way to know the Sacraments either of Baptisme or the Lords Supper but from the words of institution which they call by the name of consecration 4. The Apostle going about to reforme the abuses about the Lords Supper and to teach the Corinthians a right way of celebration repeates the whole institution and layes down exactly that which they say is of the essence of consecration and that to instruct not to consecrate The words of consecration are his words of instruction 5. To this we may add that of Austin not barely his Authority but the strength of his reason Tract 80. in Jo. Commenting upon his own words The word is added to the element and it is made a Sacrawent m Unde ista tanta virtus aquae ut corpus tangat cor abluat nisi faciente verbo non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Nam in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens aliud virtus manens Hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicumus ait Apostolus Whence is there that power saith he that water should touch the body and the heart should be made clean but the word working it not upon that account because it is spoken but because it is believed For in the word it self the sound that passes is one thing and the efficacy that remaines is another and this saith he is the word that is Preached There is none can deny but that the words of the Sacrament are to be believed and in case they are to be believed they are to be preached and heard for who can believe on him of whom they have not heard and how can they heare without a Teacher Rom. 10.15 This place of Austin n Locus hic mire torquere solet non nullos Bellarmine saith hath troubled many and Whitaker saith they have as much troubled him as any other He rejects Calvins Interpretation of it and then rejects several Interpretations of his own party and at last produces his own which Whitaker sayes is wholly borrowed out of Allen o Dico igitur Augustinum hoc loco non semper loqui de eodem verbo sed nunc de Sacramentali nunc de concionali that Austin sometimes speaks of the Sacramental word and sometimes of the Word as Preacht which two with him are altogether different and yet Austin must by all means be acquit from Equivocation we willingly yeeld that he doth not equivocate and therefore the Sacramental word is a branch of that word that is Preached He that pleases may read Suarez and Bellarmines arguments answered by Chamier lib. 1. de Sacra in genere cap. 17 18. CHAP. VI. SECT I. God is the Author of all Sacraments and Sacramental rites THese Sacramental signes have God for their Author as it followes in the definition and is implyed as we have heard in the text of the Apostle Abraham receiving it God appointed it Gen. 17.10 So that the Observation is God is the Author of all Sacraments and Sacramentall rites This is clear of it self and hath scarce any adversary Look through all Sacraments whether ordinary or extraordinary whether taken in the largest signification for holy signes or in the strictest sense as here defined we shall still find that they were by Divine appointment The Cloud the Passage through the Red-Sea Exod. 13. Manna Exod. 16. The Rock Exod. 17. The Rainbowe Genes 9. Gideons fleece Judg. 6. The shadow on Ahaz his dyal Isa 38. Circumcision Gen. 17. The Passeover Exod. 12. Levit. 12. Baptisme Matth. 28. The Lords Supper Matth. 26.1 Cor. 11. All of them are of Divine institution And though Popish Writers are much put to it to find any Divine institution for some of their Sacraments as may God willing be shewen yet with a joynt consent they acknowledge this that we say and give their reasons of it Thomas Aquinas puts the question part 3. quaest 64. art 2. Whether Sacraments be alone of Divine institution and determines it in the affirmative Bellarmine spends the whole 23. Cap. of his first book de Sacra in genere to assert that onely Christ is the author of the Sacraments And Suarez Quaest 64. disput 12. Sect. 1. laies down this conclusion a Christus Dominus immediate ac per se institut omnia Sacramenta novae legis Dico se cundo Sacramenta veteris legis omnia fuere ab ipso Deo immediate instâ—tuta that the Lord Christ immediately and by himself did institute all the Sacraments of the New Covenant And addes a second conclusion that all the Sacraments of the old law were immediately instituted of God himself either of them both quote Canon 1. sess 7. of the Councel of Trent that thus determines b Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia a Jesu Christo Demino nostro institua Anthema sit If any shall say that the Sacraments of the New Covenant were not in stituted by Christ let him be accursed which Canon they both understand to thunder out an ana thema against Protestants seeing we hold that their extreme unction and confirmation were never instituted of Christ to which thiey may adde matrimony for though the God of nature did ordain it yet not Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant which they affirme to be Sacraments and I think they did not mistake the meaning of the Councell seeing the Canon laies a curse not onely on thole that shall deny that Christ was the author of all the Sacraments but also on those that shall say there were more or lesse then seven reckoning up their seven in order But we may retort this curse upon them as well as they fling it at us Baptismus Johannis ab ipso Johanne institutus erat Baptisme of John of Divine institution seeing they deny the Baptisme of John to be of Divine institution and make it meerly humane as Bellar. lib. 1. de Baptis Cap. 20. which yet we know to be a Sacrament and able sufficiently to cleare it
black to their eye whatsoever John knew in case they had been called in and heard some could have said somewhat against these Publicanes and harlots and yet even these were admitted As to that which followes Then Sir though you know the same abominations afterwards and your members testifie it witnesses come in you must not cast him out unlesse he will professe it Though he is pleased to say that this argument will cost me more then two lines before it be answered yet a few words will shew that it is a meer non sequitur If a man make it his request upon the fame that he hath heard and the good that he hath seen in Mr. Firmins Family to be admitted to serve him in it confessing his wayes to have been bad but now professes that he is resolved upon a new way and in order to it desires to be received into such a Society where godlinesse may be learnt may not he now admit him and may he not afterwards upon breach of this engagement dismisse him I will averre my similitude to be fit yet I confesse it is not full for when Mr. Firmin hath dismissed this servant and put him out of doores he hath now no more relation to him But when a man upon profession to be for God is once in Covenant though his wickednesse deserves that the priviledges of the family should be denyed yet he is still in Covenant though under breach of Covenant and stands related to the Church of God in title otherwise upon his repentance he must have a new admission by Baptisme The Church I say may receive a man upon engagement of amendment which must be done in baptisme to be baptized and upon his return to wickednesse Excommunicate him His profession gives him right to Baptisme and his sin deserves excommunication He tells us Though we read not that Philip required repentance yet others did But did they so require it as in reality to precede baptisme Or were they satisfied with a profession of it If they so required it as in reality to precede they then must give a day over to give evidence of it and whether this was the manner in Johns baptisme in Philips or the Apostles let adversaries be Judges I cannot tell what should move Mr. F. when he had given me thanks pag. 54. for my courteous handling of him without scorn to adde in the next page Sir I thought Christianity had taken in the heart and outward conversation as well as the head a real Christian is one united to Christ sound in the doctrine concerning Christ and walking as Christ did we suppose an old Adam Let him who is a nominal Christian appear like one though he be not real And I do think that it is little below a scorn to bear the world in hand that I think otherwise what have I said for him to Sir me in this particular perhaps because I somewhere speak of a profession of faith not mentioning repentance so he may challenge Philip to be defective who when the Eunuch demanded What doth hinder me to be baptized answered If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest Act. 8.37 And Paul and Silas likewise who when the Jaylour ask'd What shall I do to be saved answered as we know Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thine houshold Nay will not the same charge fall upon the head of our Saviour himself who in his Commission to the Apostles saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved None of these mention repentance what can be said for them will excuse me I am so far from being against repentance in a Christian that I expect some will think that I have said too much for the necessity of it and put too high an honour upon it He proceeds farther and saith Let us view the Scripture in administration of Baptisme Mar. 4. Baptisme of Repentance that is more then Faith More explicitely but no more implicitely Faith takes Christ to give repentance as well as a Saviour to give remission of sins They confessed their sins saith he 1. Some will have it to imply no verbal confession but virtual coming for baptisme for remission of sins it was an acknowledgment that they were guilty which glosse carries strong probability with it in regard of the multitude that in so short a space were baptized 2. I require more an engagement to leave sin which their taking upon them the Name of Christ doth imply 2 Tim. 2.19 Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity He goes on Acts 2.37 38. First Jewes so had knowledge not so ignorant as ours I believe The Reader may believe the contrary till he see some proof Secondly having a legal work by the power of the Word They that had crucified Christ as a blasphemer deceiver must needs have some work upon them before they would take him professedly for a Saviour Thirdly Receiving the Word That implies no more then giving credit to what the Apostle spake that Jesus whom they had crucified was Lord and Christ Fourthly Repenting they are baptized this is more still And more then is exprest in the Text. Baptisme in his Name doth indeed imply that now they repented that they had crucified him otherwise we read not of their repentance Acts 8. saith he though there is not mention made of the Samaritans repentance who were apostatized from the Jewes but laid claim to the Patriarchs Joh. 4.20 expected Christ verse 25. worshipped God Ezra 4.2 yet that Philip should know them to be so abominable in conversation and yet baptize them that is to be proved since that others required repentance He may adde to these Elogies of the Samaritanes that they worshipped they knew not what Joh 4.22 and that they bore that good will to the people of the Jewes that when they perceived Christ with his Disciples to be for Hierusalem at the time of the Passeover they would not let them have meat for money Luk. 9.51 52. And I confesse as much of repentance in them as was required in any to the acceptation of Baptisme namely a renuntiation of their false way and a professed acceptation of the tender of the Gospel There yet followes If this be not a giving of holy things to dogs which Tertullian and Austin give warning of even in baptizing I know not what is Let a man be a notorious Ranter Sodomite Scoffer at godlinesse drunkard no matter what this is known and proved yet a Christian nomine tenus therefore you must baptize him Where I pray do I speak of baptizing any that is nomine tenus a Christian My opinion is that such that have the name Christian are baptized already I hope such contradictions seldom come from my pen. That these are no words of mine my adversary will acknowledge and that any such consequence can be gathered from any thing that I have said that I must baptize persons of this quality already
their wicked life render the efficacy of their baptisme to themselves as null and vain To those we oppose saith he the judgement of the professors of Leyden in their Synopsis of Divinity dis 44. thes 50. If the Reader please to consult this quotation from these Authors he shall see it very full to the purpose as also Walaeus in the place before mentioned So that Mr. Baxter may see that he hath not onely me to oppose together with the ashes of Dr. Ward whose memory yet is to be had in reverence but ancient Writers within these 1300. years together with the concurrent voice of Divines in the generality of them in these 150 years last past which in other Points he confesseth are his adversaries on whose side the truth is whether on his few or the Churches many is further to be enquired A Vindication of several Arguments in the Treatise of the Covenant Chap. 32. of my Treatise of the Covenant I bring severall Arguments to evince this Proposition that A Faith which is short of Justifying and saving admits to Baptisme The first of which refers to that which I had before spoken at large concerning the latitude of the Covenant expressing my self in this manner Argument vindicated 1 All that hath been said for the latitude of the Covenant may fitly be applyed for the like latitude of Baptisme To this Mr. Baxter replies Therefore did I say the more of the Covenant before Covenant and Seal commensurate to shew your confusion and mistake in that It is not every Covenant or Promise that Baptisme is the seal of I desire no more of the judicious Reader but to reflect upon that which I have spoke Chap. 27 28. of that Treatise together with that which he hath been pleased to speak so largely against me His distinctions of Covenants and Promises The severall wayes that according to him men may be in Covenant How unregenerate men may be in Covenant and how not together with his multitude of Positions most of which look not at all towards the businesse and then consider whether he or I stand more guilty of mistake or confusion and whether he hath brought any thing home after so tedious a discourse for satisfaction or to give any colour to it that unregenerate men are not so in Covenant as thereby to have interest in Baptisme which must be done if he speak any thing in opposition to me My businesse being to prove that they are so in Covenant that they have upon Covenant-right title to the seal and if the Reader can find any thing tending that way let Mr. Baxter consider whether it be not in full opposition to himself who reckoning up Mr. Tombs his errors makes this the fifth in order that he holdeth That the Covenant whereof Baptisme is the Seal Mr. Baxters Concessions of the latitude of the Covenant is the absolute Covenant of Grace made onely to the Elect. Did not Mr. Baxter then believe that those that are non-Elect were comprized in it The conclusion of his large discourse is laid down by himself pag. 63. in these words Though wicked men have many Promises from God especially the great conditional Promise of life if they will repent and believe and though they are also by their imperfect equivocal covenanting with God yet God remaineth still unoblig'd to them But how this stands with that which he hath in dispute in the place before mentioned let him also take into further consideration where he chargeth this as his adversaries fourth error That every right administration of Baptisme is not Gods sealing Actually God sealeth not but when it is administred to a Believer It may be called a right act of the administrator according to Gods appointment but not Gods sealing Against which he thus disputes pag. 222. If the Sacrament rightly administred to an hypocrite have all that is essential to Gods actual sealing then it is his actual sealing But the Sacrament rightly administred to an hypocrite hath all things essential to Gods actual sealing Ergo. The Minor he proves at large as I may have occasion hereafter to make known And whereas he so peremptorily determines that though wicked men oblige themselves yet God still remains disobliged let him consider God stands obliged to all that he doth avouch his people whether God be not some way obliged to all that he avoucheth to be his people If this be denyed there will be found no great happinesse to a people to have the Lord for their God But God avoucheth those to be his people Deut. 26.17 who are yet in an unregenerate estate And if we look into Scriptures we shall see that this is Gods ordinary language Are there many worse to be found in any visible Church-state then those with whom God holds contest Psal 50 Yet to these he sayes verse 7. Hear O my people and I will speak O Israel and I will testifie against thee I am God even thy God Together with those Isa 1. to whom he addresses himself under these titles Rulers of Sodom people of Gomorrah yet we see verse 2. what language he speaks of them Israel doth not know my people do not understand And whereas he states the Question as though the whole of the dispute turned on this hinge Whether these men be in Covenant with God as to Gods actual engagement to them so far as that Gods promise is in force for conveying actual right to them as to the promised blessings and so whether it be a mutual Covenant and both parties be actually obliged And thus I say that wicked men are not in Covenant with God that is God is not in Covenant with them Neither have they any right to the main blessings given by the Covenant viz. Christ Pardon Justification Adoption Glory I know no man that hath spoke so much as himself towards the proof of it in the affirmative So long as they break not the Covenant-engagement in which he confesseth they have oblig'd themselves God stands engaged to them for the greatest spiritual blessings But according to him they break not Covenant untill they arrive at final impenitence and unbelief He very well knowes that I hold that every wicked man in the Church lives in continuall breach of Covenant and is therefore under the curse and penalty of it and that I should think that God were actually engaged to give Christ Pardon Justification Adoption Glory to them in that state and condition were more then strange These may know by vertue of their Covenant-priviledges upon what terms they may attain the mercies mentioned and upon what terms God stands engaged to give them and they enjoy the power of Ordinances to work them up to the said terms which they do not who are without Covenant and therefore are afar off when men in Covenant are near Did ever man speak of an absolute tye in a conditional Covenant whether the conditions are kept or no That therefore before mentioned which
Cor. 7.14 There is in most of them if not in all some graces that are reall either common or saving and a Covenant doth not wait till the terms be kept and the conditions made good before it hath the being of a Covenant And whether these be every way sincere or any way dissembling yet as Mr. Baxter acknowledges they really oblige themselves And God howsoever dissembles not but is bound by himself upon his own terms which they professedly accept to confer all that the Covenant holds forth So that wheresoever man is obliged there a compleat Covenant is made up For Gods tender goes before and man is the last party and compleats the Covenant Propos 4 4. Sincerity and integrity of heart or full reality in a mans intentions to stand to the whole of a Covenant is not of the essence and being of it Both parties stand engaged upon their respective terms though one part should have unsincere intentions A wife is a wife and the marriage is compleat when both parties have publiquely express'd consent though she hold a resolution to be stubborn refractory profuse c. A man consenting to serve whether in bare words or taking earnest as is most usual or by hand and seal as in the case of apprentices is a servant although he intend with Onesimus to purloyn or take his opportunity to be gone Mr. Baxter thinks it makes for his advantage to say that unregenerate men are unsincere in Covenant but that is a concession that utterly destroyes him If they be unsincere or as the Psalmist speaks not stedfast in Covenant then they are in Covenant A Propositione secundi adjacentis ad propositionem primi adjacentis valet argumentum If it be true that Catiline is a seditious man then it is true that he is a man that Peribomius is a vicious man then he is a man that Judas is treacherous and perfidious in Covenant then he is in Covenant A mans conviction that he is an unjust steward or an unfaithfull servant doth not conclude him to be no servant or no steward but the contrary And whereas pag. 66. he saith The differences Mr. Bl. must take notice of between humane Covenants and ours with God or else he will marre all Men know not one anothers hearts and therefore make not Lawes for hearts nor impose conditions on hearts and therefore if both parties do confesse consent though dissembledly they are both obliged and the Covenant is mutual But God offers to consent onely on condition that our hearts consent to his terms and therefore if we professe consent and do not consent God consenteth not nor is as it were obliged This were somewhat to purpose in case he could make it appear that Scripture denyes all being of a Covenant where the all-seeing eye of God sees not all integrity and sincerity But Scripture-language which is the safest for us to follow being as we have heard far otherwise there is nothing marr'd in non-observance of any such supposed difference For which we shall presently hear again and again Mr. Baxters own confession 5. There is a reall and serious purpose in many unregenerate persons Propos 5 to serve the Lord and to come up to as much as they think he in Covenant requires though with Austin they have a great mind to delay and often to put off the thought of their more exact and serious service and too ordinarily think that they keep Covenant when they break it Having not as yet any right knowledge either of their own hearts or Gods commands And in this posture in which they thus stand before they come up any higher yea though they never come higher they reach unto graces in themselves reall true and good and also do the works which God commands and this sometimes is Mr. Baxters own thoughts When his businesse is to inform his Hearers or Readers and not to make opposition against others then he can use the word reall and forbear the word equivocall as appears in his Saints everlasting rest Part 3. Sect. 6. There is a common grace which is not saving yet reall and so true and good and so true grace as well as special grace which is saving Which may be a fair answer to that which himself hath said pag. 68. of this Treatise Mr. Bl. in his explication of this Dogmaticall faith addeth by way of exclusion though not affecting the heart to a full choyce of Christ where he seems to imply though he expresse it not that the faith that he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choyce of Christ which is not full But if so then 1. It is much more then assent or a meer Historical Dogmatical Faith 2. But is the choyce which he intimateth real as to the act and suited to the object That is the reall choyce of such a Christ as is offered and on such terms If so it is justifying faith If not either it is counterfeit as to the act or but nominal as to the object and is indeed no choosing of Christ That which is reall and true is neither counterfeit nor merely nominall so far as they know either Christ or their own hearts they undissembledly choose and take to him as expecting to be happy in him rather then any other object though too often it is upon mis-information and when they come to a right understanding of the terms they are in danger to quit the way in which they might enjoy him He further sayes Mr. Bl. thinks that there may be an undissembled profession which yet may not be of a saving faith and addes But then I conceive it is not an entire profession of the whole essential object of Christian faith viz. of assent and consent In which it doth but cast dust in his Readers eyes in confounding the entirenesse of the object and the integrity of the subject There may be an entire profession of the whole essentiall object of faith where the will is brought in to make no more full choyce or consent then hath been said There is added It will be an hard saying to many honest Christians to say that a man not justified may believe every fundamental article and withall truly professe repentance of all his sins and to take God for his Soveraign to rule him and his chief good to be enjoyed to his happinesse and to take Christ for his Lord and onely Saviour and his Word for his Law and Rule and the Holy Ghost for his guide and sanctifier and the rest which is essentiall to Christianity I think it will be nothing hard for any honest Christian to say that a man not justified may believe every fundamentall article as to assent and that he may be convinc'd of the necessity of such repentance and accordingly to make profession of it as Johns converts were baptiz'd into it That such an one may freely yield that God hath right of Soveraignty and rule and that he is the chief good to be enjoyed for
