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
in whom by faith remission of sins may be obtained I know but that it is a signe either that we do believe or that we have remission of sin otherwise then upon our believing to which this engages but not presupposes I know not Simon Magus had not Baptisme to signifie that all his sins were forgiven but that by faith in the Name of Christ he might be forgiven Mr. Cobbet sayes well Vindication pag. 54. The initiatory seal which holds true of the other seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mans faith or repentance or obedience but of Gods Covenant rather the seal is to the Covenant even Abrahams Circumsion was not primarily a seal to Abrahams faith of righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of faith exhibited and effected in the Covenant yea to the Crvenant it self or promise which had believed unto righteousnesse hence the Covenant of grace is called the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. I confesse it is a symbole of our profession of faith but this is not the faith spoken to neither is remission of sins annext unto it Secondly That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith doth not work conversion and faith But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper supposeth conversion and faith The Minor is proved Mar. 16.16 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.36 37. ver 41. Act. 10.4.7 All which texts are spoken of Baptisme and not of the Lords Supper To that text Mar. 16.16 I have spoken fully Treatise of the Covenant pag. 243. To that Act. 8.36 37. I have spoken pag. 244. To that of Act. 2.38 I have spoken pag. 396. and ther is no need that I should repeat what I have said For Act. 2.41 They that gladly received his Word were baptized It speaks no more then ready acceptation of the tender of the Gospel and whether this necessarily implyes saving faith let Ezek. 33.31 Matth. 13.20 21. Gal. 4.15 be consulted For Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as we it proves that men of gifts from the Spirit have title such gifts gave Judas a title not onely to baptisme but Apostleship such a faith may be had and sanctification wanting Thirdly That which gives us new food supposeth that we have the new birth and Spiritul life and that we are not still dead in trespasses and sins But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us new food Ergo. Ans 1. Metaphors are ill materials to make up into syllogismes 2. A difference may be put between ordinary food and living and quickening food It may be true of the former but not of the latter 3. The Word as well as the Sacrament gives us new food 1. Pet. 2.2 and yet presupposeth not new life If any reply that the Word is more then food it is seed as well as food and it gives not new life as food but as seed I answer that the Sacrament is more then food There is a Sacramental work preceding our taking and eating which some say may be done to edification and profit by those that are not admitted to be partakers where they divide I may distinguish and there Christ is set forth to the aggravation of sin to carry on the work of contrition and compunction Fourthly That Ordinance which is instituted onely for believers and justified persons is no converting but a sealing Ordinance But this Sacrament is instituted onely for believers and justified persons The Minor is proved Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.17 much more then Baptisme and if Baptisme much more the Lords Supper Ans Upon this account it must needs follow that as Abraham was a justified man so Ishmael was justified also who according to the mind of God and in obedience to his commands was circumcised Gen. 17.23 yea every Proselyte that joyned himself to Israel and every male in Israel according to this Interpretation must be justified 2. Howsoever Abraham was a justified person yet his Circumcision in that place is not made a proof of his justification but a distinct text of Scripture Gen. 15.16 quoted by the Apostle ver 3. And that Scripture setting out his justification to be by faith and not by works the Apostles words onely shew that the Sacrament of Circumcision sealed the Covenant not of works but of faith so that Mr. Cobbets words quoted in answer to the first argument are a full answer here Fifthly The Apostle argues that Abraham the Father of the faithful and whose justification is a pattern of ours was not justified by Circumcision Circumcision was not the cause but the sign of his justification Therefore no Sacrament is a cause of our justication Ans Though animadversions might be made on these words yet if any will put them into form I shall grant the conclusion when I say the Sacrament as an Appendix to the Word may have its influence with the word upon a professor offaith to work him to the truth of faith I am far from saying it is any cause of justification I look on faith no otherwise then as an instrument in the work and the Sacrament as an help and not the principal to the work of faith Sixthly There is an argument drawn from the necessity of examination which before hath received an answer Seventhly That Ordinance unto which none may come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings Son is an Ordinance unto which a man may not come without a wedding argument Ans 1. Arguments drawn from parables must be used with all tendernesse But in this Argument here is much boldnesse to make this Ordinance that marriage-feast 2. We shall find if we look to the scope of it that this feast is the fruition of Christ in his Kingdom as appears by those words that give occasion to the Parable of the Supper Luk. 14.15 And when one of them that sate at meat with him heard these things he said unto him Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God Now those that pretend a forwardnesse towards it and are not prepared and fitted for it according to the scope of the Parable shall be cast out from it This therefore may fairly prove that none that appear in Ordinances and yet remaine in their sins shall come to heaven But it no more proves that a man cannot get saving good by this Ordinance then it proves that a man cannot get saving good by the Word The VVord may lay as fair a claime to this wedding feast as the Lords Supper Eighthly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The Assumption is proved Rom. 10.14 Faith cometh by hearing hearing by the Word of God then not by seeing if by the Word then not by the Sacrament Ans If faith comes by hearing will