it never came into the heart of any that is either grave A position by the Author disavowed and detested or godly to utter it and that there is scarce any so witlesse or gracelesse as to beleeve it and so Mr. Brs. volume of 31. Reasons five pag. 84 85 86. Twenty six pag. 94 to 107. are almost at one breath answered Few of them tending to oppose any thing that I hold but in the farre greatest part brought against his own conceit and no assertion or opinion of mine I suppose I could easily furnish him with a large addition of reasons to deny this fancy Faith is commanded in the morall Law Reasons evincing that a man unbaptized is bound to beleeve in Jesus Christ to justification as I have asserted Treat of the Covenant pag. 18. and I think no man believes that Baptisme doth first put a man under such obligation Some Papists do charge upon us that we maintain that Baptism delivers us from the morall Law and therefore the Councel of Trent anathematizeth those that hold it but never any I think were charged to say that Baptisme is our first obligation to it 2. An unbaptized man is bound to endeavour to avoid damnation but he that believeth not shall be damned 3. He is bound to endeavour to obtain Salvation but we must believe with the heart and confesse with the mouth to Salvation 4. Baptisme presupposeth the Covenant but the Covenant as I have often said engages to believing 5. None can be exempted from believing but they are withall exempted from repentance but unbaptised persons are to repent Act. 17.30 6. Faith in Christ hath been actually required of the unbaptized Act. 16.30 And therefore it is marvell that when Mr. Br. judgeth me to be overtaken in this folly he would spend so much time with me or so many words upon me transgressing the wise mans advice Prov. 26.4 Answer not a fool according to his folly When he thought I had no more wit than to think that no man is bound to accept Christ for justification before he be baptized I marvel that he would set his wit to mine But what is it that I have said to induce him to think that I am in that opinion I have said The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite in Baptisme and can any man imagine that I meant any more than that it is not required to the being of Baptisme Can any man think that I ever meant that it is not required of the person that is for Baptisme till after he be baptized and have I not in the next page cleared mine own meaning where I say that there is no necessity that justifying faith go before but a necessity that it must follow after Baptisme further explaining my self It is true that in men of years justifying faith sometimes goes before Baptisme as in Abraham it went before Circumcision but it is not of necessity required to interest us into a rite either of baptisme or Circumcision and doubtlesse I never thought that either Abraham or any other was justified by that work that was never required at their hand I say justifying faith or grace in the truth of it is no prerequisite in marriage and I further say that a Minister in times past might and a Magistrate at this time may lawfully marry persons void of justifying faith or grace and yet he is no better than a gracelesse man that thinks that persons unmarried are not tyed to faith and godlinesse Grace is no prerequisite to buying and selling A bargain of sail stands firm though there be no grace in them that make the bargain Men without grace may go to Kidderminster to buy hangings and curtains and those of that place may lawfully trade with them and yet both parties are before hand bound to grace and godlinesse But though my assertion is clear enough yet some may say my similitude darkens it I say No servant is tyed to do his work before he hath received his earnest no Souldier to fight before he be listed The Authors meaning in some mistaken expressions cleared or hath given in his name To this I say If my expressions which I thought were clear well knowing my own meaning yet to others seemed dark no candid man would draw them further then the proposition which my argument was brought to confirm which is That a faith dogmaticall or as I explain it a faith short of justifying entitles to Baptisme In my similitude I looked at the resemblance that is between a Souldiers listing a servants entertainment into his Masters service and a Christians Baptisme And as a Souldier is not bound in order to listing first to fight nor a servant in order to his entertainment first to work so a Christian is not bound in order to Baptisme first to believe to justification And thus I fully explained my self in the next page but one That faith which is the condition of the promise is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal an acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it is sufficient for a title to the seales and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed To promise service and fidelity in warre is enough to get listed as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded So that any Reader I think might clearly have seen and I hope now will more fully understand my meaning Having taken notice of Mr. Baxters great mistake and upon it his injurious charge I think it most meet in this place to take notice of another though under another head that so at once I may vindicate my self from things of this nature I say in my Treatise of the Covenant chap. 16. pag. 111. Sincerity is said to be the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant To this Mr. Baxter is pleased to reply When I first read these words which you write in a different character and father on me I was ashamed of my nonsense for they are no better but it came not into my thoughts once to suspect a forgery in your charge Farre was I from imagining that so reverend pious and dear a friend would tell the world in print that I said that which never came into my thoughts and confute that soberly and deliberately as mine that I never wrote After many other words added If when we are dead men should read Mr. Bl. book that never read mine and there see it written that I said sincerity is the new rule or the rule of the New Covenant can any man blame them to believe it and report of me as from him and say what shall I not believe such and such a man that reports it in expresse words Can any man now think but that I father this upon him Mr. Baxter not injured by the Author as he is injuriously charged and that I report it to the world in print in
expresse words that he hath said it will it not be said on Mr. Baxters credit that I said it and wrong'd him in it But I desire the Reader to peruse the whole Chapter and in case he find not Mr. Baxters name there at all then he must needs conclude that this was spoken at least improvidè et inconsultè and some testimony of humane frailty given in it I recite indeed some passages of Mr. Baxters in that Chapter without his name being unwilling indeed to make it known that he was in any such opinion or that he had laid any such charge of intolerable ignorance upon learned Divines as there he does But of this he hath heard enough already from other hands How can he tell that I mean him in those passages seeing I never named him but that the words are his And when these words now in question produc'd at a good distance from the other are none of his who can say that I meant him much lesse can they say that I have expressely charged them uppon him If they be in any odde corner of his book as he saies he knows not but that they may be he then may be yet charged with them and therefore injuriously complains of any injurious charge upon him But to return to what we have in hand Though in Mr. Baxters five first Reasons there is much very well worth animadversion yet seeng there is nothing but that which hath either already been spoken to or else that tends to the overthrow of that senselesse sottish tenent which I professe to abhorre I shall passe them by For his additionall 26. Arguments which he sets I know not for what reason at a great distance from the rest the greatest part of them are brought and mightily fortified to beat down that which I think never any but himselfe set up I think his misconceit first hatch't it and I am well content to stand by and see him murder it For so many of them as look at all in opposition to any thing that I hold I shall take them into consideration His two first arguments drawn from Authority Arguments bowrrowed from humane authority examined the first of the Assembly of Divines and others of a number of Fathers are brought to prove that the profession of a justifying faith is required to baptisme and what is that to me who never denyed it but in plain words have often affirmed it It is sufficiently implyed where I require a dogmatical faith to Baptisme A dogmatical faith assents to that of Apollos Jesus is the Christ and when I say that this entitles I cannot mean concealed or denyed but openly professed If I say that a man hath six pence in his purse may dine at such an ordinary I do not mean with six pance concealed or denyed but produced and payed Have I not both the words professing and profession both in the margent and in the Index seeing Mr. Baxter calls upon me to declare my self further in this thing I do believe and professe to hold that he that upon hearing the Gospell preacht and the truth of it published and opened shall professedly abjure all other opposite waies whatsoever and choose the Christian way for salvation promising to follow the rules of it is to be baptized and his seed and that upon a right not onely coram Ecclesia but coram Deo It being the mind of God that such should be admitted The authority of reverend Mr. Gataker against Dr. Ward is onely worthy enquiring into citing Luther Calvin Bucer Whitaker as Mr. Baxter observes But Mr. Gataker himself understands not as he saies what Dr. Ward means by the initial faith and repentance which in the judgement of the Apostles gave right to those that desired baptisme and upon that account I cannot directly tell what that is that Mr. Gataker opposeth The authorities quoted by him reach not the thing that we contend about Luther saies He meaning Philip will not baptize him unlesse he beleeve I say the same Neither Simon Magus nor any of the Samaritans men or women could have baptisme before they believed Calvin saies He had not baptized him without true faith which is doubtlesse to be understood of fides quam not quâ credimus as appears in his words before There is no doubt but Ananias had first faithfully instructed Paul in the principles of godlinesse A beliefe of such principles then Calvin meanes Bucer speakes onely of profession of faith and requiring of men to believe Neither is there any thing in Whitakers testimony that comes up to our purpose For Mr. Marshalls Sermon of unity that is added I have it not and there is nothing quoted out of it Whereas it is said that an hundred might easily and truly be cited to this purpose I say if it be but to this purpose it is not to our present purpose If they be brought to prove that justifying faith is required of men before baptisme they may well prove that but as I have said so I do say I think never man denyed it Dr. Ward I believe never opposed it If they be brought to prove that no faith that is short of that which is justifying gives title to baptisme and speak no more than those already quoted they speak not home to the purpose And in case there be any that have said that Baptisme still presupposeth regeneration and that we baptize infants or men of age onely upon this supposition as regenerate As Mr. Baxter Append. pag. 71. saies that Learned Divines have given Papists great advantage in mistaking the nature of justifying Faith thinking that it consists in a belief of the pardon of my own sins So I may say that those whosoever they are that have confounded Covenant-holinesse with that of regeneration and inherent sanctification have given as great advantage to others yea to the Papists themselves And as the former doctrine ha's perplexed many a weak soul being not able to make good their assurance they conclude thereupon their want of Faith so these as much perplex the consciences of those that administer this Ordinance which I had rather expresse in Mr. Baxters words then mine own Append pag. 70 71. No Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man but to himself because he can be certain of no mans justification being not certain of the sincerity of their faith And if he should adventure to administer upon probabilities or charitable conjectures then should he be guilty of profaning the Ordinance and every time he mistaketh he should set the seal of God to a lye And who then durst ever administer a Sacrament being never certain but that he shall thus abuse it adding further I confesse ingenuously to you that it was the ignorance of this one point which chiefly caused me to abstain from administring the Lords Supper for so many years And I confesse as ingenuously that in case he can work me to his opinion I stand resolved for present
the visible state of it Abundant more like Testimonies might be added if it would not be the Readers trouble And lest all of this should be evaded with this distinction that respective to us they are members but they are not so in foro Dei let us see what l Ecclesiae Refor distinguunt inter Ecclesiam Christi invisibilem mystâ—cam quae coetus est hominum vocatorum fidelium qui communionem habent cum Christo cui nulli hypocritae annumerari possunt inter Ecclesiam Christi Visibilem externam quae est societas eorum qui veram fidem profitentur ad communionem societatem Ecclesasticam inter se exercendam Apollonius hath in his answer to the question concerning qualification of Church-members He saith The reformed Churches distinguish between the invisible Mysticall Church of Christ which is the company of believers called which have Communion with Christ to which no hypocrite can be joyned c. And the outward visible Church which is the society of those that professe the true faith for the exercise of Ecclesiastical Communion and society among themselves And having expressed his judgement as to the question proves it by three Arguments The 3d. is m Ex descriptione Ecclesiae visibâ—lis cujus natur describitur in jure Dei quod sit horreum in quo cum tritico paleae colliguntur domus Dei in qua vasa aurea ligne a sunt rete quo pisces boni mali capiuntur from the description of the Church visible whose nature in the right of God is described saith he that it is a barne in which chaffe is gathered with the wheat the house of God in which are vessels of Gold and wood a net in which are fishes good and bad This distinction therefore as thus applyed is here by him denyed and to this end we may examine further the definitions given by Divines of the visible Church A definition compriseth no parts that are Monstrous adventitious Excrementitious or barely equivocal but those onely that are of the essence or at least integrality where it is an Integrum as the Church as Mr. Hudson hath shewed is that is defined We have heard Wollâ—bius his definition before Mr. Hudson pag. 9th saith The Church visible is a company of people called or separated by God from Idols to the true Religion and yeelding professed subjection to that call which is true saith he of the godly as well as of the Hypocrites The Leyden Professours disput 40. Thes 32. give this definition n Visibilis Ecclesia est coetus eorum qui per verbum externum Sac amentorum ac disciplinae Ecclesiasticae usum in unum externum corpus coalescunt The visible Church is a Company of those which by the outward Word and use of Sacraments and Ecclesiastical Discipline are gathered into one outward body and society Explaining themselves in he 35. Thes in the same manner as Mr. Hudson before The definition of Trelcatius junior little differs from it pag. 432. And wheras Mr. Baxter saith that our Divines generally plead that Hypocrites are not true members of the universal Church but as a wooden Legge to the body I am almost confident that in turning over all his books he can produce but few such Testimonies Had he said the Catholick Church instead of universal I believe he might have found many Universal and Catholick in Authors use of them dâ—stinguished but whether he can find them speaking in his terms I somewhat question When Whitaker handles the question so voluminously he states it of what sort of men the Catholick Church consists but not universal Dr. John Reynolds maintaining that position The holy Catholick Churâ—h which we believe is the whole company of Gods Elect and Chosen expresseth himself by the word Catholick we see in his Thesis and addes The wicked must needs be a part of the Church if the name of Church did signifie the visible Church Now I think that scarce any will deny that the universal Church is visible which Mr. Hudson so largely hath proved cap. 5. Yet Whitaker as largely makes good that the Catholick Church is invisible quaest 2. de Eccles .. If I be now sent to my Dictionary to see whether Catholick and universal be not both one and demanded whether there be any more difference between them then is between Idolum and Imago about which we have had so much stir with the Papists the one a Greek word the other a Latine I confesse it is so in Grammer but not in their use of it that handle the question of the Church Catholick in this manner and when their Authority is quoted their sense must be inquired into And in case they took it for the same as universal they could not make it invisible in which sense Hudson observes Zanchy Gerard Whitaker Chamier Ames Dr. Willeâ— do use it to which Daverant Trelcatius with other might be added The distinction is usual into Catholick and visible and in that sense a wicked man is no member of the Church Catholick as opposite to vibsile when yet he is a true Member of the Church universal as opposite to particular And therefore I say that a bad man is a true Member of the Church visible and I think I am not gainsayed by any of our Divines but seconded But though they may be true members of visible Churches yet perhaps Mr. Baxter hath a way to make them onely as woodden leggs respective to the true Church visible Churches with him being no true Churches but aequivocally so called owning that Charge of Bellarmines o Confessionistae Calvinus docent duas esse Ecclesias veram quae est Sanctorum fide lium Congregatio externam quae nomine tantum est Ecclesia in qua boni mali reperiuntur sed malos esse in Ecclesiâ non de Eclesiâ where he saith that the Confessionists and Calvin teach that there are two Churches A true one which is the Congregation of the holy and faithfull An outward one which is onely a Church in name in which good and bad are found but the bad are in the Church not of the Church But here he hath Amesius his adversary who bettter understood the mind of Protestant Writers and in this is rather to be believed He answers Tom. 2. lib. 2. de Eccles Cap. 1. p Calumnia est manifesta quod impingitur illis duarum Ecclesiarum Militantium fictio non distribuunt Ecclesiam miltantem in duas species sed duplicem respectum aut considerationem unius ejusdem Ecclesiae distinguunt ac proponunt unam quoad essentiam internam alteram quoad modum existendi ex ternum This fiction of two Militant Churches which is put upon them is a manifest Calumny they do not divide the Church Militant into two Species but they distinguish and hold forth a double respect or consideration of one and the same Church One according to
down a ladder at the same instant he is climbing up it When I bring this similitude for illustration of the point in hand that a promised service and fidelity in war is enough to get listed and to do service is of necessity to be rewarded I am told that this runs upon the great mistake which I have been so often told of and am further informed that the formal reason and denomination of a condition is from the donors constitution or imposition giving this benefit onely on the terms by him assigned and not upon our promise to perform them If I have been told of it often it is well if I can be convinced of it now I utterly deny that the denomination of conditions of a Covenant in actual being is from the one and not from the other that is exclusively to the other I well know the donour is to prescribe and the receiver is to accept without putting in Exceptions But if there be no acceptance of terms there is no Covenant and there being no Covenant there can be no Covenant conditions as is plain by the usual definition of Covenants where the Gospel is preached and no entertainment at all given there is no Covenant people of God they stand bound by Law precepts but are under no obligations to Covenant conditions Argument 4. reviewed The next Argument in which I am concerned and the last which in this thing is produced is That the Eunuch must first believe and then be baptized upon his desire of Baptisme Philip saith If thou believest with all thy heart thou maiest This I have confest carries more colour then all the former and indeed I never met with any thing either in Scripture or reason produced that carries with me so much as any colour for it this excepted Yet this is not unanswerable One difficult text does not use to take us off our hold of many plain ones I answer 1. Philip may call for that de bene esse when the Eunuch was to be admitted which was not yet essential to his admittance Those that preach preparatory Sermons for the Lords Supper call for allthat may give the highest comforts and not barely for that which is the Minimum quod sic to give admission 2. As I have said so I say still that dogmatical faith is a true faith and to prevent needlesse Criticisms it is truly a divine faith so that none can say that Jesus is the Christ can believingly subscribe that Article but by the holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12.3 And whosoever sayes with assent of judgment and understanding that Jesus the Son of Mary is Christ the Son of the living God speaks more then flesh and blood can suggest and is not attainable but by Divine revelation And whereas it is objected that it is a false faith when it pretends to be that which Scripture calls faith in Christ and denominateth believors I answer 1. I have shewed before that our prosession qualifying for Baptisme is not a profession that we have such faith which cannot be done without an eminence of faith to assurance but a profession of the necessity of it to salvation and an engagement to it 2. It denominates believers in the ordinary and common language of Scriptures and wheresoever believer is put in opposition to unbeliever or infidel faith of this nature is still understood In that famous text 1 Cor. 7.14 every man and woman is a believer that was removed from heathenish Idolatry to the profession of Christianity or as Paulinus whom Jerom so much magnifies speaks was a baptized person Otherwise the case there put about the validity of marriage and lawfulness of marriage society were not between an infidel and a professour of Christianity but between a regenerate man whom this language onely makes a believer and one unregenerate which in this language are infidels which were a case never yet put to question When mention is made through the History of the Acts of so many thousands that upon the Apostles preaching believed it can denote no more then the embracing of the way of Christianity in opposition to Judaisme or Heathenisme If it imply a through Regeneration of the soul there could be no unregenerate ones among them which is wholly against the nature of visible Churches and all experience as hath been abundantly manifested As for that distinction which seems to be hinted between believing Christ and believing in Christ Mr. Ball in his Treatise of Faith pag. 5. hath sufficiently shewed the groundlesnesse of it pointing out Scriptures where a preposition is added to the word believe when nothing but assent of mind is signified And where it is put without a preposition when trust and confidence is implyed Abraham believed God Rom. 4.3 where no preposition is added and it was counted to him for righteousnesse And on the contrary the Rulers believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or on Christ and loved the praise of men more then the praise of God Joh. 12.42 43. It followes I think if a man say This is the Son the Heir Come let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours we will not have this man reign over us that these are not true believers nor have right to Baptisme though their belief that he was the heir be a dogmaticall faith true in its kind I am sorry that such things should be mentioned where inquiry after truth is contended and contention not studied It is well known that I speak to a faith of profession which is theirs that take to that party which is for Christ and not with those that professedly go in a full opposition against him and are in a high rode any such conviction of spirit supposed of sin against the Holy Ghost I know not why Dr. Ames should be brought in telling us that in those places where saving faith is spoke to trust in the Messiah is ever included seeing we are speaking of a faith that is short of saving nor yet that I should be told that words of knowledge and assent do in Scripture oft imply affection and consent unlesse that it be to let me know that it doth not generally hold which in case I were in a strait and at want for a present answer would well help me out And whereas I am demanded whether I do not know how ordinarily saving faith it self is denominated from the Intellectual act alone I answer that I do know it and if I were ignorant of it before Mr. Burgesse hath taught me the same thing with the same reason of it in his Spiritual Refining page 170 171. Pos 8. And I know also that it hath its denomination often from the act of the will alone But will it follow that the understanding is never fully perswaded for assent but the will is also not alone somewhat moved but throughly inclined for consent and acceptance If the understanding at any time be brought to a reall assent whilest the will is swayed by lusts
and takes to other objects that is to me sufficient Or will it follow that either the Eunuch did or must necessarily be presumed to understand upon that little acquaintance that it seems he yet had in the Gospel the whole of those choyce observations or can it be any way certainly collected that such a Confession that he made was accompanied with a present saving work But Mr. Baxter hath singularly engaged me to him quoting those Texts John 11.25 26 27. John 1.49 50. 1 Joh. 4.15 he addes Here is more then right to Baptisme Then a man may have right to Baptisme that is short of those great priviledges of dwelling in God and being born of God and I scarce know what to say more for my own opinion It further followes If you think as you seem by your answer to do that a man may assent to the truth of the Gospel with all his heart and yet be void of justifying faith you do not lightly erre It followes not I think from any thing that I have said that I am in any such opinion That Expression is in Philips words and I have told you he might require de bene esse that which is not necessary to the esse of Baptisme But in case I be in any so heavy an Error I am thus holpen out of it Though an unregenerate man may believe as many truths as the regenerate yet not with all his heart Christ saith Matth. 13. The Word hath not rooting in him It is then granted that he may believe all truths and that which is added to prove that he cannot believe them with his whole heart is not with me convincing The Word had not root not because they did not intirely from the heart assent to it But because they received it not in the love of it They received the light to inform their judgments not any thorow heat for the warmth of their affections There followes Doubtlesse whether or no the practical understanding do unavoidably determine the will yet God doth not sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the will unsanctified which must be said if the dogmatical faith that is the Intellectual assent of a wicked man be as strong as that of a true believer Here is suggested that I say that the Intellectual assent of a wicked man is as strong as that of a true believer I know not where I have said it or any thing that implies it It may be a true assent though not of that strength But if I had said it will it thence follow that God doth sanctifie the understanding truly and leave the will unsanctified I trow not Is every strong Intellectual assent sanctified is every Intellectual assent which is of equal strength with that in the regenerate truly sanctified Clearnesse of light commands assent to truths when corruption of affections will not suffer that at least pro hic nunc that the goodnesse or bestnesse if I may so say should be believed I believe it is as strong in the Devils as in any Regenerate man in the world I know not how it fares with some whom God may exercise more gently respective to temptations and Satans Buffettings I am sure that there are those that would sometimes freely give up all that is dear to them in the world to be as clear in some fundamental truths as Satan himself he doubtlesse injects Scruples where himself is without scruple I know some question whether there be any such thing as faith in divels notwithstanding James saith The Devils believe and tremble But certain it is there is an Intellectual assent to Divine truth in the Devils as we may see Matth. 8.29 Mark 3.11 Luk. 4.41 Acts 19.15 and yet there is no sanctification wrought And therefore though the wicked match the regenerate in assent in their understanding it will not follow that their understandings therefore are truly sanctified I am further referr'd to Dr. Downam against Mr. Pemble which is not in my hands and whether my answer be equal to silence as is in the close affirmed I must leave to the Reader to determine Advertisements given to Mr. Baxter touching his undertaking for Mr. Firmin IN a distinct Section Mr. Baxter lets us know how good a mind he had to have appeared in this cause for Mr. Firmin which wonderful change in him may well be my admiration All know that have looked into my Birth-priviledge that I delivered the same things there as in my Treatise of the Covenant I have asserted against Mr. Firmin and that past with Mr. Baxter if reports have not deceived me with good approbation I communicated to him a considerable part of my defence of it against Mr. T. his letter in Manuscripts and I blush not to tell the Reader that he applauded it And besides what I have produced already out of him I have a witnesse of reverend esteem that he hath said that I had given him in discourse full satisfaction of the title of unregenerate men or some phrase parâ—llell to Sacraments But in case upon change of judgment he will appear for Mr. Firmin in this particular and that meerly as he sayes in love of the truth least the reputation of man should cloud it and in love to the Church and the lustre of the Christian name lest this fearful gap should let in that pollution that may make Christianity seem no better then the other Religions of the world Further explaining himself For I fear this loose doctrine so he is pleased to call it of Baptisme will do more to the pollution of the Church then others loose doctrine of the Lords Supper or as much If upon these specious pretences he hath still a mind to it I shall crave leave to offer some words by way of advice to him First To reconcile himself to Mr. F. they being as yet so far from agreement either in judgment or in practice both of them are gone out of the road of the Reformed Churches but Mr. Baxters friend for whom he is about to undertake as to his judgment is yet in the lower form when he is in the upper Mr. F. requires not truth of grace to make a visible Church-member but declares himself very largely against it he requires not truth of grace in a parent to entitle his child in the right of Baptisme It is enough with him that he be a man of knowledge and free from scandal which he well knowes to be the case of many in unregeneration And though Mr. Baxter is thus gone beyond him in judgment yet he sits down far short of him in practice and sayes that we are bound to baptize all those that make an outward profession and consequently their children when Mr. F. upon tender conscienciously refuses many of them Mr. F. and I are as I suppose upon neerer terms of accord then Mr. F. and Mr. Baxter both of us agreeing that unregenerate men have their title and a faith that is short of justifying may
but then it would have been as arrogant Sixthly That he make some provision for tender and scrupulous consciences that shall admit his principles 1. In taking in of members into Church-fellowship as it is called A man without grace in a visible Church according to him is as a wooden leg in the body how great a deformity this is and how great a trouble to have such instead of those that are of flesh and bone it is easy to judge and yet how many of these necessarily will and must be received 2. In baptisme of Infants To baptize an Infant is with him not onely to espouse but to solemnize a full and actual marriage with Christ Jesus and that in words not de futuro but de praesenti and what further glory then they may expect from his hand I scarce can tell An illustrious Prince will have none but of noble and Royal blood and Christ will have none to be thus in marriage relation given to him but the seed of regenerate and graciously qualified persons How shall I get intelligence that this or that infant is descended of such a race where shall I learn his or her pedigree that I may thus give to Christ Iesus And in case probabilities must lead us we have need of further help then yet we see to judge of such probability Must we find those qualifications in the man who himself is for Baptisme or his child that may move us to conclude that in all reason and possible apparance here is a child of God or an Infant of a regenerate person Or will it serve our turn and satisfie our consciences that we cannot certainly conclude the contrary If the first be required it will put all the Ministers of Christ hard to it and prove such a snare that I know not how they will extricate themselves If the latter be that which we must receive here is then a loose rule for to lead in so high proceedings For men will be so laxe in their own marriage choice as for to take any into that society if they be not able to conclude her a strumpet or desperately wicked we have hitherto believed that Jesus Christ is pleased to receive in a greater latitude into visible relation Seventhly I desire Mr. Baxter to tell us how he hath mended the matter and provided for the honour and lustre of the Christian name or made up at all that gappe of which he speaks He saies the Church is bound to baptize as largely as I say men have right to Baptisme I think here he will find little or no difference and when he refuses none that I receive and where I say they have right he saies we are bound to baptize without right how will this make Christianity to look with any better face how much will Worcestershire Congregations where this is received exceed other Congregations where unanimously it is denyed I would have him to reflect on his 18th Argument and see whether the force of it be not evidently as much against hinself as it is against me against whom it is brought It is thus framed That doctrine which makes it the regular way in Baptisme for all men to promise that which they can neither sincerely promise nor perform is unsound But such is Mr. Blakes Ergo. And after much work to explain himself it comes to this that unregenerate men cannot resolve or sincerely promise to love believe or obey and therefore upon that account are without right to baptisme Let it be taken into consideration that when I say these men that in their present state are thus unable to love believe and obey have notwithstanding right to Baptisme and he saies that this inability notwithstanding they ought to be baptized how is the matter mended If my Doctrine upon this account be unsound his doctrine and practice will be found unsound likwise Mr. Baxter saith Vocation which is effectual onely to bring men to an outward profession of faith is larger then election and makes men such whom we are bound to baptize Eighthly I shall desire some Scripture text or cogent reason to make it appear that we are bound to baptize those that in the sight of God have no right to Baptisme the command given will argue with me their right unlesse I hear an injunction from heaven that notwithstanding their want of right we are to baptize them Peter argues the right of those Acts 10.47 for their admission to Baptisme which had been more then needed in case without any such right the water in Baptisme might have been applied unto them and I marvel that Mr. Baxter should so tenaciously hold to Philips speech to the Eunuch If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest seeing he believes as well as I that faith short of this which he saies these words necessarily imply might have admitted him and put a necessity on Philip to have baptized him though it would not have given him right to Baptisme His actual admission and not his right is there put to the question If these things be well considered Mr. Baxter may see cause to begin with a confutation of Mr. F. before he undertakes a defence and I suppose the Reader will see that he had small cause to censure my Arguments to be so dilute unlesse he himself had brought some of greater strength Lastly I would have Mr. Baxter seriously consider whether that which we have observed already out of him and might yet further be gathered may not make up a forcible Argument and conclusive of this title to Baptisme in those who yet rise not up to the Faith that is justifying when they are separate from Paganisme into fellowship with the visible Church as he asserts Saints Rest Part 4. Sect. 3. pag. 105. and with them their issue as he hath concluded from 1 Cor. 7.14 when they attain to graces real and true as we have seen from him I am sure the Apostle as hath been said Act. 10.47 argues from such qualifications to an interest in Baptisme when they have their interest in the Covenant of grace as a fruit of Christs death as he saith doubtlesse reprobates have Treatise of Infant-Baptisme pag. 224. when their Baptisme hath all that is essential to Gods sealing as he asserts it hath pag. 222. All of this laid together with more that may be taken up will in all indifferent Readers eyes conclude a title And further whether he have not spoken as much in plain words terminis terminantibus for the interest of unregenerate men or men of a meer visible profession in Baptisme let his words be considered Saints Rest Part 4. Sect. 3. pag. 104 105. Where giving holy and seasonable advice to beware the company of sensual and ungodly men he limits it with Cautions least it should be thought that he perswades as he rightly stiles it unto an ungodly separation he addes As I never found one word in Scripture where either Christ or his Apostles denyed admittance to
put into the Proposition and it not delivered in that generality and whensoever that distinction shall be put I shall not doubt but an answer in the distinction will be suggested Secondly Inabilities to perform duties upon the bare account of natural corruption in a right way and in that acceptable manner as to receive the comforts of them do not discharge a man from obligation to the duty In case indeed it could be proved that God never gave the Sacrament in charge to an unsanctified man but left this visible Ordinance as a Legacy or charge to an invisible Society whom none but themselves can distinguish and few of them able to distinguish themselves then the argument were of some force but from the inability to reason against obligation to the duty to take men off from it upon that account of weaknesse through natural corruption will take all men off that are unregenerate from all duties Thirdly Those that in this way disable all men in nature from these duties which are given in charge to a Communicant upon that ground to keep them from the Sacraments yet confesse they may do this work in order at least to their own exclusion they cannot examine themselves in order to receive but they may and must examine themselves in order to hold themselves off from it When the Apostle speaks to the whole visible Church of Corinth expressely Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. This few say they can reach but to examine and not to eat is in the power of all the other Fourthly Though these reach not the highest duties and so come not up to the ultimate end of the Sacrament yet they perform in their measure several duties and reach the intermediate and subordinate end of it They see Christ there evidently set forth and crucified before them There they see the highest aggravation of sin Christ wounded for sin bruised for transgression under the Fathers wrath for mans guilt suffering for sin the just for the unjust They see him bearing the sins of many and they cannot nor may not exclude themselves from the number They see there a ransome paid for sin a discharge made to the Fathers Justice They see Christ tendered and offered They may further oblige themselves to all duties required as well to the interesting grace which is faith as to the qualifications of obedience They do believe Acts 2.12 13. Luke 8.13 Joh. 12.42 43. 1 Tim. 1.19 This faith is true in its kind they do not onely yeeld assent but reach to some measure of joy and delight Luke 8.13 They are in Christ their way of inhesion or implantation I shall not determine But in the latitude as he is an head he hath members that are inherent in him he is an head of a Church visible and hath many members suitable as the Reader may see in Cobbet of Infant-Baptisme Conclus 5. pag. 56. Whilest those hearers mentioned Luke 8.13 believed I cannot think it was the seeds-mans office who had sounded the Word in their ears to have withheld the visible Word from their eyes or advised them to have withdrawn themselves And as they do duties incumbent on Communicants so also they receive mercies many intermediate mercies though in that state they receive not the highest and choicest mercies They partake of the fatnesse of the Olive Rom. 11. even all that come into that state that the blinded Jewes and the worst part among them did relinquish SECT XII Proposition 10. THe Lords Supper as all other Ordinances of Christ must be so administred The Lords Supper must be so administred that Communicants may be edified that the Kingdom of Christ may be most advanced and the Church in her members most edified Let all be done to edification is the Apostles rule 1 Cor. 14.26 Not as an Apostolical Canon as Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy hath observed for then if the Apostle had been silent that injunction had not been obliging but as a necessary result from all that they had in charge from Jesus Christ Prophecie exceeds unknown tongues because it edifies 1 Cor. 14.4 And unknown tongues are without profit and of no use without interpretation to edifie ver 5. Therefore we have the Apostles resolution for publique prayers ver 14 15 16 17. For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitfull what is it then I will pray with the Spirit and with understanding also I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the understanding also Else when thou shalt blesse with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest for thou verily givest thankes well but the other is not edified And for the preaching of the Word ver 18 19. I thank my God I speak with tongues more then you all yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that by my voice I might teach others also then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue Matters circumstantiall and of themselves indifferent if they be not reduced to this end prove inexpedient and to the doer evil All things are lawful for me but all thinges edifie not 1 Cor. 10.23 The whole of the Ministerial work and every appendant to it must be reduced hither what have builders to do but to edifie And if they edifie not what do they do In what other metaphor soever their work is set out this is still their businesse the perfecting of the Saints the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes 4.12 When they have done this and made it their whole businesse they may with confidence speak to God in the words of Christ I have glorified thee I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do Joh. 17.5 This thread which runs through the whole of the Ministeriall work is not to be excluded here Those of whom there is hopes that they are willing to learn Christ are to be taken into Christs School by Baptisme and those are to be admitted to the Lords Supper that knowingly will engage for continuance and comming on in the waies of Christ Baptisme is the entry door into the Church visible no man must be refused of whom there is reason of expectation that they will be professedly Christs And the Lords Supper is the means of the growth of those that are thus visibly and in the face of the Church received where this may conduce to their building up it is not to be denyed so that the dispensers great enquiry must be whom the Lords Supper may benefit where it may edifie which according to Scripture rules may be discerned and determined otherwise the Apostle had not given this charge Let all things be done to edification and where it may edifie to give it and where it serves not for edification to forbear it not whether