condescend to our weaknesse to answer what infirmity can expect or feeblenesse crave We might think that Gideon was exceeding bold with God to ask a double sign for the strengthening of his faith in the promise of God to save Israel by his hand yet we see God is pleased to gratify him Judg 6.39 40. yet God deales more abundantly with us not onely in a double but a multiplied confirmation to make good every truth which he hath been pleased to manifest And as he teacheth us by similitudes drawn from earthly things as we see in the Prophets and parables from our Saviours mouth so also to speak to our eyes in these signes and seales ratifying and confirming heavenly things unto us Those great mercies which no thought can reach are set out in so obvious a way that every eye doth behold and see That water which we employ for our common use and among other necessary services cleanses all filth that cleaves to us serves to set out that great mystery of the blood and Spirit of Christ taking away both guilt and filth of sin The bread which we have at our table the wine which we drink for our food and repast that sets out both the attonement and divine nourishment which our soules find in the flesh and blood of Christ crucified and dying for us There is abundant weaknesse and tottering in our faith that needs in this manner to be strengthened Abundance of sweet mercies in our God that will vouchsafe this to strengthen and support us Secondly If Christ thus condescends to our weaknesse Christs compassion towards us should move us to compassionate our selves in making provision of these helps let us learn to have compassion of our selves and not neglect or despise so great favours If Christ had judged us to have been of strength he had never tendred us this crutch and when he sees that we need it and therefore hath provided it let us see that we do not reject or despise it Is it not to imitate Ahaz in his obstinacy who when he could not believe the promise that God would deliver him and his people from the combined power of Israel and Syria that were then before Jerusalem and having a sign tendred him of God either in the depth beneath or the height above for his assurance in the thing he answers he will not desire a sign Isa 7.11 12. he will rather dwell in his unbelief and perish As that sign was to that promise so all Sacraments are to Gods great promise He that casts away Sacraments indulges unbelief and we may well fear that he shall dwell in it to destruction CHAP. XI SECT I. The whole of the work of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal THe next observation followes The whole office and use of Sacraments All that the Sacraments work on the soules of receivers is by way of sign and seal They have no immediate effects for the working of any inward graces or priviledges but as our understanding is exercised by them as Indicative signes and our faith as ratifications and seales of the promises The text that we have under our hand is abundantly full to his purpose Scarce any text holds out a truth I may say more clear and full then this text doth that which is here delivered if we take in the context with it The Context opened to which the copulative And leads The Apostle having in the former Chapter delivered the doctrine of justification by faith goes on here to make it good by the Example of Abraham and his argument rendred in syllogistical form appears to be this As Abraham the father of the faithful was justified so must all the faithful This is taken for granted as needing no proof But Abraham the father of the faithful was justified not by works but by faith The Assumption consists of two parts and the Apostle proves both 1. The negative that he was not justified by works this he proves by two arguments 1. If he were justified by works then he hath whereof to glory ver 2. But he hath not whereof to glory before God Ergo he was not justified by works 2. If he were justified by works the reward were reckoned not of grace but of debt ver 4. But the reward is not of debt but of grace Ergo. Which he further confirmes by the testimony of David describing the blessednesse of man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sinnes are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin ver 7 8. As David describes blessednesse that way man is blessed But David describes it to be by imputation of righteousnesse and not by works Ergo. The affirmative that Abraham was justified by faith he proves by a full testimony of Scripture Gen. 15.6 He believed in the Lord and he counted it to for him for righteousnesse Now it might be objected that this justification of Abraham and blessednesse that David speaks of was nothing to the Gentiles uncircumcised but to the Jewes in the state of Circumcision and so Circumcision may yet have an hand in justitification This the Apostle denies ver 10. and proves the contrary by the time of Abrahams justification which was in uncircumcision not in Circumcision If Abraham were justified in uncircumcision then Circumcision hath no hand in justification But Abraham was justified in uncircumcision Ergo But then the greatest question is to what end or purpose he was circumcised having already that righteousnesse which doth justify what needs more Circumcision then might have been let alone The Apostle answers that he was circumcised on a twofold account for a double reason The first is in reference to his own estate in faith which equally concerns all in his state of believing He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised The second in reference to the whole Church that he might be the Father of all that believe in Circumcision or in uncircumcision so that we have both the Apostles authority and his argumentative discourse for confirmation of our point That the work and efficacy of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal We shall find Peter giving his vote with Paul in this thing where he enters a dispute about Baptisme as Paul here doth about Circumcision as you may find 1 Pet. 3.20 21. having mentioned Gods long suffering towards disobedient ones in the daies of Noah while the Ark was a preparing he saies Few that is eight soules were saved by water That element which as an executioner of divine vengeance destroyed the world of the ungodly as an instrument in the hand of God preserved Noah and his family It destroyed the world by overwhelming of them as after it did Pharaoh and his host It saved Noah and his household by keeping the Ark above trees rocks mountaines buildings or whatsoever might have been
their ruine Then he parallells Baptisme with it The like figure whereunto even Baptisme doth also now save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ which according to Interpreters implyes no more then a resemblance or as Calvin speaks a correspondence though Heb. 9.24 the Apostle useth the same word otherwise The Ark then saved a few when the rest were destroyed Baptisme now saves a few by the resurrection of Christ It will alwaies be saith Calvin on the words as it was in Noahs daies when mankind runnes on their own ruine God wonderfully saves some from the common destruction But here an objection lies that Noahs Ark and New Testament Baptisme are nothing parallell few entred that but now numerous or rather innumerable multitudes are baptized The Apostle answers that the parallell lyes not between the outward Baptisme that is the outward act as man administers it which he calls putting away the filth of the flesh which we know is the work of Baptisme but the answer of a good conscience or the restipulation of a good conscience I desire now to know how the Apostle can be salved from a contradiction He saies Baptisme saves and yet saies the outward putting away the filth