it therefore follow that hearing can receive no help from but must exclude seeing Did the Bereans when they had heard the Apostles yet nothing towards faith by their search of the Scriptures Act. 17.11.12 or did they not make use of their eyes in the search that they made When Christ had Preached to the Jewes not yet in the faith and commended to them the search of the Scriptures Joh. 5.39 can we think that this search could be no step in their way of believing Why were miracles wrought if they were of no use to the work of faith f What comment shall we make on those words Joh. 2.23 Many believed in his Name when they saw the miracles that were done If the Word do work faith it will by no means follow but that it may take in assistance by miracles and Sacraments by signes extraordinary and ordinary That consequence if by the Word then not by the Sacrament will never hold till the VVord and Sacrament are proved to be opposite and not subordinate Ninthly That Ordinance which hath neither the promise of the grace of conversion annext unto it or any example in the Word of God of any converted by it is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath no such promise of the grace of conversion neither is there such an example Ergo. Answ For Examples though we could give instances of men being converted by receiving of the Lords Supper yet it would still be denyed to have any possible influence towards conversion as the last Argument is an evident witnesse We bring Examples of men that have been brought to the faith by seeing and yet it is still denyed that fight can be any help towards it And though we could bring a promise of such grace annext yet we should have little hopes to be heard or heeded seeing we can bring a Promise of blessednesse to reading which is by sight as to hearing Rev. 3. Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of this Prophecy 2. We have as many examples of mens conversion by the Sacrament as we have of their receiving strength and nourishment If one may be asserted without an example then then other likewise 3. We have no particular precedents by name except at first institution of any that were Communicants and therefore we cannot expect examples of conversion or receiving of strength by communicating 4. The examples of conversion by the Word perhaps well examined would prove short of such conversion as here is intended The conversion in Gospel narratives is to a Christian profession A man may evince calling thence but not elctdion and this is the work of the Word without the Sacrament seeing it must precede the receiving of the Sacrament As to that of no promise made to it 1. When the adversary shall bring a promise made to the Sacrament for Spiritual strength it will happily be found of an equal force to the giving of a new life 2. Though we have no promise explicite and expresse yet we have promises implicite and virtual Every promise made to the Word is made to the Sacrament The Sacrament being not opposite but subordinate to it an appendant that receives strength from it Tenthly That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake is not a converting Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake Ergo. The Minor is proved 1 Cor. 11.27 Answ This Argument well followed will take off every Ordinance from that honour of conversion as well as this of the Lords Supper seeing many Texts may be produced equally calling for qualifications for them as for this equally shewing the danger of unworthy addresses As to this for hearing the Word see 1 Pet. 2.1 2. Wherefore laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envies and all evill speakings as new-burn babes desire the sincere milk of the Word that ye may grow thereby Jam. 1.21 Wherefore lay apart all filthinesse and superfluity of naughtinesse and receive with meeknesse the engraffed Word which is able to save your soules Is not the Word a favour of death unto death to such 2 Cor. 2.14 15 16. Shall i. not be more tolerable for Tyre and Zidon then for them Matth. 11.24 For prayer to God see James 1.6 7. But let him ask in faith nothing wavering for he that wavereth is like a wave of the Sea driven with the wind and tossed for let not that man think he shall receive any thing of the Lord 1 Tim. 2.8 I will therefore that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting Good will never be had by such mens prayers Esay 1.15 And when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you when ye make many prayers I will not hear your hands are full of blood Zach. 7.13 Therefore it is come to passe that he cryed and they would not hear so they cryed and I would not hear saith the Lord of Hosts Shall we now say that neither Word nor prayer is a converting Ordinance But perhaps it will be said Men unworthy must hear must pray to be made worthy must come in unconversion to be converted But they must bring worthinesse hither or else this can have no hand in making worthy they must bring conversion or else this cannot convert This is a begging of the question And as to prayer there is no more ground or colour to make it a converting Ordinance then the Supper we must pray in faith before we can pray with acceptance of our persons and so must the Word be mixt with faith when we hear it Heb. 4.2 Eleventhly That Ordinance which is eucharisticall and consolatory supposeth such that partake of it to have part and portion in that thing for which thanks is given and are such as are fit to be comforted But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance eucharisticall and consolatory Ergo. Answ And might not the Assumption as well have been That the Word and Prayer are Ordinances eucharistical and consolatory I hope none will deny the Gospel our good tydings to be eucharistical and consolatory nor yet thanksgiving which is a branch of prayer And then in case the Proposition be of universal truth both Word Prayer and Lords Supper are excluded from any power of conversion The Proposition then must be understood with limit and restriction That Ordinance which in whole and in part is eucharistical and consolatory can have no hand in conversion and then though perhaps exception might be taken at it it had colour in it But then the Assumption That this Ordinance is in whole and in part eucharisticall and consolatory must be denyed It is for humbling heart-breaking as it is comforting There we shew forth Christs death and see him broken for sin and it is no matter of consolation but humiliation and horrour to see our soules under that guilt that brought upon Christ a
seal and confirm in this that we have grace Answ Not to dispute the absolute Covenant in this place as many call it The Covenant to which Sacraments are annext as seales properly promises priviledges upon condition of graces and requires the graces though God in his elect ever graciously works what it is respective to grace that Sacraments do we have now heard that is to shew us our want of it and point us out the fountain of it engaging us to it and upon our making good our engagements through Grace they ratify these promised priviledges to us 7. Scriptures of two sorts are brought by those that would advance Sacraments above that which they work as signs and seales Seventhly The texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments above all that they do as signes and seales and to evince that they have an absolute work on the soul without respect had either to the understanding or faith of the receivers are of two sorts The first are such where no Sacrament at all is mentioned neither can it by any good argument be proved that Sacraments in those texts are directly intended Others are such wherein Baptisme indeed is mentioned but faith is evidently required to the attainment of the effect there specified when these two are proved a full answer is given to all the Scriptures which by the Adversaries in this behalf are objected Scriptures of the first rank are 1. Such wherein no Sacrament is mentioned nor can be proved that any is intended Titus 3.5 According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration Ephes 5.25 26. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word 1. Cor. 6.12 Such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Though the thing signified in Baptisme is here evidently spoken to and some allusion may be conceived to be here made to Baptisme yet I suppose that it can by no good argument be proved that the Sacrament of Baptisme in any of these Scriptures is intended First Arguments evincing that Baptisme is not intended in the Sacramental work of it The Lords Supper may be as fairely evidenced out of Christ words John 6.53 54 55. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed as Baptisme may be evinced out of any of those texts alleadged when yet Protestant Writers unanimously conclude and severall learned Papists yield that no Sacramentall eating is there intended To clear this they say there is a meer Sacramentall eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ when the outward signs are received and no more a meer spirituall eating and drinking when Christ is applyed by faith without any Sacramentall sign and an eating and drinking both Sacramental and Spirituall when the Sacrament is received by sincere believers and the text in John is understood as they conclude of bare spiritual eating and drinking The same we may apply to washing and conclude that it is meerly spiritual washing that in these texts alleadged is understood Secondly There are the same phrases or those that are parallell with them in Old Testament-Scriptures when no Sacrament of this kind was instituted and therefore could not be intended Psal 51.7 Purge me with Hyssope and I shall be clean wash me and I shall be whiter then Snow Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinckle cleane water upon you and you shall be clean from all your filthinesse And it must needs be that meer Spiritual and not Sacramentall washing for the reason alleadged must in these texts be understood Thirdly If outward Baptisme were there intended why should not the word Baptisme be there as in other places used when we see it is yet omitted when other words are in the stead of it industriously chosen when common washing is intended we know that the word Baptisme is frequently used as Mar. 7.8 Luk. 11.38 and so also when legall cleansing is spoken to as Heb. 9.20 And in case Baptisme it self were here purposely intended it is marvel that other words should by the Spirit of God be chose and this laid aside Fourthly This Interpreters of eminent note have seen Mr. Gataker disceptatio de Baptis Infant vi efficacia pag 51. saith It g Dubitari potest non immerito baptismine Sacramentum an interna ablutio hoc nomine eo loci designetur may justly be doubted whether the Sacrament of Baptisme or inward washing in that place of Titus 3.5 be understood then adds h Atque ego certe etiamsi ad baptismi ritum externum respectum aliquem haberi nullus negaverim de interna tamen ab lutione diserte dictum existimo quae externa illa lotione corporis designatur ut ex clausula mox sequente verba illa exponantur per lavacrum regenerationis non videtur apostolus significare baptismum sed ipsam regenerationem quam lavacro comparat Though I am not he that will deny that some respect is had in those words to the outward rite of Baptisme yet I believe that they are expressely spoken of the inward washing and that the words may be interpreted by the clause immediately following the renewing by the Holy Ghost quoting Piscator for his opinion Thes theol vol. 1. loc 25. Sect. 20. who saith By the laver of regeneration the Apostle seems not to intend baptisme but regeneration it self which he compares to a laver and also Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25 affirming That it is doubtful whether in Titus 3.5 there be any speech of the Sacrament or onely of the blood of Christ and of the Spirit and in his words as the Reader that pleases to consult him may see he takes in Ephes 5.26 likewise Vorstius speaks most fully of all to these Texts mentioning the Argument drawn from Ephes 5. Titus 3. for the opus operatum in Sacraments he sayes Our Divines answer i Aliena testimonia citari viz. quae res quidem in Sacramentis significatas metaphorice declarant attamen de Sacramentis proprie dictis non agunt That impertinent testimonies are urged which hold forth the thing signified in Sacraments by way of metaphor but do not speak of Sacraments properly so called Antibel Tom. 3. Contro 1. Thes 1. 2. And whereas Calvin is produced by some as interpreting Titus 3.5 of outward baptisme his authority will but little help them k Non dubito quin saltem ad baptismum alludat imo facile patior de baptismo locum exponi I do not doubt saith he but that the Apostle doth at least allude to baptisme and further saith I can easily bear
adds The like figure whereunto Baptisme doth now save us by the resurrection of Christ The Arke did save those that entered into it Baptisme doth save those that are received into the Church by it And whereas an objection is obvious that Noahs Arke and New-Testament Baptisme doth much differ and that in the very thing in which the similitude is brought few entered the Arke and were saved by it but myriads of thousands are baptized This the Apostle answers in the Parenthesis there interposed that the parallel lies not between the Arke and the outward act of Baptisme as by man administred and there called the putting away the filth of the flesh so there is a vast disproportion the outward act as administred by man saves not but between the Arke and the inward work which is The answer of a good conscience towards God That of Tertullian which Beza sayes may serve as a Comment upon these words is elegant The soul is established by answering and not by washing And further to clear this text we must know that the Covenant hath a Proposition in it to which all in Covenant must give assent He that believes and repents shall be saved This assent is presupposed in all those that make actual improvement of the Sacraments Faith and Repentance being the terms of the Covenant And this Divines in their Treatises of Conscience call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now in case we have the benefit of salvation by Sacraments conscience must answer and a good conscience onely can answer But I believe I repent This Divines call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then and not otherwise Sacraments save Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25 hath these words Here I think the observation is easie out of the body of the text that the work done in Sacraments availes not to righteousnesse or salvation except the condition of the Covenant be performed by those that partake them first the condition then the Antithesis shewes it if thou be a breaker of the Law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision that is all one to thee as if thou hadst never been circumcised yea a gentile wanting the Sacrament having obedience is nearer heaven then thou that hast the Sacrament and neglectest obedience and weigh well that the Lord in promising or sealing binds not himself to performance but conditionally that we perform our restipulation and whence Sacraments should have their efficacy but from the promise and grace of God I see not Circumcision in the flesh engaged the receivers to circumcision in the heart Deut. 10.16 where these did concurre there was a man in Covenant and upright in Covenant And Jer. 9.25 wrath is denounced of God against several Nations and the circumcised and the uncircumcised in the threat are put in equipage together equally and alike to suffer And to take off all scruple or offence that might be taken there is a distinction brought of Circumcision in the flesh and Circumcision in heart Judah had Circumcision in the flesh to plead but remained uncircumcised in heart and therefore fares no better then those that were uncircumcised in flesh Jer. 4.4 The Prophet commands Circumcise your selves to the Lord and take away the foreskin of your heart ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem lest my fury come forth like fire and burn that none can quench it because of the evil of your doings On these terms the fury of the Lord is prevented Those Israelites that passed out of Egypt into the wildernesse for Canaan had the Cloud and the Sea of the same use as Baptisme And Manna and the Rock of the same use as the Lords Supper The two former are called by the name of Baptisme and the two latter Spiritual meat Spiritual drink All were baptized in the one and all did eat and drink of the other yet sayes the text with many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the wildernesse If you would know who suffered thus under Gods displeasure the text tells you Lusters after evil things v. 6. Idolaters v. 7. Fornicators v. 8. Tempters of Christ v. 9. Murmurers v. 10. And Heb. 3.17 The Apostle demanding But with whom was God grieued fourty years answers Was it not with them which had sinned whose carcases fell in the wilderness Further demanding to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest but to them that believed not These wanting the answer of a good conscience fell short of the Sacramental engagements and also came short of true happinesse Arguments evincing it 1. This might be further evinced with arguments 1. In this case where the soul answers not to Sacramental engagements Sacraments are but as outward shadowes and bare empty signs and set out by the Spirit of God in Scripture with all their Rites and Ceremonies as other Ordinances of like nature in the most low despicable and undervaluing words that is possible Baptisme in the letter is no better with the Apostle then putting away the filth of the flesh the cleansing of the hands the feet or face from dirt or filth is the same with it The Pharisees washing of hands yea their washing of cups platters as low as it is laid by our Saviour was as efficacious and as acceptable Circumcision also when it led not to but from Christ is called by the Apostle by the name of Concision Phil. 3.2 Any gash made in the flesh or rent in the garment as well pleaseth The Apostle therefore Rom. 2.25 saith Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law but if thou be a breaker of the Law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision If you understand the Apostle speaking the sense of the carnal Jewes with whom he had to deal then you must understand the keeping of the Law in its full perfection for to this Circumcision lookt upon as a leading Law-Ceremony did engage He that is circumcised is a debtor to the while Law if we understand him speaking of it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith then sincerity is intended If this be wanting Circumcision is uncircumcision where that of the heart is there Circumcision in Gods account is and where it is not there Circumcision is not Rom. 2.28 29. We are the Circumcision saith the Apostle that worship God in Spirit and truth when the cutting of the foreskin in those false teachers was no better then Concision the worship of God in Spirit in whomsoever it was was Circumcision Arg. 1 2. Sacraments in this case are onely aggravations of sin and heightning of judgements In case of uncircumcision in the time of the Law and Non-baptisme in these times sins were no more then transgressions of the Law but now they are breaches of Covenant Then they would have been meerly rebellion against Soveraignty but now they are Apostasie and treacherie In Sacraments we close with God and take his Name upon us as his servants in sin we depart from him and refuse to serve him Thus our bond
a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
mentioned in Scripture which is not ascribed also to faith The Spirit mortifies the deeds of the flesh so doth faith Acts 15.9 Devils are cast out by the Spirit of God so they are cast out by faith Mar. 9 The Spirit is our strength in the inward man Ephes 3.16 and faith is our strength 1 Pet. 5.9 Rom. 4.20 All things are possible to the Spirit of God And all things are possible to him that beleeves Mar. 9.23 The Spirits method laid down in the Word is not to work in us respective to salvation after the grace of faith is implanted without us what is ascribed to the one as the efficient is ordinary ascribed to the other as the instrument But these answers he confesses are besides the point This simile might therefore have escaped this quarrel in the two next he will sure then be so punctual that all Readers shall say Rem acu tetigisti 5. It is added When you have laid down one proposition Man cannot justifie himself by believing without God how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct proposition And God will not justifie an unbelieving man who would have thought but you would rather have said Nor will God justify man unlesse his faith be the instrument of it and do you not seem to imply that man without God doth justifie himself when you say man cannot justifie himself by believing without God No nor with him neither for none can forgive sins but God onely even to another but who can forgive himself I think all is laid down so fairly that were I to lay it down again I should not lay it down in Mr. Baxters words Nor will God justifie a man unlesse faith be the instrument he would then soon have challenged it as a petitio principii seeing it is that which is in question I might have said that God will not justify a man except he disclaim his own righteousnesse and accept of Christs righteousnesse to justification but that which I did say is the same with any friend or fair adversary and so it is a disjunct proposition fairly laid down and I imply that which I speak and if any will have it further expressed God will not justifie man without the concurrence of his faith There followes In deed I have thought what a sad case the Pope is in that is the onely man on earth that hath no visible pardoner of his sin he can forgive others but who shall forgive him It seems by this jest that Mr. Baxter is willing to put off that he is not so good a proficient in Popish mysteries as by Mr Crandon he stands charged otherwise he could not but know that the Pope hath his pardoner as well as others The Pope hath his visible pardoner as well as receivers He gives power for the pardon of sin as the supposed head of the Church by application of the supererogated merits of the Saints together with the merits of Christ out of the treasure of the Church of which he hath the keys Now he sinnes as a man and receives pardon as a Church-member and to that purpose hath his confessor A man as visible as other men And speaking of his sad condition on this supposition he seems to lay farre more stresse on the pardons of Rome then they themselves as though he stood in some eminent danger of hell upon the want of such a pardon when he might know that according to their principles all his danger is an abode some longer time in Purgatory which is their trimming place in the way to heaven For if the pardon find him in a mortal sinne which alone is deserving of hell it is altogether inefficacious mortall sinne puts a barre to the working of it It is the temporal punishment which this pardon remits and not the eternal and in case it were true that this could not be done to the Pope there being none above him his successor with a wet finger can do it for him As to that which was forgotten it had been to his honour if it had never been remembred I forgot saith he that every believer forgiveth himself for I did not believe it Such sarcasmes befit not grave Writers especially when all Reformers to speak in his own language must bear a share in the contumely when they had it in their thoughts in this way to imitate the Apostle in giving all to grace and taking all from man that one would rise out of themselves to make this sport with it It followes 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed without the least proof that our faith is Gods instrument in justifying doth God effect our Justification by the instrumental efficient causation of our faith If this were my fault yet Mr. Baxter of all men is most unfit to give it in charge other men must have a proof for every word but he himself may heap up distinctions propositions conclusions without any colour of proof at all where is his proof of that which in the last Section number 6. must be remembred and of that great thing num 7. he would desire should be observed I suppose he will have ten to remember and observe before one to believe it Others can see proof and send their Reader hither for proof though he cannot find it My work was to shew that though it be mans act yet God may make use of it as instrumentally serviceable in this work and whether this hath been nakedly said or proved let the dis-interested Reader give his sentence if that which I have said will not satisfie let Mr. Burges be consulted in his late Treatise of Justifica Part 2. I conclude That which is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality but where there is a concurrence of agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold To this is answered He that will or can make him a Religion of words or syllables that either signifie nothing or are never like to be understood by the learner let him make this an article of his faith what you mean by absolute I cannot certainly ariolate Bona verba bono viro desunt Seeing I find the man in this mood I say no more but seeing he knowes not how to ariolate what I mean by this or that I have no mind to help him in this art of soothsaying and shall let the words stand for their use that bring a mind to understand rather then to exercise their wit to carp at what they read Of the sole sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant as an instrument in justification I shall now leave to the Readers consideration whether Mr. Baxters exceptions against the instrumentality of faith in justification be of that validity as to overthrow it and whether his doctrine of this subject be of that
so understood of a real change as wholly to exclude that which is relative It is meant of that whatsoever which tends to the soules profit It is spoken of profit in order to eternal rest If Justification be for our profit or tend at all to our everlasting rest then justification is not here excluded It followes The Scripture meaneth The Word had not further work on the heart as it hath in them that mix it with faith will you interpret it thus The Word did not justifie If I take this to be the meaning I must interpret it That the Word did not justifie them for it doth justifie where it is mixt with faith though I should not exclude other offices done by the Word It followes 2. It 's true that the Word did not justifie them but that is consequential onely of the former unprofitablenesse I might as well say that the Word 's not sanctifying is consequential as he may say the Word 's not justifying is onely thus consequential I see no shew of reason that the Text should be meant immediately of sanctification and consequentially onely of Justification and if it be consequentially onely proved that the Word did not justifie Them here is a reall and more then a shew of advantage to my cause I hope he is not the man that will dispute against proofs by consequence when the consequence by himself is granted It followes Once prove that man is but as much efficient in justifying himself as he is in the obedience and change of his mind or actions and then you do something When I go about the proof of it I think I shall have Mr. Baxter my sole and single adversary in it he is not pleased to give us in any difference And he ownes that which is usually quoted out of Austin He that made thee without thee will not save thee without thee and hath not justification as great an influx into salvation as sanctification I desire him onely to reflect upon that which he hath said in the Preface of his confession a book newly come to my hands Antecedently to believing all have an equal conditional gift of pardon and none have an absolute nor an actual right The Gospel findeth us equal and makes no inequality till we make it our selves But the secret unsearchable workings of Divine grace do begin the difference and make it in us before it be made by us Who ever went higher in speaking of mans work in his sanctification and higher it is then ever I spake of a mans pardoning himself It is said It is weak arguing to say the Word profiteth not because it was not mixt with faith therefore faith conveyes to it its efficacy of sanctifying yea of justifying you cannot but know the sequel would be denyed Others would think that there is strength in such arguing that it receives efficacy from faith upon that account that it profits where faith is and is unprofitable where faith is not especially when they find efficacy ascribed to faith both in justification and sanctification It followes In progressive sanctification and obedience and exercise of graces the Word and faith are concauses and one will not effect without the other And are not the Word and faith concauses in Justification as in progressive sanctification tell us whether you will exclude I dare exclude neither faith nor Gospel as instrumental workers But it followes not as is said that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this for concauses have not influence on each other but on the effect I scarce think that maxime to be of universal truth but be it a truth I say no more then here is asserted for me Justification is the effect and the Word and faith are concauses It yet followes The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work on the soul which presupposeth faith and that 's all that the Text saith If any sense can be made of this arguing so far as I understand it then Justification presupposeth not faith which is not Mr. Baxters judgment It followes May not the absence of faith hinder unlesse when present it doth effect And would the Apostle think we have spoke of effectual faith or the efficacy of faith yea would Dr. Preston have wrote a Tract of effectual faith if it had been idle in the soul and without all efficacy And to restrain the efficacy of it to sanctification excluding Justification never came that I know into the thoughts of any Orthodox Writer that hath treated of Justification neither would the Pen-men of Scriptures have expressed themselves in that way as to say we are justified by faith had faith been there and onely had sate idle The various applications of that Text Hab. 2.4 The just shall live by his faith may teach us not to pen up faith in such narrow bounds as to restrain the work of it to efficacy in one kind onely The Apostle to the Hebrewes plainly applyes it to support by faith in sufferings Heb. 10.38 and Gal. 3.11 to justification by faith and shall we say that in the one it is working and in the other it doth nothing If we do we shall have Paul our adversary who sayes that Christ is set forth a propitiation by faith what followes hath been already spoken to The second Text saith he I know not how you mean to make use of unlesse you argue thus The Word worketh effectually onely in believers therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word I think I need not tell you saith he that I deny the sequel not to speak of the antecedent nor yet to tell you that this speaks not of working the relative change of justification He had a good mind to speak to the antecedent but if he can for disproof of that make any efficacious working of the Word appear in Infidels such as Scripture useth to honour with such titles I shall oppose him to maintain the Justification of Infidels The sequel in the word convey is his own and to that which followes I have already sufficiently spoken I inferred from the former words that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality If none dare say that faith hath such an influx they may much lesse say that the Word hath such This in very big terms is denyed and the opposite boldly asserted The Gospel saith he in it self considered without the co-ordinate or subordinate or superior causality of faith hath this honour so fully clearly beyond all doubt that no man that is a preacher of this Gospel should question it When I stand thus highly charged to deny that which no Preacher of the Gospel should question by reason of the clear evidence of it every man may justly expect full clear and evident Scriptures and reasons beyond all doubt for my conviction but I hear of neither but instead
of it first a piece of a Concession Secondly a Simile The Concession is That the Gospel without the concomitance of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non That faith should barely wait effecting nothing and gain no further honour then here is assigned will appear a strange assertion If it had its efficacy where it was in being in miraculous cures so that it was said Thy faith hath made thee whole I think it is much rather efficacious in justification there being so much spoken of justification by faith I desire Mr. Baxter to consider the words of his learned dying friend Mr. Gataker in his letter to him And surely faith as a medium seems to have a more peculiar office in the transaction of that main businesse of Justification then either repentance or any other grace as the love or fear of God and the like Which to me seems the more apparent because I find it so oft said in the Word that men are justified by faith but no where by repentance Albeit that also be as a condition thereunto required as also that form of speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fides or fiducia in sanguine seems to intimate and imply that this grace hath a more special reference then any other to the satisfaction made to Gods Justice for our sins by Christs sufferings which alone we can plead for our discharge of them at Gods Tribunal Much more followes worthy of Mr. Baxters consideration in laying so high a charge as he hath done on our Reformers in this particular There followes a Simile as full of obscurity as the earth is of darknesse and it were aesie so far as it is intelligible to make it appear how much it halteth but that I will not trouble the Reader with such impertinencies and I look for proofs rather then Similes and here is no proof at all I further infer in my Treatise Mr. Pemble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of Gods Spirit presently addes Now instruments are either cooperative or passive and the Word must be one of these two Cooperative he saith it is not and gives his reason It is therefore saith he a passive instrument working onely per modum objecti as it containes a declaration of the Divine will and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known believed and practised Here many exceptions are taken Whether the Word be a passive instrument or cooperative with the Spirit First That Mr. Pemble speakes of the Word as the instrument of sanctification we speak of it as conveying right to Christ and as justifying Secondly That Mr. Pembles reason of the passive instrumentality of the Word is but this that it cannot be declared what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will Thirdly That himself will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration though not punctually how it operates Fourthly That this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture which makes the Word to be mighty powerful pulling down strong-holds c. Fifthly That Mr. Pemble herein is single and singular To speak to these in order To the first I say Though Mr. Pemble gives an instance of the Words work in sanctification yet there is no reason to believe that he limits his whole discourse to it indefinitely affirming that it is a passive instrument and giving instance in one there is no imaginable reason that he can exclude the other For his second He lets his Reader know that he took an hasty view of Mr. Pemble when he said that this was all his reason he may see the thing fully argued by him mihi pag. 97 98 99 c in quarto which is too long to transcribe The work which is done upon the soul is wrought by the Spirit as the principal agent whether it be to regeneration progressive sanctification or in order to justification every previous work in tendency towards these is from the Spirit likewise as illumination conviction the beginning and whole progresse is by the Spirit The Word is no more then an instrument and all that the Word doth is by power from the Spirit and therefore said to be mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.5 Now the Spirit must work by way of power either on the Word or the soul as its object It must infuse power and strength into the one as the principal agent in the work Mr. Pemble denies that it works thus by an infusion of power into the Word and affirmes that the infusion of strength is into the soul and not into the Word which the Apostle confirmes Ephes 3.16 As for his third which he saies he will undertake to declare he brings nothing but bare authorities He faith he hath read many that say one thing and some that say another but himself is of Scotus his mind and we have not one syllable to induce any other to be of the same judgement His fourth Mr. Pemble answers and saith That all those phrases there reckoned up are to be understood by a metonymy which though they properly belong to the invisible power of the Holy Ghost giving effect unto his own Word yet are figuratively attributed unto the Word it self which he useth as his visible instrument explaining himself by several similitudes For his last If Mr. Pemble be thus sole and singular he was much mistaken Having fully spoke his judgement in this thing he addes pag. 99. And this is the sentence of the Orthodox Church touching the nature and distinction of these two callings Inward by the work of the Spirit outward by the voice of the Word The Arminians are of another opinion whose judgement saith he about this matter is thus c. At large laying down their doctrine And it were easy to multiply those testimonies that take all efficacy or energy from the Word to give it to the Spirit usually quoting 1 Cor. 3.6 7. 2 Cor. 3.6 2 Cor. 10.4 5. He tells me I doubt whether you believe him or your self throughly for if you did I think you would preach but coldly I am perswaded you look your preaching should operate actively And does he think Mr. Pemble did believe his own doctrine or was he a cold Preacher he delivers his doctrine with confidence and backes it with reasons and the workes that he hath left behind argue that he spake with some heat and fervour and I wish that I could gain more heat both in prayer and preaching and I do look that my preaching should operate actively but whether of it self or through the power of the Spirit there lyes the question He concludes If it were proved that there were an hundred passive instruments it would never be proved that faith is one as an instrument doth signifie an efficient cause of Gods work of justifying us neither really nor reputatively is
bigger then the Earth that â—e may call an opinion That which by reason we can certainly conclude we may call knowlege but that which we believe upon the credit of him that speaks it that is faith or belief This is so of the being of faith that without it there is no faith neither humane nor divine The Nobleman of Israel 2 Kings 7.1 Zachary the father of John Baptist Luk 1.18 Martha John 11.39 40. were all of them herein faulty This Truth of God was above their reason and therefore they suspended their faith in it We believe not what man saith when we do not assent to the truth of that which he speaks and we believe not what God speaks further then we assent to the truth of his Word Thus far the devills go having sufficient experience of the Truth of God and thus far and further we must go if we be in the faith Now this assent hath these two properties first It is Firm secondly Vnlimitted absolute 1. Firm. and full First firm Not alwaies free from assaults and doubtings Satan and our own hearts will muster up objections but such that yeilds not but withstands and overcomes doubtings holds firm to truth when all means are used to wrest from it Herein Eve failed God had said The day that ye eat ye shall surely die Satan brought such objections that upon his word she believed that she should procure good to her self 2. Absolute and unlimited and not incur evil by eating and so yielded to unbelief upon Satans reasonings As our assent must be firm so also absolute and unlimitted to the whole of all that God speaks such was the faith of Paul Acts 24.14 Believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets and Christ blames the two Disciples that their faith was not such Luk 24.25 How little honour do we give to man when sometimes we give credit and belief to that which he saies because we see reason and probability of truth in his words and at other times call all to question that he speaks such is the honour that many give to God when they pick and choose in believing as they do in obeying Promises must be believed in the way of Gods tender of them with limit to the conditions annexed to them Threatnings must be believed upon those grounds that they are menaced commands must be believed that is Gods soveraignty in them the justice and equity of them and a necessity of our yielding to them As it must be an assent to the whole Word of God So it must be an assent to it in that sense as God propounds it The Word in that sense that it gives of it self is the Word of God and not otherwise when we put our sense upon it we make it our word not Gods Where we must not condemn all for unbelief that are any waies subject to mistakes or that through weaknesse of judgment do not apprehend every thing as it is Willing and wilfull wrestings of the Word are here spoke against when carnall reasonings out of singularity vain-glory carnall contentment hope of gain and admiration of men are set up against the Truth of God if we should go no further in our scrutiny how many would be found unsound in the faith Have we not those that are so far from any close adherence to truth tendred that every wind tosseth them to and fro and drives them up and down that hold no longer in an opinion then a mimick gallant keeps in a fashion and change their faith as these do their dresse Have we not those that believe where they list and that is where it may serve for their advantage or repute but where they list not they can deny all faith to any truth that God speaks deny it they wil where they see it tends to their danger No swearer no drunkard no adulterer no extorting oppressor c. can believe the truth of God in his Word but he must with it believe his own condemnation 2. In the will with the affections But faith is a work of the whole soul and implyes the will with the affections as well as the understanding Faith is exprest in Scripture by our coming to Christ Joh. 6.35 And that is a work of the will and not of the mind of the judgement and not of the affections It is called a receiving of Christ Joh. 1.12 this is also done by the will and affections Consideration and deliberation are works of the understanding but choise and imbracing are works of the will when the woman of Samaria Joh. 4.29 saith Is not this the Messiah There was matter of consideration and deliberation there was work for the understanding to be imployed in whether he were to be acknowledged indeed the Messiah But now to leave all and follow Christ to forsake all and cleave to him This is matter of choise and work for the will and affections whose work it is to take or refuse Therefore as faith is set out in Scripture by words implying knowledge and assent so likewise by words implying affiance trust rolling casting a mans self on the Lord. Faith then takes Christ and cleaves to him in all of those relations in which a Christian stands to Christ takes Christ and lookes for no other delight or comfort takes Christ and will not indure any other Lord or commander takes Christ and lookes for no other helper takes Christ and lookes for no other Saviour takes Christ as a Saviour and trusts in him takes Christ as an husband and delights in him takes Christ as a Lord and obeyes him Thus according to the several offices that Christ does there are several actings of faith for to answer The great work of Christ was to give his soul an offering for sin to shed his blood to take away our guilt there faith answers and it is not alone said that they that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses which might imply no more then a qualification of the person to be justified but it is further said that Christ is set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 which plainly denotes the instrument whereby we have our interest When there are many acts of faith that which respects his blood alone doth justifie Christ is set up as a King and hath all things put in subjection under him Here faith yields up all to him and consents as to be saved so to be ruled by him Christ in his Kingly power protects as well as commands as he holds out a Scepter so he is a shield Faith flyes unto him for shelter and so receives and quenches all Satans darts Christ is given as an head to his body the Chuch not onely for command but for quickning and enlivening power to supply with vitall energies every part and member Here faith answers and takes in from Christ the Spirit by the promises