of the flesh doth not save but the answer of a good conscience towards God Now this putting away the filth of the flesh done in the Name of Christ or in the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost is Baptisme so is not the answer of a good conscience that is no Baptisme The Apostle then should rather have said that the answer of a good conscience saves and not Baptisme But he saies Baptisme saves I see no other way of reconciliation or to make sense of his words then to understand him that Baptisme saves as it hath its work on the conscience as it works upon our understanding and our faith as a sign and seal and is no immediate conveyance of happinesse not any other way of conveyance then as it hath its work on the conscience of the receivers Reasons con ∣ firming Reasons First The Word and Sacraments work after one and the same manner on the soul for salvation respective to any mediate or immediate way of conveyance of any graces or priviledges This is evident in regard of that relation that the Sacraments have to the Word as appendants to it But the force of the Word on the soul to salvation is not inherent not by any immediate conveyance of inward graces or priviledges but as it hath its work on the understanding and faith of him that receiveth it they that understand not are as the highway-ground that gaines nothing It is the power of God for salvation to them that believe Rom. 1.16 It profits not where it is not mixtwith faith Heb. 4.2 It is effectual onely in those that believe 1 Thes 2.13 The bare work done in hearing saves none and so also it is with Sacraments Secondly Signes and pledges added to promises are efficacious no other ways then as they work upon the understanding and faith of those that receive them as signes This may be made good in particular instances in a large induction of signes of all sorts The double sign vouchsafed of God to Gideon for his confirmation in the deliverance of Israel Judg. 6. did not work at all towards such a deliverance further then as it had its work upon the understanding and faith of Gideon to whom it was given The Scarlet thred in Rahabs window had no power for her safety further then it was a sign between her and Joshua minding Joshua of his engagement to her The rainbowe is of no power to save the world from an universal deluge of water further then it minds and assures us of Gods promise The same we may say of all signes and pledges both humane and divine But Sacraments are signes and pledges added to promises as we see here in the text Sacraments then have no others efficacy then as they work on the understanding and faith of the receivers Thirdly There is nothing that is material sensible corporeal that hath any immediate influence or operation upon any object that is spiritual This is plain There must be proportion between the agent and the patient the instrument working and the object wrought upon But the Sacramental signes that we receive as seales are material corporeal sensible and therefore have no such immediate influence upon the soul for the work of grace or conveyance of it Fourthly If this Scripture hold out the work of Sacraments onely by way of sign and seal and no other Scripture holds out any other work to be wrought by them in the soul then this is the whole of their work This is clear Scripture must somewhere hold out the whole that Sacraments effect But this is the whole that the Apostle in this Scripture gives to them where he gives an account of the fruit of Abrahams Circumcision neither is there any other Scripture in which any more is attributed to the working of Sacraments The assumption is of two parts The first none can question that the Apostle ascribes no more here to Sacraments then as hath been said For the second that no other Scripture ascribes any thing further to them shall God willing be made good when we come to examine those Scriptures which are brought in by way of objection for a further work If any would see authorities quoted of men of eminent name that have appeared in defence of this position I shall referre him to reverend Mr. Gatakers learned dispute held with reverend Dr. Ward where he may see multitudes voting for it And when Dr. Ward a Quod quosdam theologos ait hic haerere baptismi effectum hunc ad electos restringere Imo non quâ—dam dunxtaxat sed multo maxima nostrorum pars non tam hic haerent quam ex adverso se diserte opponunt quod ex testimoniis supâ—a adductis luculentissime demonstratum est saith that some Divines do stick at his tenent and do restrain the effect of Baptisme infallibly taking away the guilt of original sin onely to the effect Mr. Gataker replyes not alone some but the greater part of our Divines do not so much stick or hesitate here as professedly oppose which is evidently demonstrated in the testimonies saith he before cited pag. 134. And my reverend friend Mr. Bedford unhappily engaged in this controversy to carry the Sacraments higher then Scripture hath raised them misled with the over esteem of some that have gone that way tells us of hir discouragement by reason of the multitude of those of an opposite opinion that held otherwise then he did about the Sacraments And Mr. Baxter rightly doth observe that at the first broaching of this doctrine among us it was so much disrelished not by Dr. Taylour onely but by most Divines and godly people as
of faith in the baptized to obtain it and baptisme to them as Circumcision to Abraham is onely a sign and seal of it and doth not otherwise effect it The like I may say of impenitence that according to them it is a barre to the working of Sacraments Sacraments onely work in penitent persons repentance then is a qualification in them that obtain a pardon and Sacraments by way of seal assure penitent oneâ— of it Eighthly 8. The most eminent of the adverse opinion produce Scriptures clearly opposite to their assertions The most eminent that ever have appeared for this power in Sacraments to confer grace on the receivers either utterly deny or at least very doubtfully affirm that Baptisme works in Infants any real change but onely that which is relative that it conferres any habits or any thing more then priviledges on Infants baptized when yet the Scriptures that they bring for proof of this baptismal work almost all speak to such a change that is reall not relative of habits and not of priviledges When this is made good it will appear to any impartial eye that the Scripture-Texts alledged come far short of proof of any such baptismal power to confer grace on all baptized Infants This as it seems Reverend Dr. Ward suspected asserting the certainty of salvation of all baptized Infants dying in infancy he saith That o Quae est nostrae Ecclesiae totius antiquitatis indubitata sententia ut ego reor ipsius Scripturae it is the undoubted opinion of all antiquity of our Church and as he thinks of the Scripture it self For the former part of this assertion that the most eminent that have appeared on this party have held as before let Reverend B. Davenant in his Epistle speak Asserting by Arguments that which he sayes he had often affirmed that the argument borrowed from Infants