or the sacrifice to be offered Bellarmine tells us that the Ordination of Presbyters is a Sacrament by the consent of all and he himself determines that the Ordination of Bishops is a Sacrament and according to him there is no other Scripture-Ordination seeing all the Scriptures that speak of it speak as he sayes of the Ordination of Bishops Most of these doubted among themselves whether they be Sacraments though he multiplies Authors denying their Ordination to be any Sacrament Ordination of Deacons he sayes is very probable and to be believed that it is a Sacrament though it be no Article of faith to believe it which he proves because it cannot be evidently deduced out of the Written Word or tradition Neither is there saith he any determination of the Church for it For Sub-Deacons he sayes there is not that certainty as of Deacons yet he sayes it is very probable that it is a Sacrament though he hath such an argument against it as that none but himself will be ever able to answer Imposition of hands he sayes and proves out of the fourth Councel of Cartharge Canon 5. is not used in it and yet his whole nineth Chapter is spent to prove that imposition of hands is essential in this Sacrament It is a Sacrament save onely that it wants the essentials of a Sacrament as do indeed all their five supposititious ones The four last which with them are the lesser Orders have not as he sayes that probability that they are Sacraments as that of subdeaconship yet the opinion that affirmes their Sacramentality The matter of these Sacraments not agreed upon is far more probable then that which denyes it Their learned Councel are not yet agreed what is the matter of this or these Sacraments whether it be the imposition of hands or the holding out of such an instrument as belongs to their function as a Chalice to the Priest c. The words uttered to each respectively The form when such an instrument is delivered are the form The effect The effect of these is 1. A Spiritual and perpetual power for discharge of their function of which the indelible character is a token 2. Saving grace for a right discharge of their function The Minister The Minister of these is a Bishop and the Ceremonies Anointing and Shaving That the Ordination of Ministers for their function is Gospel Ordinance we willingly grant and that no man should take upon him this honour to deal for men in things appertaining to God unlesse he be called as Aaron Tymothy was this way called to the work 1 Tim. 4.14 and he hath a directory given him for the call of others 1 Tim. 5.22 Titus is left in Crete for this purpose Tit. 1.5 and Paul and Barnabas in every City where they come act in it Yet it is far short of the honour of a Sacrament properly so called Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament The outward rite of imposition of hands was used not so much for significancy as decency being an usage in religious acts of solemnity before the Law under the Law and continued in Gospel-times as standing with the simplicity of it yet we dare not with Bellarmine make it essential to Ordination finding no institution of it for a sign much lesse any saving grace annext to it by way of promise so that here both an outward instituted sign and inward grace are wanting â—â—ither is it such in which all the people of God are interested One peculiar order onely can claime to it In the time of the law this was in use and yet by their own confession it was then no Sacrament And it is very strange that not onely power given for administration of Sacraments should be a Sacrament but authority to open the door for these that come for the Sacrament as for other Ordinances should be a Sacrament likewise The greatest thing that adversaries talke of is that Calvin in Instit lib. 4. Calvin vindicated cap. 14. sect 20. saith that he can willingly suffer Ordination to be called a Sacrament but they are unwilling to take notice that he denyes to number or reckon it among Ordinary Sacraments and therefore it is plain that he takes the word in a more large acceptation then ordinary which is further clear in that in his Comment on Jam. 5.14 he makes the oyl which Christs Disciples used Mark 6.13 for the time that the use of it continued to be a Sacrament when yet he restrains the whole effect or fruit of it to the health of the body onely which falls far short of his famously known definition of a Sacrament so that Ordination neither according to Scripture nor Calvin is to be accounted a Sacrament SECT X. Marriage no Sacrament THe last Sacrament which they would obtrude upon us is Marriage which they have determined to be a Sacrament as well as the rest that serve to make up the number whilest the solemnizing of it holds and the parties are upon the work The words or signes expressing consent according to Bellarmine is both matter Matter and form Form of this Sacrament But when the work is over then the married couple in their persons are the matter and the words or signes are the form The married persons expressing their consent in any manner whatsoever are themselves the Minister Minister of this Sacrament Canus seeing how great a dishonour it is to Sacraments to make that which is acted in the most prophane and clandestine manner a Sacrament resolves that the words of the persons thus expressing consent are the form of the contract of Marriage and that upon that account marriage is valid but it is no Sacrament according to him unlesse it be done by a lawful Minister but this Bellarmine opposeth as a singular and new opinion A Sacrament then according to him is wheresoever a marriage is and marriage is where consent of Parties is expressed though in the lewdest way by persons under Parents power and not at their own dispose by divine appointment We willingly yield it to be an Ordinance Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament established by God but very short of the nature or honour of a Sacrament for divers reasons 1. It was the same as it Reas 1 is now from the beginning and yet all that space of time from Adam to Christs coming in the flesh it was no Sacrament by our adversaries confession 2. It is an Ordinance Reas 2 in common for mankind and no Ordinance peculiar to the Church The whole world of mankind have their interest in it and Sacraments are known to be onely Church-priviledges 3. All the people of God are not tyed to it some Reas 3 have their liberty to abstain from it and all Sacraments are under a precept yea according to our adversaries it is a degree of perfection unto merit in all to keep out of it and unto men of some orders a defilement
one many are made righteous 5. That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the sacrifice of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God 6. As Christ frees us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look unto him for justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittall from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Acts 13.38 But Christ frees us from the curse in suffering as a sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree I said in my Treatise of the Covenants there are severall acts of justifying saith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of justification It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-denyal Gideons or Sampsons valour that was their justification but his blood that did enable them in those duties by his Spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they and I doubt not but he overtopt them yet he was not thereby justified Here are many exceptions taken 1. At the phrase an act of justification with much ado made to know my meaning when I had thought all had well enough understood it You would fancy that I mean that justification it self acts speaking of it not as an object but an efficient but I must acquaint you that it implies that justification acts when I speak of the acts of justification as it doth that harvest works when I speak of harvest-work I mean acts tending to justifie or exercis'd in or about justification 2. It is demanded Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts Heb. 11. are acts of justification The proper importance of your words say you is for the former but that say you is a dangerous untruth giving in v. 13. as an exception against it Answ I intended the generality of those acts there ascribed to faith in that indefinite speech of mine which you cannot make necessarily to be universall You have justly made exception of one vers 13. which in my ministeriall way preaching on those words I have interpreted as you say our Divines do It seeâ—s by you that I have our Divines in the rest siding with me 3. You tell me you should not in my judgement have called Abrahams obedience Moses self-deniall Gideons valour acts of justifying faith Are these acts of faith If you mean say you that these acts are fruits of faith it is true or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul c. Answ And should the Apostle have then said that they were done by faith Is not this his error as the former is mine I pray you what was that work of faith that the Apostle mentions 1 Thes 1.3 Faith wrought and acted somewhat 4. You demand what mean you to say obedience and valour was not their justification Answ If no act of faith sano sensu by an ordinary Metonymy may be said to be justification make then a comment upon the Apostles words Rom. 4.3 where to overthrow justification by works and to establish justification by faith he sayes Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness which is as much as it was his justification That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain justification is not unfitly called justification Faith in Christs blood is such a plea and therefore not unfitly called our justification Your fifth and sixth need not to have been put into two Then how come you to say next say you that it is Christ's blood The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification c. But I thought the contest in your dispute had been which is the justifying act of faith and which not And therefore when you denyed those in Heb. 11. to be acts of justification which I am forced to interpret justifying acts I expected to find the true act asserted but in stead of that I find the opposite number is The blood of Christ Is this indeed the controversie Whether it be accepting Christ as Lord or the blood of Christ that justifieth Never was such a question debated by me in the way here intimated I am wholly for you if this be the doubt Hâ—re you meet with the greatest advantage that I think in my Treatise you any where find when I say these acts were not their justification and put in opposition but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit it should have been faith in his blood who did enable them to these duties but each one may see and some have said that before we read this objection of yours that it is plain that I meant it Sâ—venthly you tell me It would prove an hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified without flying to great impropriety of speech Answ I believe you think that justifying faith includes in it all those kinds of faith that Scripture mentions as Faith Dogmatical or Historical and in all that had the gift of miracles Faith-miraculous They had not one faith whereby they had their interest in Christ and another whereby they gave assent to Divine truths and a third whereby they wrought miracles And to say that we are justified by such assent or they by such miracles I think were a speech more then improper You say further That by justifying faith I must mean the act habit or renewed faculty And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts that I should mean the last Then you would willingly engage me in a dispute whether that the acts and habits of mans soul are of so distinct a nature that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects yet the habit producing all these is one and the same To which I say no more for answer but that I shall take it for granted till I see as yet I do not convincing reason against it Eighthly you tell me that 1 Cor. 4.4 is nothing to our business Paul was not his own justifier Though he knew not matter of condemnation sensu Evangelio for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner yet that did not Justifie him because it is God only that is his Judge Answ I believe that you give a right comment on the Apostles words as to the first branch He was one whose heart as John speaks condemn'd him not but your reason why he was not therby justified is very strange Because say you that it is God onely that is his Judge And thus then the Apostle argues God onely is Judge to justifie But my innocency or integrity is not God Therefore it doth not justifie It seemes that Abrahams works
with you are God for you tell us presently that he was justified by them The Apostle indeed addes in the following words He that judgeth me is the Lord But those words have not reference to these now in hand as is plain in the context but to that which he had spoken to vers 3. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans Judgment yea I judge not mine own self to which these words come in direct opposition But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And thus then the Apostle here argues He that must stand to the Judgment of the Lord may account it a very small thing to be judged of men But I must stand to the Judgment of the Lord Ergo. I think the Reader may find a better interpretation of this text from Mr. Ball quoted by me in this treatise which might be seconded by the authority of severall others and such as he sayth renders the text strong against Justification by works When you have expounded the words as you have done they serve to shut out all works in which Paul ever appear'd from Justification There followes such an inference that you would hardly bear with from another Can you hence prove say you that accepting Christ as a Lord is not the condition of Justification then you may prove the same of the accepting of him as a Saviour It seemes every word in a whole treatise must immediatly of it self formally prove the main thing that is in question It proves that works parallel to Abrahams offering Isaack or leaving of his Country are none such whereby men are justified It fully proves that which the next words seems to disprove I brought in by way of objection that text of James and endeavoured to give some answer to it James 2 24. vindicated James indeed saith that Abraham was Justified by works when he had offered Isaack his Son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 But either there we must understand a working faith with Pisator Paraeus and Penible and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the affirmative The other what faith Justifies Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight infers from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his Son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse How otherwise do these aceord He was Justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was Justified by faith Here are many exceptions taken If James must use the term works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usuall as if he had fore-seen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must believe that by works James doth not mean works it would prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is Answ First it seemes the difficulty of interpretation is supposed when the word is used 12 times so near together otherwise I doubt not but your self wil confesse a necessity of interpretation of this kind which yet you would be loath to have branded with such absurdity Secondly If I durst take the liberty that others assume the doubt were easily solved and say that Paul speakes of a reall Justification James of an equivocall which interpretation would far better suit here then else where A dead faith is fit to work a dead Justification and such as carries as full resemblance to Justification in truth as a dead corps doth of a living man Thirdly were you to interpret that of David Psal 22.6 I am a worm and no man I think you would so interpret it as to make him a man and no worm But to leave Metaphors Metonymies frequent in Scripture and come to the Metonymies of this kind How frequently are such found in Scripture which inforce us to say that not to be in strict Propriety of speech what Scrippture saies is He hath made him to be sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 When yet we must say he was not made sin an entity cannot be made a non ens or meer privation He was made then an atonement for sin a sin-offering as we say a Metonymy of the Adjunct These died in faith having not received the promises Heb. 11.13 They had received the promises Rom. 9.4 It is a contradiction to say They died in the faith and had not received the promise It is taken there for the land promised a Metonymy of the Object When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him Matth. 2.3 Jerusalem was not troubled It was alone the Inhabitants that were troubled by a Metonymy of the Subjâ—ct This is the Will of God even your Sanctification 1 Thes 4.4 and this was not voluntas Dei but res volita not the Will of God but the thing willed by a Metonymy of the Cause A Thousand more of these might be named which yet are as well understood as we understand each others common Language 2. Do but read say you over all the severses put working faith instead of works trie what sense you will make Answ Here is implyed that As works are taken in some of these verses So they must be taken in all If there be no Metonymy in all then there is no Metonymy in any As one so all are to be understood But if you please to consult Gomarus in his vindication of those words of Christ Matth. 23.27 Com. 1. Pag. 110.111 One and the same word is often repeated in the same verse or neer to it in a different sense Infirma est haec consequentia nititur enim falsa hypothesi quasi ejusdem verbi repetitio semper eundem sensum postularet cum contra pro circumstantiarum ratione saepe diverso sensu accipiatur quem admodum illustria ex empla demonstrant You will find frequent instances where the same word in the self same place or verse must be taken in a different sense in one properly and in the other figuratively Interpreting those words O Jerusalem Jerusalem of the heads and leaders of the people of Jerusalem there lies an objection against him that in Luk. 13.33 the words immediatly before are It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem where the word Jerusalem is taken for the City it self and not for the heads and leaders of the people He answers This consequence is weak For it is built upon a false ground as though the repetition of the same word should also enforce the same sense when contrawise according to the circumstance of the place it may be taken in a different sence as many illustr ous examples make manifest Instancing in Joh. 3.17 God sent not his Son into the world to condemne the world
die in impenitency and unbelief I do not here go about to dispute the thing but only observe that all that Amyraldus hath gone about to set up concerning universall Redemption with such high applause of yours is by this position utterly overthrown For the assertion which in the place mentioned I have laid down that impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant I need say no more then that which I have spoke there having been nothing replyed to that which I have said My argument in the place quoted Arguments evincing that impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians are violation of Covenant in brief was this They that engage in Covenant to believe in Christ and forsake their sin break Covenant by a life in unbelief and sin But all professed Christians engaged by Covenant to believe in Christ and to forsake their sin Therefore all professed Christians by unbelief and sin break Covenant I only here add If unbelief and impenitence be not breaches or violations of Covenant properly so called then finall unbelief and impenitence is no breach or violation of Covenant properly so called This is clear Finall perseverance in unbelief and impenitence is no more then a continuance of the same posture or state of Soul God-ward in which they before stood in impenitence and unbelief As Perseverance in Faith and Repentance is the continuance of Faith and Repentance Explicatory distinctions examined If then finall unbelief and impenitence be a breach of the Covenant of grace then all unbelief and impenitence denominating a man an unbelieving and impenitent person is a breach of Covenant likewise For the clearing of your meaning which is all that you do in this question you distinguish first of the Word Covenant Secondly of the word Violation You say The word Covenant is sometimes taken for Gods Law made to his creature containing precepts promises and threatnings Sometimes for man's promise to Gâ—d Violation You say is taken either rigidly for one that in judgement is esteemed a non-performer of the condition or laxly for one that in judgement is found a true performer of the condition but did neglect or refuse the performance for a time You apply both these distinctions Taking the word Covenant in the latter sense you say that you have affirmed that man breaks many a Covenant with God yea even the Baptismal vow it self is so broken till men do truly repent and believe To which I reply That it is no other then the Baptismall vow or Covenant that we are to enquire into Baptisme is as Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant In Baptisme then we engage to the terms of the Covenant and till we repent and believe by your own confession we break this Covenant But taking the word Covenant say you in the former sense i. e. for Gods precepts promises and threatnings and Violation in the latter sense for one that in Judgment that is at the day of Judgment is esteemed a non performer of the conditions so you say None violate the Covenant but finall Vnbelievers and impenitent that is as you explaine it No other are the proper subject of its peremptory curse or threatning But Good Sir reflect upon this explanation of yours and in a more serious way yet consider of it To help your self out you refer mans violation of Covenant not to his own promise or engagement in which he stands in duty tyed but to Gods engagements containing his promises and threatnings and to violate Gods promise or threatning which you here implye to be done by Covenant-breakers scarce carries sense with it We may incur his threatning or misse of his promise but we do not violate either his promise or threatning Violation of Gods precept is disobedience of which Pharaoh a man never in Covenant was guilty but no violation or breach of Covenant where there is no voluntary engagement Our engagement is necessity to make it up into a Covenant and our violation of our engagements to make it a breach of Covenant Was ever any charged with breach of Covenant in breaking not his own but the condition of the other Conanting party Jsrael was under a Law to let their Hebrew Servants go free the seaventh year Exod. 21.2 In Zedekiah's time they serv'd themselves of them beyond that terme Here was the transgression of a Law but no breach of any particular Covenant But when they entred Covenant with God to do that which Law required and ratified it by cutting a Calfe in twaine passing through the parts of it and again served themselves of them here was a breach of Covenant So that the violation that you speak of if you may call it a violation is no Covenant-violation Every man that breaks a Covenant breaks his own and not anothers part in the Covenant And whereas you will have that to be a violation of Covenant laxly and not rigidly taken Impenitent persons in the most strict and proper sense are Covenant-breakers whâ—n one doth neglâ—ct or refuse the performance for the time but in judgment that is in the day of Judgment is found a true performer of the conditions to me it is very strange upon a severall account First I suppose you mean his own conditions to which he standes engaged which for a time he thus neglectâ— and not Gods And you so spoile all that before you spake of Covenant-violations respective to promises and threatnings Secondly Such a one in the strictest sense is a man guilty of breach of Covenant during such time of his neglect or refusall Was not that younger Son of his Father mentioned Luk. 15. properly and in the most rigid sense a prodigal when he wastâ—d his substance with ritotous living notwithstanding that he was after reclaimed to a more frugall course And was not shee also that was a sinner in the City Luk. 7. truly a sinner or only in a laxe sense because she afterwards repented Was not the penitent Thief as truly and in as rigid a sense a Thief when he stole as he that stole and repented not And so he that lives in breach of promise with God is as truly a breaker of Covenant notwithstanding following Repentance as those that live and die impenitent I know therefore no other way of explanation of your self to your Readers satisfaction but to say that the Covenant of grace is not finally violated unlesse the conditions be finally broke Who ever doubted but when a sinner repents the doom which is passed against him for sin is reverst And that Paul a persecutor not in a laxe but in rigid sense afterwards building the faith that he destroyed shall not appear in Judgment as a persecutor And so he that is as truly and in no laxe sense a Covenant-breaker being by grace brought in to keep Covenant in the day of Judgment shall be reputed and esteemed a man faithful in Covenant SECT VII Faith and Repentance are mans conditions and not Gods in the
other he threats and these we expect or fear according as we answer in Covenant-keeping or fail through breach of it Herein I explained my self Chap. 5. pag. 21. and this sure was your mind when you wrote your Aphorismes where you say Faith and Repentance are Gods part that he will perform in one Covenant and made our conditions in another The bestowing of them then is no condition of God in that Covenant where they are conditions required from us You say in a Parenthesis if I understand you that our action of believing is called Gods condition by the Querist though improperly yet in a language very common in Mr. Bl's Treatise I desire instances to make this appear that it is thus common in my Treatise You say Thus much being premised I reply more particularly 1. I will yet say that God hath such an absolute promise as well as a conditionall till you give me beâ—ter reasons of your deniall or your questioning whether Scripture will bear it Answ It seems you perceive that I do not plainly deny it Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant I have reasons so far preponderating at least that I dare not assert it I shall adventure upon one that makes towards a denial Meer gracious predictions or prophecies de eventu what God will do are no absolute promises how generally soever so taken This I think is plain There is a difference betwixt a meer prediction and a promise or a prophecie de eventu what God will do and a promise But these that are generlly taken to be absolute promises are according to you meer gracious perdictions what God will do Aphor. pag. 9. Prophecies de eventu what God will do Append. pag. 44. Ergo. I shall adventure to second it with another Promises properly so called have some determinate object to whom they are made and who may receive consolation from them This appears Heb. 6.17 18. But in these absolute promises generally so called there is no determinate object to whom they are made or that possibly can receive consolation from them This is plain They are made as you say to the Elect and being made to them they are made as you further say to we know not who and so none can receive consolation from them No man can aforehand say as you observe that he shall have a new and soft heart because God hath promised it For he cannot know that it is promis'd to him Therefore these are no promises properly so called You adde I shall yet say that the giving of our faith and Repentance is the matter of that absolute promise Answ That it is the matter of that which you have called Gods prediction or prophecie de eventu what shall fall out and now do call an absolute promise I do easily grant And so according to your self it is not the matter of the conditionall proper Covenant of which we speak which is enough for me against you in the thing in question You further say my argument to the contrary hath little in it to compell you to a change Answ My argument it seems found you changed I cannot see you the same here as at least I thought I saw you in your Aphorisms Your Major say you is Whose acts they are his conditions they are In your reply you seem to grant it understood negatively but affirmatively you say the proposition holds not universally but put not in your exception But afterwards you put in an â—xcâ—ption as understood negatively Nor negatively do's it hold say you speaking de actione quâ est quid donandum Answ I think it holds nothing less then if there be quid agendum as well is quid dandum in case the action be matter of duty You say further to your Minor I could better answer if I could find it Expecting say you that it should have been this But our faith and Repentance are not Gods acts And observing that I say That this rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours leaving out all that to which the Relative This refers you know best for what reason Your Reader may suspect That it is to perswade that I deny which seems your great design here that God hath any hand in it I was censured before for giving too mâ—ch to the Spirit of God in the work of Sanctification when I would have the denomination to be given to him and not to man in that work And here I am brought in as ascribing nothing to Gods Spirit because I seem to say that Faith and Repentance are mans acts and not Gods Where you further except against me as over cautelous in speaking the two propositions copulatively It is enough you say to prove them Gods conditions and ours if they be Gods actions and ours Which will be I think a disproof if it be once made good of that which in your answer to your Querists you have said where you say That they are Gods part that he hath discovered that he will perform in one Covenant and they are made our conditions in another They are not then Gods conditions and ours in the same Covenant I am well enough content that you make them God's conditions and not ours in the improper unconditionate Covenant so that you will grant that they are our conditions and not Gods in the proper conditionate Covenant of which we now speak When I say that this rises not to make them formally Gods acts and not ours You say the word formally may do much to help me out And I say it is well that I have some help that way for I fear your great design here is to hedge me in or else you had not opposed me where my business is not to oppose but to defend you And here you come in with an objection to purpose It is hard to know whether your formally respect a natural or moral form Where we have Logick niceties enow But to let these pass I think no man but your self would have mentioned nature or morality here My meaning is only that formali modo loquendi they have their denomination from man and not from God You further observe that I say They are our acts c. God believes not c. Yielding that to believe is our act you object that to move us effectually to believe as a superior cause is not our work but Gods Answ Sure you do not think that ever I thought that the work of a superior cause above man is the work of man And you may plainly see that I speak as much in words that you leave out for God's more superior causality in this work as you do You say Let it be so to believe is our work and our condition It follows not that it is not Gods But me thinks this necessarily follows I never heard that in any bargain the condition of the one party was the condition of the other And your Reader will think that you have here much forgot
with your distinction that we engage to renounce them not as duty but as a condition to obtaine Salvation This privative part of duty holding out the terminus à quo in our Christian motion implyes a positive work which also was expressed in our English Leiturgie constantly to believe Gods holy word and obediently keep his commands and confirmed by the Apostle to be our duty Ro. 6.4 Buried with him by Baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of liâ—e This we vow and I desire to know what more in any Gospel-precept is required 6. I said then the distinction between those that enter Covenant and break it as Jer. 31.32 33. and those that have the Law written in their hearts and put into their inward parts to observe it fallâ— all standing equally guilty of the breach of it no help of grace being of power to enable to keep Covenant To this you answer When sincere obedience The precept and the condition in the Covenant of Grace are one and perfect obedience are all one and when the precept and the condition of the Covenant are proved to be of equall extent then there will be ground for the charging of this consequence I marvail how the first part of the answer came into your thoughts That Text of Jeremiah speaks to sincerity and not to perfection For the second sincerity is the precept and sinceâ—ity is the condition sincerity is one and the same and therefore precept and condision are one and the same That which we are to renounce and that to which we engage is our condition But that which we renounce and that to which we engage is thâ— Gospel or Covenant-precept The precept and condition are therefore the same Faith and new obedience are the precept Faith and new obedience are the condition The precept and condition are therefore one and the same So that your distinction falling as I doubt not but it do's all my arguments after the first to the last eo nomine stand You go about to evade them all with this one distinction which I leave to the judicious Reader to determine whether it be not without a difference But before I undertake your next I have to thank you for that which you have transcribed out of Robert Baronius pag. 401. of your Confession Treating in an Appendix of the possibility of fulfilling the Law of God considered according to Gospel lenity you tell us what his second assertion is pag. 122. which I desire the Reader to peruse either in your book or in the Author himself Where he may see 1. That the Gospel is below the Law as to the degree that it requireth As to the one there is a possibility of fulfilling according to him and not so to the other 2. That the obligation of the Law yet remains so that all failings are transgressions 3. That it stands as a Rule for us to affect and with our best strength to endeavour after 4. That the Gospel requires a certain measure of obedience on pain of eternal damnation This doubtless is that which is the condition of it 5. That this obedience thus required is necessarily to be as high as grace enables to reach In which we see in the first place their distinction opposed that say That the Gospel requires perfection and accepts sincerity The Gospel according to him requires no more then it accepts and for which grace enables And in the next place your distinction of duty and condition is by him utterly overthrown according to him all comes within the condition which is matter of duty My last argument was Then it follows that sincerity is never called for as a duty or required as a grace but only dispens'd with as a failing and indulged as a want It is not so much a Christian's honour or Character as his blemish rather his defect then praise But we find the contrary in Noah Job c. To this you reply I will not say it is past the wit of man to find the ground of this charge i. e. to see how this should follow but I dare say it is past my wit If it had been said The Covenant commandeth perfection and not sincerity or the Covenant accepteth sincerity but not commandeth it there would have been some reason for this charge But do you think that sincerity is no part of perfection c Answ My wit is so low that I know not where the cloud lies I do not take sincerity to be properly a part of perfection but a degree towards it as Calor ad unum is a degree towards rather then a part of Calor ad octo So the lower degâ—ee of heat would remain when a higher is introduc'd and not be swallowed up in it And if the command looks no lower then perfection in degree the imperfect degree is not directly commanded though according to these it is in dulged It is said Matth. 12.20 that Christ will not break the bruised Reed nor quench the smoaking Flax. Is that feeble strength and remiss heat there look'd upon as a duty or rather is it not look'd upon as a defect or want Is it not Christ's indulgence rather then the obedience of his command that is there noted or pointed out My answer to the single argument so far as I have read or heard against that which I here delivered follows But seeing that your reply so far as I can judge is rather with me then against me as to the Position it self and your endeavour rather to excuse then defend those of the contrary opinion which very well pleaseth me for I wish that more were said for their honour so that the truth do not suffer I am well content to pass it by having a greater desire to defend you where you speak for truth then my self where not truth but my reputation is impugned And shall make it my business to look into that which Mr. Crandon hath against you in it Concerning the second that the Gospel doth require but sincere Mr. Crandons arguments answered not perfect obedience which is both your assertion and mine he saith What shall we think of those Texts in the new Testament which require us to be perfect 2 Cor. 13.11 Jam. 1.4 Yea perfect as God is perfect Matt. 5.48 reproving weakness and infirmity and commanding a going on to perfection Answ We are to think of them as Protestant Divines ordinarily do in their commenting upon them We deny saith Rivet that the perfection of which Scripture speaks either when it commands us to be perfect or gives testimony of perfection or integrity to some consists in a freedome from sin Exercit. 52. in Genes pag. 267. The Text quoted out of James serves well to explain the rest Let patience have her perfect work that ye may be perfect and entire wanting nothing whence we may argue 1. That perfection
teachers or contradict others when they have got two or three words of Scripture Nor such as have not wit for an ordinary businesse and yet think thy can master the deepest controversies He that thinks to do this without a peircing wit as well as grace ordinarily thinks to see without eyes 2. That he be one that hath longer and more diligently and seriously exercised himself in these studies then I have done 3. That he be one more free from prejudice and partiality then I am 4. That he have more of the illumination of Gods Spirit which is the chief 5. That he have a more sanctified heart that he may not be led away by wrong ends or blinded by his vices It is not for me here to enter comparison There being but one piece of one of them in which I can speak any such priority I have been longer I think exercised in these studies which is all that I have to plead and I wish it had been with more serious diligence It is my way then to keep silence Though many may think that you are scarce serious in judging all of these to be necessary requisites in any that shall take upon them such boldness seeing you seem not to tye your self up to this Rule in your dealings with others You are pleased sometimes to say that you should have little modesty or humility if you should not think more highly of the understanding of many Reverend and Learned Brethren who dissent from you in severall points debated between you and me then of your own Yet who is it of all these that you do not charge with error Yea where is there the man almost in the world that hears not that charge from your pen More then once you charge error on Reverend Dr. Twisse Prolocutor while he lived of the late Assembly in speaking for justification of of Infidels as you call it and making it an immanent act in God warning younger Students to be wary in their Reading of him In whose behalf Mr. Jessop hath stood up as an advocate not pleading justification in his name but not guilty In which I shall not interpose My judgement in the thing is sufficiently known You charge the Assembly that set him up in that honour in like sort entring your dissent from their larger Catechism in four passages from their confession in six desiring onely indeed a liberty of expounding but in several of them you well know that your exposition was none of their meaning which you do not obscurely signifie in the different expression of your self in your dissent from them and from the Synod of Dort You charge the pious Ministry of this Nation in general out of whom that Assembly was gathered in the Preface of your Confession with error in their thoughts about Church Discipline and if information do not deceive me as full an Assembly of Learned and pious Ministers as Conveniently live for such a meeting together in any part of the Nation after a full debate of that which you charge as an error determined it against you Lastly you charge the whole reforming party of Divines with four great errors as we have seen in your Apology pag. 16. Now for a man to think that you judge your self above all these in this gradation mentioned in every one of those enumerated qualifications were indeed to challenge both your humility and modesty Your Readers then must conclude that either you were not serious in your List given in or else you take liberty to transgress your own Rules and set upon that work your self which you will not allow in others After quotation of severall passages of the Fathers with which all must vote you seem to prefer one of Austin above all contra rationem nemo sobrius contra Scripturas nemo Christianus contra ecclesiam nemo pacificus Making that application of this as you have done of none of the other That in the point of faiths instrumentality and the nature of the justifying act taking in afterwards the interest of mans obedience in justication as it is consummate in judgement you are constrained upon all these three grounds to give in your dissent I can perswade none to abjure Christianity renounce reason and make a schisme in the Church as it seems you think you must do to come over to me and yeelding as cleerly enough you do that I have this little corner of the world wheresoever Protestants dwell for an hundred and fifty yeers past on my side sure you stand amazed that none of all these men in so long a space of time can either be brought to the sight of reason or to a right understanding of Scriptures or yet to returne to that unity from which they have in so foul a Schism departed These points on the two first grounds have been brought already as well as I can do it to the test In which you see my reason against yours and my sense of Scriptures against that which you have given The third onely doth remain to be enquired into and I cannot yet believe that the Church is my adversary And here you seem to put me fairly to it If you will bring say you one sound reason one word of Scripture or one approved writer of the Church yea or one Heretick or any man whatsoever for many hundred years after Christ I think I may say 1300. at least to prove that Christ as Lord or King is not the object of the justifying act of faith or that faith justifieth properly as instrument I am contented so far to lose the reputation of my reason understanding reading and memory You speak this you say because I tell you there was scarce a dissenting voyce among our Divines against me about the instrumentality of faith and if say you there cannot be brought one man that consenteth with them for 1200. or 1400. years after Christ I pray you tell me whom an humble and modest peaceable man should follow Answ For reason or Scripture I shall bring no more then I have done I think you may see both in that which I have already written The Churches testimony onely now remains to be looked after whether you or I can lay the fairer claime and here you distinguish of it 1. As it was for the first 1200 1300 1400 yeers after Christ for you name all of these Periods 2. As it hath been for 150. yeers now past The Church for one full hundred yeers at least it seems by you stood Newter viz. from 1400. to 1500. The Church for this little scantling of time viz. for 150. yeers is not denyed by you to vote with me if the Protestant party to which you joyn in communion may deserve that name But for all that space as before it was as you pretend unanimously yours at well the Orthodox as the Hereticall party in it Here for further discovering of truth two things should be enquired into 1. Whether he more worthily deserves the name of