which Arminians Papists and some of our own use to maintain the apostasie of Saints or believers is not onely invalid but altogether impertinent as to that controversie His third Proposition to make good this assertion is p Pontificii non agnoscunt pro fidei dogmate habitus fidei aut charitatis infundi parvulis in baptismo neque tanquam de fide docent effici uâ—los justos formaliter inhaesione habitualis justitiae aut Sanctitatis That Papists do not receive it for a point of faith that the habits of faith or charity are infused into Infants in Baptisme neither do they deliver it as of faith that are thereby made formally just by any inherent habituall righteousnesse or holinesse To make this good Bonaventure Aquinas Gerson among the more ancient Schoolmen are brought in and of the more modern Writers Soto affirming that habits infused into Infants are not so known as is the Catholique faith and that Estius doth ingenuously acknowledge that this infusion of inherent righteousnesse is problematically disputed the Master of the sentences inclining to the negative And whereas some later Papists affirm that this opinion of infused habits in Infants is now otherwise ratified then heretofore by the authority of the Trent Councel he first answers that that Councel hath no such authority as to make that an article of faith which for so many hundred years hath not been such and afterwards peremptorily denyes that that Councel did ever so determine concluding that it is resolved upon by Papists that all baptized Infants are some way rendred acceptable to God but that this is done by any such infused habits or by any inherent quality created of God is as he sayes as yet doubted among them His fourth Proposition is that q Protestantes non concedunt fidem justificantem aut charitatem Deo unientem aut gratiam regeneratricem quae reparat omnes animae faâ—â—tates in ipso Baptismi momento infundi insantibus Protestants do not yield that justifying faith or charity that unites us to God or regenerating grace that repaires all the faculties of the soul is infused into Infants in the very moment of Baptisme quoting Calvin Beza and Peter Martyr speaking fully to it r Nec quenquam scio nostris Theologis qui regenerationem illam quae sita est in spiritualium qualitatum creatione quam nos sanctificationem Pontificii formalem justificationem in digitant in ipso momento Baptismi productam definiant Cumigitur nec Arminiani nec Pontificii nec Protestantes agnoscant parvulos in ipsa Baptismi susceptione fieri participes illorum habitualium donorum aut Spiritualium qualitatum quae propriè dicuntur constituere hominem justum et inhaerenter sanctum nemo eorum potest amissionem fidei aut justitiae aut sanctorum Apostasiam argumento ab infantibus sumpto demonstrare Adding that he does not know that any of our Divines determine that that regeneration which consists in the creation of spirituall qualities which we call Sanctification and Papists formal Justification is infused in the instant of Baptisme And he brings in also Mountague in his appeal vouching it out of these Belgick and French Confessions and then concludes when neither Arminians Papists nor Protestants acknowledge that Infants in their participation of Baptisme are made partakers of those habitual gifts and spiritual qualities which properly make a man just and inherently holy none of them can demonstrate the losse of Faith or righteousnesse or Apostasie of the Saints by an argument drawn from Infants His fifth Proposition is That Å¿ Patres nec actualem nec habitualem fidem aut charitatem parvulis in baptismo donatam agnoscunt conversionem etiam sive novi cordis creationem quae propriè regeneratio dicenda est non nisi cum ad aetatem rationis capacem pervenerint in iis produci docent the Fathers do not acknowledge that either actual or habituall Faith or charity is given to Infants in Baptisme and that they teach that conversion or creation of a new heart which is properly regeneration is not wrought in them but onely when they come to yeares and are capable of reason For this Austin is quoted and frequent places out of him are produced and with him Hierome Nazianzen Justin Martyr and Bernard making all up with the testimony of Whitaker t Patres ne somniasse quidem de habituali Papistarum fide quam illi volunt in Baptismo ex opere operato infusam esse parvulis that the Fathers did not so much as dream of the habitual faith which Papists say is infused by the work done in Baptisme inferring this as the result of all that in five several propositions he had delivered that u Hinc quivis perspiciat quam invalida sit haec concludeni ratio Multi ex infantibus baptizatis postea pereunt in infidelitate et impoenitentia Ergo fides charitas reli quaeque Spirituales qualitates in renatis Spiritus virtute productae aliquando amittuntur from thence any man may see how invalid this argument is Many baptized Infants
Authors no guilt of sin is taken away by Baptisme either in Infants or men of years for either it is pardoned before Baptisme or else a barre in Baptisme is put against the pardon of it If they are regenerate before Baptisme then sin is pardoned before they are baptized In case they are unregenerate when they are tendred to Baptisme then there is a barre put to it Original sin in Infants is mortal otherwise they would be saved without Baptisme as well as in it And sin in the unregenerate is mortal likewise There are therefore barres put by both of these or at least an impediment found and consequently no mans sin is thus remitted upon account of his Baptisme Obj. 2 Secondly It is objected Every Infant is conceived and born in sin ordinarily which David confesses of himself Psal 51.5 Of unclean seed Job 14.4 A child of wrath Eph. 2.3 and held under Original guilt But there is a promise of remission of sin made to the Infant when it is initiated by the Sacrament of Baptisme Repent and be baptized every one of you for remission of sins for the promise is made to you and your children Acts 2.38 39. Answ 1 Answ 1. It was not with good advice that birth-sin confessed by David is in the Major proposition branched out in that latitude as to comprize both uncleannesse and wrath For it makes way for the Assumption to be as large namely that in Baptisme the Spirit is promised and applyed to take away filth as well as blood to deliver from wrath otherwise the remedy doth not answer the malady And so we have more in the conclusion then they would have though no more then is in the premises viz. that in Infant Baptisme there is both remission of sin and regeneration The Infant is thus made both happy and inherently holy Secondly The fruit of Baptisme a right carried on conscience Answ 2 answering to baptismal engagements is indeed forgivenesse of sins But the promise that place mentioned is not remission of sins supposedly to follow upon the act of Baptisme but it is that which did denominate them children of the promise namely the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. and continued to them who were his off-spring which argued them to be yet in Covenant And the Apostle makes use of it as a motive to presse them to accept of Baptisme the present initiating seal of it See this text further spoken to Treatise of the Covenant Chap. 37 43. Thirdly It is objected That which Baptisme figures that Obj. 3 it works otherwise it is a sign that is fallacious But Baptisme figures out remission of sin and the taking away the guilt of it Answ 1. Baptisme also figures out a further work of regeneration Answ 1 and sanctification Rom. 6.4 Col. 2.11 12. 2. This Proposition universally understood without any limits Answ 2 is denied on all hands They that assert this Sacramental work will have it to be with this proviso that no barre be put by the receivers 3. Sacraments do effect what they figure as seales effect what the Covenant conveyes upon Covenant-terms all is effected Answ 3 that in Sacraments is figured The Apostle tells us with what limits this proposition holds 1 Pet. 3.21 4. The great objection is If Sacraments have no other work Obj. 4 upon the soul then by way of sign and seal as they have their influence upon the understanding and faith of the receivers then infant baptisme is uselesse and unprofitable there is no end why they should be baptized seeing there is no work wrought either upon their understanding or faith in this ordinance and so their Baptisme is vain and needlesse And therefore upon this account complaint is made by some friends of Infant Baptisme that the doctrine de nudis signis as it is called making Sacraments bare and empty signes is the ground of Anabaptisme And the greatest sticklers against Infant Baptisme have publickly professed that if that tenent of the opus operatum as we may call it in Sacraments could be clearly proved they would no longer oppose that practice Answ 1. If the doctrine de nudis signis were as is objected Answ 1 the ground of Anabaptisme then I marvel how it comes to passe that that doctrine ceasing Anabaptisme doth not cease with it I read Calvin and others to whom in this I subscribe opposing it I know none that now assert it As soon as Calvin hath done with refutation of one he presently falls upon refutation of this other I here oppose It is hard to say whether he be more zealous against the doctrin de nubis signis Instit lib. 4. cap. 14. Sect. 13. or against this other doctrine of Sacramental efficacy Sect. 14. And Chamier lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen cap. 10. Sect. 11. having mentioned that use of Sacraments as distinguishing signs saith y Hic tamen nec solus est finis nec praecipuus Sacramentorum itaque Anabaptistas aeque cum Bellarmino improbamus quos etiam ante illum Calvinus refutavit quibus Sacramenta nihil sunt quam signa instituta ad discernendum Christianos à Judaeis Paganis ut Romanis olim toga erat signum quo discernebantur a Graecis palliatis This is not yet alone or chief end of them therefore saith he we oppose Anabaptists as well as Bellarmine and Calvin also before him had refuted them in that they make Sacraments nothing more then signes distinguishing Christians from Jewes and Pagans as a gown sometimes was a sign whereby a Roman was known from a Greek I remember when in the Divinity Schools a respondent in his verses according to custome premised called the signes in the Sacraments surda elementa it may be metri causâ The Dr. of the chair made a sharp animadversion on it They that do not raise them so high as to make them instruments of conveyance of this nature yet do not set them so low as to be naked and empty signs They are not naked though such clothes that every one woul put upon them do not fit them 2. It is no marvel that Anabaptists are ready to offer to come in to us upon these terms when this doctrine is fully cleared being well aware that it never will nor can be proved and so they have a good ground given them to hold on in their opposition Our great revilers of the place of our publick meetings calling them by the name of Steeple-houses or thinking that too gentle Jeroboams calve-houses I doubt not but will promise to forbear that language if it can be clearly proved that they are of divine institution and that they have that holy sanction put upon them as once the Temple had at Jerusalem but when those that put so high an honour upon them rise so high in their elogies and yet fall so low in their proofs they put an argument into their mouthes and as I may say an axe or hammer into their hands to demolish
reconciliation applyable to man by faith which is the means or instrument whereby we receive the mercy of God So also Gal. 2.16 is very full Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by faith in Christ Jesus The Apostle there first in the negative shewes where our justification is not and in the next place tells us in the affirmative where it is so that all works of all kinds are by him excluded and faith onely is acknowledged Whereas one saith that Paul doth either in expresse words or in the sense and scope of his speech exclude onely the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the condition of the Law our selves but never the fulfilling of the Gospel-conditions that we may have part in Christ It is fully against the Apostle if by fulfilling the Gospel-condition any thing but faith be understood All works are excluded and faith as in opposition to works is acknowledged and we have our part or interest in Christ in or by fulfilling of no other Gospel-condition then that of faith whereby we receive Christ and Christ dwells in us John 1.12 Eph. 3.17 The same Authour teaches us to distinguish betwixt our first possession of Justification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer faith and the confirmation continuation and accomplishment of it whose condition is also sincere obedience and perseverance But being first possest of justification we are justified and of this Paul still speaks and there is no intercision of it nor any other way in progresse of time to be interested in it Being justified we enter upon are reconciled state which is never lost and held up onely by Christ upon the interest of our faith Obedience and Perseverance are both of necessity to obtain the end of our Faith the salvation of our soules but not to give us this interest in Christ Sin in the elect-regenerate may work a man as hath been said under present wrath but renders him not a child of wrath brings upon him an inaptitude for glory but makes him not simply liable to condemnation for eternity This accomplishment of Justification in the sense spoken to is no other then glorification and these two are distinct links in Paul's golden chain as it is called Rom. 8.30 Whom he did predestinate them also he called and whom he called them also he justified and whom he justified them he also glorified As Predestination differs from vocation and justification so Justification also from glorification when our first possession of Justification is acknowledged to be of meer faith Paul's justification is confessed to be of meer faith likewise The same Authour saith Paul doth by the word faith especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in for to be justified by Christ and to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one and I am sure faith