Moses Baptisme into him what Page 526 N. Names GIven by God not empty titles Page 12 Nature What meant by the times of the Law of nature Page 24 Necessity Of Sacraments asserted Page 285 c. Argumeats evincing it Page 288 c. The kind of degree of the necessity of Sacraments enquired into Page 289 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation Page 289 Objections answered Page 290 Explicatory Rules delivered in it Page 294 c. A greater degree of necessity in the initiatory leading Sacrament then in that which follows Page 298 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. O. Obedience MAns sin disobligeth him not from obedience Page 195 196 197 Obligation Mans Obligation of himself unto God implies Gods mutuall obligation Page 130 Oblige Mans inability for duty doth not disoblige from duty Page 197 Orders Their number in the Church of Rome and their divisions Page 538 Most of this number doubted by themselves whether they be Sacraments ibid. The Matter Page 539 Form Page 539 Effect Page 539 Minister Page 539 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. Ordinances All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto Page 189 Sacraments must have the Honour of divine Ordinances Page 68 Originall sin Asserted Page 363 Distinguished into peccatum originans orinatum Page 365 Originall sin not a meer want of primitive integrity but attended with unversall defilement ibid. c. Oyle Anointing with Oyle Jam. 14 15. What it means Page 536 537 Queres put to those that would revive this practice Page 537 P. Parables CHrist speaking in Parables what it meaneth Page â—4 Pardon Closing with God for pardon is not to pardon a mans self Page 452 Passive Neither believing nor receiving are to be judged meerly passive Page 442 In what sense faith passive in justification Page 476 c. Pemble Not sole and singular in asserting the word to be a passive instrument Page 476 He is large in reasons of it Page 475 Penance The parts of it Contrition Page 531 532 Confession Page 531 532 Satisfaction Page 531 532 Papists agree not what that is in Penance that makes up a Sacrament Page 533 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. People Allegations for their power examined Page 252 264 Perfection Of the subject and perfection of parts respective to the universality of the object distinguished Page 586 Pighius A learned Papist with divers others joynes with us in the doctrine of justification Page 440 Pope He hath his visible pardoner as well as others Page 464 Prayer A necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 509 Priest The several functions of Christ as Priest King Prophet are to be distinguished but not divided Page 562 Priestly Levitical types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 Privileges A faith short of justifying entitles to visible privileges Page 161 Profession Men of a visible profession truly and really in Covenant with God Page 128 Profession of faith engages to a lively working faith Page 172 c. Promise That which is the condition of the thing promised is not the condition of the Seal Page 173 Exceptions against it examined ibid. Gospell promises are a savour of death unto many Page 469 Protestants Vindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 The author is confest to appear in the common cause of Protestants ibid. R. Rainbow DEfined Page 516 It had respect to a Covenant improperly so called Page 517 It was an instituted sign ibid. Correspondencies between it and the promise Page 518 How far it was Sacramentall ibid. How far it fals short ibid 519 Reall Covenants may be broke by men in Covenant Page 138 Common grace is reall Page 132 Men of a visible profession really in Covenant with God Page 128 Regenerate Duties of positive institution do not onely bind the regenerate Page 195 Repentance How prerequired in Baptisme Page 108 Repentance and Faith Are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Right Fundamentall and actuall distinguished Page 88 The distinction cleered In civill immunities Page 88 Ecclesiasticall privileges Page 89 They must be both written Page 90 Right unto a bar to detain from Sacraments not alwayes express Page 91 Righteous Men are so denominated really and not equivocally that imperfectly obey the Law Page 614 Righteousness Non reaâ—us is not righteousness Page 588 Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction Page 589 Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted ib. Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used Page 592 Righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law asserted Page 595 There is a partiall reparation of in herent righteousness in regeneration Page 611 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Righteousness Christ The naturall righteousness of Christ is not our justification Page 439 Whether the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous be given to us Page 453 Queries put concerning this gift of righteousness Page 454 Faith being terminated on Christ is terminated on his righteousness Page 455 To receive his righteousness for justification no fancy or delusion Page 456 Righteousness Faith The Righteousness of Faith is the great promise of the Covenant of grace Page 414 This righteousness is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace Page 415 Proved by Scriptures Page 417 Confirmed by reasons Page 418 Explained by rules Page 419 420 Bellarmines five objections answered Page 421 c. Propositions explaining the meaning of the righteousness of Faith Page 415 So called in opposition to the righteousness of works required in the Covenant ibid. It is the Synechdochically put for the whole of the Covenant that interests us in this righteousness ibid. c. All blessings and privileges flowing from and following upon this Covenant unto true blessedness are comprized under the righteousness of faith Page 416 Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant is the fountain from whence the blessedness of this righteousness comes ibid. Faith considered as an instrument receiving this righteousness ib. All must see that they be right principled in the doctrine of the righteousness of faith Page 429 Ignorance here was the Jews undoing ib. Papists mistake in this point Page 429 c. Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness Page 432 Rock How it was said to follow Israel Page 524 The Rock it self was not intended as a sign but the water flowing out of it Page 525 Of the nature of a Sacrament ib. No standing Sacrament Page 526 Rule See Law S. Sacrament THe word vindicated Page 2 3 The reason of the word enquired after Page 4 5 The various acceptations of it Page 6 7 8 Whether man enjoyed or was capable of a Sacrament in the state of integrity Page 9 No Sacrament instituted of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. A Sacrament may be defined Page 32 c. The definition of a Sacrament in generall Page
conclusion with me is de fide when it is concluded 4. He saies I must have better proof before I can believe that it is assurance of our own sincerity or actual justification which the Apostle calls the full assurance of faith Heb. 10.22 And I think he is the first man amongst orthodox Divines that hath doubted that assurance of acceptance is meant in that place Faith is that grace say the last Annotations whereby we either do or may approach unto God with full assurance of acceptance Is not that boldnesse in our addresses mentioned ver 19. an evident symptome of it And is not sincerity fet forth in those words having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water as the basis or bottome of it not of our acceptance but of our assurance I must hear somewhat more before I can question it There followes 5. And as hardly can I discern assurance of our sincerity in the description of faith Heb. 11.1 unlesse you mean that hope is part of faith and assurance the same with hope both which need more proof Hope may be without assurance and when it is joyned with it yet is not the same thing onely such assurance is a singular help to the exercise of hope And can you not discern a double encomium of faith in those words The first with respect to things past and present as well as things to come where it is said to be The evidence of things not seen Faith makes that evident which otherwise would not be known The other respective to things to come and that not evil but onely good not things feared but hoped expressed in these words Faith is the substance of things hoped for both of them rather expressing what faith does then what faith is and I know not why that speech of hope should be brought in here when it is onely said that the good things hoped for are that which faith realizes to the soul It is said further 6. It is true that faith may be said as you speak to realize salvation to the soul that is when the soul doubteth whether there be indeed such a glory and salvation to be expected and enjoyed by believers as Christ hath promised ere faith apprehendeth it as real or certain and so resolves the doubt And is this all that faith can possibly do and for which this high praise is here given unto it Against this I say First This was expressed in the former branch the evidence of things not seen faith believes a heaven as well as a creation Secondly a faith short of justifying may do this an historical faith assents to the highest dogmatical truthes Thirdly will you have the full assurance of hope Heb. 6.11 to be no other then to get assurance that there is a heaven though we shall never come to heaven which would be a contradiction for hope hath possession in expectation Fourthly doth not our hope enter into that within the vail whither our forerunner is gone before us Heb. 6.19 and are we not saved by hope Rom. 8.24 Faith then being said to be the substance of things hoped for it doth not barely tell us that there is a heaven that is too lank and lean a commendation of it but the office of it is to realize the possession of it to us It followes But when the doubt is whether I be a true believer saith resolves it not Faith hath its hand in the resolving of this doubt in believing from the Scriptures what are the Symptomes or cognizances of true believing and gathering them up by reflex upon it self It followes And when the doubt is whether this certain glory and salvation shall be mine faith onely cooperateth to the resolve of it by affording us one of the propositions but not both and not wholly the conclusion If faith affords us one of the propositions and findes the other in the Scriptures that is to me sufficient It followes 7. I am of Dr. Amesius his mind that it is one of faiths most eminent acts by which it is there described But undoubtedly you were not so in your sixth animadversion when you left it so low as we have heard and made it no more then the faith of wicked men may reach There is added But so think not they that tell us that is none of the instrumental justifying act which is there described But doubtlesse they may very well think so This here mentioned is a more eminent work of faith then that of justifying as a child on a Giants head is further removed from the earth and nearer the clouds then the Giant himself Faith that gives assurance presupposeth the justifying act already done by it self and addes more to it when a man believes savingly there is Certitudo objecti he that believes shall be saved but this here mentioned is Certitudo subjecti when the good hoped for is assured to the soul If there be any other promise made of God for good this work of faith I confesse takes it in and I do not believe that the Apostle doth limit this work of faith to the hope of salvation but I am sure he doth not exclude it that being the chiefest thing in our hope that is undoubtedly chiefly intended and might well by me be mentioned It followes 8. This which you took to be a good answer is that great mistake which hath so hardened the Papists against us and were it not for this point I should not have desired much to have said any thing to you of the rest about conditional sealing as being confident that we mean the same thing in the main If that be that great mistake I am still in the mistake and you are the first man that ever went about to rectifie it but you herein fail that you shew not wherein the mistake lies Those Divines that deny faith to be assurance that were as much as to define a man by such excellencies that are to be found in few men and so to exclude the common pitch of men from the species of mankind do not yet deny but that faith may attain to assurance It followes 9. You forsake them that use to give this answer when you confine it to those onely that with assured grounds and infallible demonstrations can make it good to themselves that they believe i. e. savingly I think that they as well as I confine it to those that you here mention It followes I doubt that answer then will hold but to very few if you mean by assured grounds c. such as they are actually assured are good and demonstrative I believe that strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth to life and few there be that find it There are not many we may fear that do savingly believe and many of those are not yet assured that they do believe and to this Mr. Baxter hath spoke abundantly sufficient in his Saints rest It followes 10. Demonstrations
may be infallible and yet not known to be such to the person but I suppose that by the word demonstration you intend that the party discerns it to be an infallible demonstration which sure intimates a very high kind of certainty You may well know that I intend so when you see that I say so and I do not make that to be assurance cui potest subesse falsum If it prove in the event otherwise it was not assurance It followes 11. Yet even in that case I deny that the general Premise in the Major is equivalent to the conclusion I am justified and shall be saved though I should acknowledg that the conclusion may be said to be de fide in that the Major hath the predominant interest in the conclusion if so be that the man have better evidence of his sincerity then of the truth of the promise Neither do I say that that Proposition He that believes and repents shall be saved is of it self equivalent with that conclusion without the assumpion with Scripture-warrant and help of the Spirit that I believe and repent and I know not what to make of such strange supposals of a better evidence of a mans own sincerity in any man then of the truth of the promise which Mr. Baxter presently affirms to be a contradiction There is no man comes up to sincerity but he that is assured by faith that the promise is true Though he may be sometimes staggered yet he rises out of it and holds fast to the truth of the promise and when the soul hath evidence of both and is assured of both I say the conclusion is de fide see Mr. Ball of faith pag. 80. Mr. Baxter sayes Appen pag. 71. When the Papists alleadge that it is no where written that such or such a man is justified we answer them that it being written that he that believeth is justified this is equivalent A grosse mistake saith he as if the Major Proposition alone were equivalent to the conclusion or as if the conclusion must or can be meerly credenda a proper object of faith when but one of the premises is matter of faith and the other of sense and knowledge In my Treatise of the Covenant I opposed against him Dr. Goades speech in a conference expressing himself in these words I will maintain the contrary against you viz. Fisher the Jesuite that a conclusion may be de fide although both Propositions be not de fide but one of them otherwise and infallibly true by the light of reason or experience giving instance in such a syllogism Mr. Baxters answers Sect. 75. Dr. Goad saith but the same that I say onely I distinguish c. And I am well content then to say what both of them say and leave it to the Reader to take the benefit of his large and elaborate discourse on this occcasion He is pleased to put into his Index the difference between Mr. Bl. and me contracted and a plain cogent argument added to prove that the conclusion forementioned is not sealed which is the work of Sect. 76. pag. 139. In which much by him is granted and much affirmed to which I assent His cogent argument that the conclusion I shall be saved is not sealed is thus framed Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem vel deteriorem At propositio non obsignata est pars debilior vel deterior Ergo conclusio sequitur propositionem non obsignatam I shall give it in English that if possible all may understand us The Conclusion followes the weaker or worser part But the Proposition unsealed is the weaker or worser part Therefore the conclusion followes the Proposition unsealed And after many words he sayes For my part I know not what objection can be made against either part of the forecited argument the Major being a common Canon or Rule that holds in all figures and the Minor being yeeled by your self else I would answer to it To this I might have many things to say First That Mr. Baxter knowed that I did not allow of any such Syllogism as this which he thus frames in order to find out the sealing of the Sacraments and therefore what is here sealed or not sealed with me is little to the purpose Secondly I marvel that he makes debilior and deterior weaker and worser here to be both one when before he made a scripture Proposition to be debilior the weaker and a Proposition of reason fortior the stronger when I should be loath to make or conceive as necessarily he does a Scripture-Proposition to be deterior the worser Thirdly As to the Syllogism I shall call for proof of both his premises For the Major in his sense if I understand it I either deny or much question it and therefore distinguish of that which is said to be worser or weaker which may be either respective to the truth of the premises and then I yeeld that the conclusion ever followes the worser If either Proposition be false the Conclusion is not true But this so far as I understand is not his meaning Or they may be taken respective to the nature of them and then I know not that the denomination of the Conclusion must follow upon account either of strength or weaknesse in either of the premises For the Minor Proposition That an unsealed Proposion is the weaker or worser part I shall desire to know the quantity of it if it be universal then it is false Every unsealed Proposition is not weaker or worser then that which is sealed And whereas Mr. Baxter sayes I have yeelded it I know not that ever I was put upon it but how I shall speak my whole sense of it I yeeld that a seal adds to the strength as does an oath and therefore an unsealed Proposition is weaker then that which is sealed caeteris paribus all things being otherwise alike in both yet there may be those differences in Propositions that a Proposition may be of that strength in it self that it needs no seal and be every way equal for truth and evidence to those that are sealed and thousands of such might be named that without any seal are of equal strength to those to which a seal is added That there are lands or tenements in the County of Salop is a Proposition without a seal that R. B. hath lands or tenements in that County is a Proposition under seal yet the latter hath no more strength or evidence of truth then the former He that hath hands lineally descending upon him from his Ancestors hath a true right to inherit is a Proposition without a seal R. B. hath such an inheritance is a Proposition under seal and I desire to know whether here be not as much truth and evidence in the Major as the Minor Let us look into that Syllogism which I put to find out that which the Sacrament seals and that in the person of God himself pronounced To whom I give Christ I give all
things But I give to thee Christ Ergo. The first is without seal the second in the Sacrament is under seal yet there is as much evidence of truth in the first as in the second Mr. Baxters Minor Proposition must have its due limit as before or else it is to be denyed The last thing in his Index as to this controversie is The safety or danger to teach men to believe that they are justified and shall be saved The danger of teaching men that they are bound to believe that they are justified and shall be saved which referres to Sect. 81. pag. 142. Where I am in the first place handsomely taken up for saying I recede not from any that heretofore I have published on this subject as standing not with ingenuity when himself in the next Paragraphe runs on the same error if an error resolving to maintain what he had asserted I am afterwards told It hath been too common a doctrine amongst the most renowned Divines that it is not onely de fide that I A. B. am justified but every mans duty also yea part of the Creed and so a fundamental for to believe that our sins are remitted for so expound the Article of remission of sins yea they earnestly presse men to believe the pardon in particular and tell them they have but the faith of Devils else By which dangerous doctrine it is said 1. Most men are perswaded to believe a falsehood for most are not forgiven 2. The carelesse world is driven on faster to presumption to which they are so prone of themselves 3. Painfull Ministers are hindred and their labours frustrated whose businesse is first to break mens false hopes and peace which they find so hard a work that they need no resistance c. I believe that as Mr. Baxter sayes this may be dangerously done and I believe that it hath not been urged by some without great danger yet I also believe that it may safely comfortably in due order be done and that Ministers of Christ orderly and in a Gospel-method ought to do it For the Creed I am so far from this error here mentioned that I go not so farre in this thing as Mr. Baxter himself as I have observed in this Apology I do not think that the Creed it self calls for so much as faith of adherence to rest or rely upon Christ for remission of sins I suppose Creeds and Confessions of faith are onely for declaration of the doctrine that we hold to difference us from those that in those particulars are erroneous in judgement and do not at all intermeddle with our will or affections Though I know the will must consent and by the affections imbrace and receive Christ or else there is no salvation to which the Gospel calls us The danger mentioned I fear too often as I said before is sadly incurred that brand of false Prophets Ezek. 13.22 23. is heavy Because with lyes ye have made the heart of the righteous sad whom I have not made sad strengthened the hands of the wicked that he should not return from his wicked way by promising him life Therefore ye shall see no more vanity nor divine divinations for I will diliver my people out of your hands and ye shall know that I am the Lord. This practice is in full opposition to God who every where threatens death to wicked persons which as many observe well all the error of those that suffered the charge of false Prophets among the Jewes we read not that they delivered any positive untruths but onely made undue applications And therefore false Prophets among them are distinguished from false teachers which were to arise in Christian Churches 2 Pet. 2.1 The latter and not the former bringing in damnable heresies and yet the former were of like danger in their misapplication both of promises and threatenings and more especially of promises to urge all to believe that in statu quo they shall be saved is indeed to teach them to presume seeing salvation is not every mans portion and the portion of no man that lyes in sin It was a doctrine that the Apostle often preacht that such should not inherit the Kingdom of heaven Gal. 5.21 and he lets the Ephesians know that all those are but vain deceiving words that teach otherwayes Ephes 5.6 Yet I suppose that it is a Christians priviledge that he may believe that his sins are forgiven and that he shall he saved and being his priviledge it is also his duty Christ requires some to believe it Be of good cheer thy sins are forgiven Matth 9.2 And the Apostle takes it for granted that some were assured Ye have suffered joyfull the spoiling of your goods knowing that in heaven ye have a better and far more induring substance Heb. 10.32 Why doth Peter call upon Christians to give diligence to make their calling and Election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 Or why did John write to those that believe on the Name of the Son of God that they might know that they have eternal life 1 Joh. 5.13 in case they may not be assured and accordingly by faith be full perswaded and satisfied in it We may not think that assurance is held out in Scriptures as Chimaera or as a Chymists Philosophers Stone to be talked of but never compassed And I suppose sano sensu and with due qualifications it may be asserted That every visible Church-member is bound to believe his own salvation and the pardon of his own sins in particular I well remember that I had once conference with Mr. Ball in Mr. Ash's house on this thing upon occasion of that old argument insisted upon by Arminians That which all are bound to believe is true But all are bound to believe that Christ dyed for them and he determined that all are bound to believe that Christ dyed for them in particular and that all the fruits of his death shall be theirs not immediately but Mediante fide resipiscentia Men are bound to faith and repentance and uppn their faith and repentance are bound to get this assurance which it seems is also Mr. Baxters thoughts by that which he adds in the fifth place for aggravation of this danger when wicked men that have but the faith of Divels are immediately required to believe the pardon of their own particular sins and this made to be de fide God is dishonoured with the charge of such untruths as if falsehoods were de fide and God commanded men to believe them It seems then that he grants that men may be mediately required to believe the pardon of their own sins in particular and there can never be too much spoken against an urging of it in an immediate way It is after we have done the will of God that we shall receive the promise Heb. 10.36 and we must not believe that without doing his will we shall ever receive it Promise-preachers that are not duty-preachers that hold out blisse and