alone receives Christ and no Evangelical work either of obedience or perseverance therefore Faith alone justifies There is added And when he doth mention faith as the condition he alwayes implyeth obedience to Christ therefore believing and obeying the Gospel are put for the two summaries of the whole conditions But Faith as an instrument receiving Christ is the condition when the Evangelist complains that He came to his own and his own received him not Joh. 1.11 he points out their neglect of the condition required They were his in Covenant or else they had not been called his own and in not receiving him they failed in the condition required of them and in the words following the Evangelist speaks of those of his own in Covenant that did make good the condition of it and that is no otherwise then by believing But as many as received him to them he gave power to be the Sons of God even to them that believe on his Name And this faith implyes onely acceptation though it be an act of the soul that yeelds obedience It is further said Our full justification and our everlasting salvation have the same conditions on our part But sincere Obedience is without all doubt a condition of our salvation Therefore also of our justification Here is either a manifest tautology or an errour For either full justification and salvation are both one and so here is a tautology or else if they differ it is an errour The same are not conditions of both strictly taken onely Faith gives title to Christ for Justification Works qualifie as a condition in order to salvation And whereas it is further said It would be as derogatory to Christs righteousnesse if we be saved by works as if we be justified by them Either of both is doubtlesse derogatory to it and therefore still disclaimed in Scriptures and alwayes expresly denyed except in that one Text of James Jam. 2. which speakes to Justification and must admit of another interpretation then our Authour would put upon it otherwise he can neither be reconciled to himself nor to the whole current of the Gospel Works may be causa sine quâ non of salvation or a qualification of those that are saved as Heb. 5.9 He became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him But this is not to be saved by works which the Apostle denyes Eph. 2.9 Not of works lest any man should boast And works of this efficiency wrought through grace will raise a man to boastings as appears in the Pharisees God I thank thee But seeing there are several new questions started Whether Faith be an instrument in Justification Whether works do not justifie Whether the new Covenant have any condition Whether Faith be not the alone condition And how Repentance can be a condition of the Covenant and not of Justification And Mr. Ball is almost on every hand appealed to I suppose it will not be ungrateful to the Reader if in this place I commend to him the words of that Reverend Authour though it be in a larger way then quotations are ordinarily brought in which we have not barely his authority which I do not offer to put in the balance with any but the Points in question with singular strength debated and spoken to Treating of the Covenant of Grace pag. 18. he saith Repentance is called for in this Covenant as it setteth forth the subject capable of salvation by faith Luke 13.5 Acts 11.18 2 Cor. 7.10 Ezek. 18.27 but is it self onely an acknowledgment of sin no healing of our wound or cause of our acquittance The feeling of pain and sicknesse causeth a man to desire and seek remedy but it is no remedy it self Hunger and thirst make a man desire and seek for food but a man is not fed by being hungry By repentance we know our selves we feel our sicknesse we hunger and thirst after grace but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it is faith alone without which repentance is nothing but darknesse and despair Repentance is the condition of faith and the qualification of
a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he
our heart the grace of justification and so also the Ministers of the Church and others which teach us the way of salvation Dan. 12.3 Gomarus Matth 5.4 pag. 46. denying any affections or work of man preceding faith to be the procuring cause of justification and affirming that faith it self is no such cause but an instrument onely gives this reason e Nullae hominum affectiones ac praeparationes nullaque opera fidem antecedentia justificationis causae nedum proreantes esse possunt imo nec fides ipsa causa illius est procreans cum ealaus soli gratiae Dei ac merito Christi efficaciae Spiritus sancti comperat Rom. 3.24 28. Ephes 2 8. sed tantum instrumentalis That honour belongs onely to the grace of God and merit of Christ and efficacy of the holy Ghost so far are these Divines from excluding the Spirit from having any hand in this work such a Gospel instrumeâ—â—ality as that it should do nothing at all on the souls of men I have not before read or heard of As it tenders conditions so it is employed to work the conditions that it tenders It makes known the mind of God that men believing have right to Christ and in him to justification and it works faith for justification onely believers saved by it and it is the power of God and not nudè signùm voluntatis divinae to salvation And as the Simile brought by Mr. Baxter of a Fathers bequeathing by his testament an hundred pound a peece to each of his sons To one on condition he will aske it of his elder Brother and thanke him for it to a second and third upon conditions at pleasure with this demand upon it Do any of these conditions give power to the testament No yet the testament doth not efficaciter agere till they are performed why is that saith he because all such instruments work morally onely by expressing ut signa the will of the agent and therefore they work both when and how he will and it is his will that they shall not work till such a time and but upon such termes c. He might easily see how little this serves to our present purpose 1. That which he speaks of is a bare testament and no more but the Gospel as elsewhere I have shewed is a Covenant truly so called and not barely a testament 2. Those Legacies are such gifts that each son would be apt to imbrace being ready to put a sufficiently high estimate upon them But this Gospel-gift if nothing further be done will for ever lye contemned and neglected 3. The will is a meer instrument of donation leaving the Legatee to himself to accept or refuse The Gospel is the instrument of Gods power by the Spirit to change the heart and work upon the will for acceptance 4. These testament-legacies presuppose the condition not yet performed and so the Legatee without all right upon Testament-termes But Mr. Baxters Gospel-donation supposes the conditions already done and the soul upon that account in full possession before this Gospel-donation comes It conveyes right to a believer and if he be a believer as hath been abundantly shewed he is in present possest of Christ his righteousnesse and justification by him And whether or no I have acquit my self from the double charge brought against me I shall leave to the Readers consideration 1. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture in a work in which there is as much of God and as little of man seen as in the work of justification then there is no reason but that faith also hath an instrumental efficacy in the work of justification This is clear The reason given why faith should have no instrumental efficacy is because this takes from God who alone is the efficient and ascribes to man who is justified and doth not justifie himself But an instrumental efficiency is ascribed in Scripture to faith in a work on which there is as much of God and as little of man as in the work of justification This is clear in miraculous cures wrought upon diseased persons The work upon them was Gods not mans They were cured and did not cure themselves yet an instrumentall efficiency is ascribed to their faith If those words spoke to the two blind men Matth. 9.29 According to your faith be it unto you nor that of Paul concerning the creeple at Lystra That he had faith to be healed Act. 14.9 nor yet that of Christ to the Canaanitish woman Matth. 15.28 O woman great is thy faith be it unto thee as thou wilt will not hold it out which yet seem to speak very much this way other graces were qualifications yet none but this is taken notice of yet that to the woman with the bloody issue is full Matth. 9.22 Mark 5.34 Thy faith hath made thee whole not onely made whole by faith which is an exception against faiths justifying but faith made her whole Quemadmodum fidei ascribit Christus quod mulier soluta est à morbo corporis ita certum est fide nos consequi remissionem peccatorum adoptionem filiorum Dei juxta doctrinam Evangelii words speaking as much of instrumental efficacy as may be The conclusion then followes That faith hath its instrumental efficiency in justification likewise Pareus his notes upon the words are worthy observation As Christ ascribes it to faith that the woman is healed of the disease of her body so it is certain that by faith we obtain remission of sins and adoption of children of God according to the doctrine of the Gospel 2. If there be an instrumental efficiency ascribed to faith in Scripture respective to salvation then there is an instrumental efficacy ascribed to faith respective to justification This is plain nothing can instrumentally work to salvation that takes not in justification But an instrumental efficacy is ascribed to faith respective to salvation Luk. 7.59 He said to the woman Thy faith hath saved thee In the context there is a full proof of the Major The great priviledge which she of grace received there is the forgivenesse of her many sins and this is acribed to her faith The Minor is fully proved Her great love is mentioned as a consequent of this grace received But it is ascribed to her faith as that which had its alone efficacy Thy faith hath saved thee As we are saved by faith or through faith Ephes 2.8 so faith saves The conclusion then followes that faith hath its instrumental efficacy in justification 3. That which puts a man into possession of that from which justification necessarily and inevitably followes that is either a principal efficient or an instrument in justification This cannot be denyed He that puts me into a place to which a plentiful livelihood is necessarily annexed is either the efficient or an instrument of my livelihood But faith puts into possession of Christ from whom justification necessarily followes
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
Where world in the first place signifies the earth in the second place men on the earth 2 Cor. 5.21 Him that knew no sin he made sin for us Where in the first place sin is taken properly in the latter place by a Metonymy 2 Chron. 35.24 And they brought him to Jerusalem and he died and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his Fathers and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah In the first place Jerusalem is taken for the City in the second place for the Inhabitants of it And so also Matth. 2.1 3. There came wisemen from the east to Jerusalem When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him With further instances which there may be seen concluding that therefore the supposition of the adversaries is false that the repetition of the same word must be allwaies in the same sense 3. No doubt say you but Paul and James handle two distinct questions but not the two that you here expresse Paul speaks of meritorious works which make the reward of debt and not of grace if you will believe his own description of them Rom. 4.4 But James speaks of no such works but of such as have a consistency with grace and a necessary subordination to it I prove it The works that James speaks of we must endeavour for and perform or perish Paul excludes not only works of merit but all works from Justification supposing time but the works that Paul speaks of no man must endeavour or once imagine that he can perform viz. such as make the reward to be of debt and not of grace To this I answer 1. That if Paul speaks only of meritorious works then according to you he speaks of no works at all for there are none such no not in Angels Confess Chap. 3. § 6 Paul speaks in the place quoted of works where there is a reward of debt and yet speaks not as I conceive of works of merit seeing as he mentions none such so there are none such He exclude then works to which a reward is due vi promissi rather then meriti As Eph. 2. he excludes boasting of works done by the help of grace for there is a matter of boasting in these as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18.11 2. If Paul had here spoken of works of merit and I must believe him so elsewhere he speaks of other works and there both you and I are to believe him likewise 1. He speaks and excludes all the works that we have done Tit. 3.5 Which he universally opposes to Justification by free grace v. 7. and it is of faith that it may be of grace Rom. 4.16 2. He speaks of and excludes all those works or that righteousnesse which is not the righteousnesse of God by faith Phil. 8.8 9. that is all the righteousness that is inherent in us and not in Christ alone and made ours by faith therefore he is called the Lord our Righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 and said to be made of God unto us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 3. He speaks of and excludes all those works which the Law commands Rom. 3.20 Now there is no work of grace but the Law gives it in charge yea the Law commands to take in grace wheresoever there is a tender of it for our assistance Requiring a duty it requires all necessary helps to it And therefore Chemnitius observes that when the Apostle excludes the works of the Law from Justification his intention is to exclude the highest and noblest not only done by Pharisees or unregenerate persons but Abraham David or the most eminent convents 4. He speaks of and excludes all those works that any man in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto in the place quoted 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet I am not thereby Justified He knew no matter of condemnation say you sensu Evangelico he then kept up to that which God in the Gospel-Covenant calls for And yet he is not thereby justified Though God will not condemne a man of that integrity through grace yet this doth not justifie This place saith Cartwright on the words is the death of your Justification by works For if Paul knew nothing by himself in that wherein the Corinthians might suppose him most guilty and was not so much as in that point Justified before God who is he that dares to Justifie himself before God in any work And Fulk on the words Paul doth acknowledge that he is not Justified by his faithfull service and labour in the Gospel therefore no man can be Justified by his works done of grace in as great perfection as can be done of mortall man If the whole discharge of Paules ministeriall function wherein he took heed to himself and to his doctrines was not such where by he could be Justified How then could Abraham be justified in offering Isaack or Rahab in her hiding of the spies If the Apostle therefore do exclude works of merit we see what works he also excludes with it You futher say Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally but of Christs merits and free grace directly and purposely So that the chief part of Pauls controversie was Whether we are justified freely through Christs merits or through our own meritorious works But James question is Whether we are Justified by faith alone or by faith with obedience accompanying it and both as subordinate to Christs merits Answ Some will think that you judge faith not worthy to be named but on the bie Who can be of your mind that reads the Apostle speaking so often Paul treats diversly and industriously of Justification by faith and so fully to the office of faith in Justistification but that his scope is no lesse to shew what justifies ex parte nostri which it still faith then what that is that justifies ex parte Dei which is grace or ex parte Christi which is his blood or merit Pauls question you say is of the meritorious cause of our Justification James his question of the condition on our part If you are in the right Paul certainly was much defective in his Logick We think the question in debate is to be put into the Conclusion see how he concludes Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law Inferences are made and consectaries drawn from that which is mainly in dispute and not from that which is collaterally mentioned and upon the bie onely touched upon Now he concludes from the doctrine of Justification by faith mentioning as we see Justification ex parte nostri peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5.1 You further say Paul speaks of Justification in toto both in the beginning and progresse but especially in the beginning but James speaks only of Justification as continued and consummate and not as begun For both Abrahams and every mans was begun before works of obedience I Answer
Then works do not consummate for Paul casts off all works from this office and he speaks according to you of Justification in toto and if James speaks of it only as consummate and finished why does he instance in Rahab this being the first that was heard of her being in faith or grace The Authors that you follow are wont to say that Paul speaks of the first and James of the second Justification and it had been more for your advantage fully to have followed them then to have said that Paul speaks principally of the first yet speaks of the second likewise Yet you may see how hardly those of that opinion have been put to it Bellarmine that knows as well how to stickle for an opinion as another says that Paul speaking of the first Justication fetches a proof from Abraham which is understood of the second Justification and James speaking of the second Justification fetches a proof from Rahab which is the first Justification which as long since I have observed in the vindication of this text agrees like harp and harrow So that if the Authors that I follow have missed the meaning of these Apostles those that follow you are much lesse like to find it Yet after all this labour for a Reconciliation of this seeming difference between these great Apostles the Reader stands much engaged for that which you have brought to light from Reverend Mr. Gatakers hand in his Letter written to you where we see in what judgement he both liv'd and died taking it up as he saies when he was a novice and persisting in it to his last wholly differing from you and agreeing with me In Paul the question is saith he of sin in generall concerning which when any man shall be therewith charged there is no means whereby he may be justified that is justly assoyled from the otherwise just charge of being a sinner but by his faith in Christs blood Christs blood having made satisfaction to Gods Justice for sin and his faith in it giving him a right to it and interest in it This he understands of all sin through the whole course of a believers life first and last faith is his way of Justification Whereas in James saith he the question is concerning some speciall sin and the questioned persons guilt of it or freedome from it What speciall sin he means he explaines himself to wit Whether a man be a true or counterfeit believer a sound and sincere or a false and feigned professor In which case any person that is so wrongfully charged may plead not guilty and offer himself to be tryed by his works as in some cases Gods Saints have done even with appeal to God himself And what differs this from what I say onely the faith that is not counterfeit but evidenced by works justifies The truth of his faith is questioned whensoever the sincerity of his profession is thus charged This is no more then that which is ordinarily affirmed that faith justifies the person and works justifie faith 4. You say The ordinary exposition of the word faith Jam. 2.24 vindicated If with the named Expositors you understand by works a working fâith either you grant as much as I affirme in sense or else you must utterly nul all the Apostles arguing from v. 13. to the end Answ It were too tedious to follow you through this large discourse and you very well save me the paines when you adde I suppose you will say Faith which Justifies must be working but it Justifies not quâ— operans And so indeed I do say and you answer true nor quà fides i. e. qâ—à apprehendit objectum if the quà speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification To this I say If it neither Justifies quà operans nor quà apprehendens objectum I would fain know how or under what notion it justifies Do's it justifie nihil agendo I may well say Cedo tertium If you say as I think you will it justifies quà conditio Is it conditio nec operans nec apprehendens A faith neither working nor receiving is certainly as bad as the faith that James speaks of that profits nothing You demand further Why cannot faith Justifie except it be working I answer Because if it be faith to apprehend or receive then it is in life for if not alive it cannot receive If it be alive then it doth work You say The Apostle doth not plead for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medii ad Justificationem Even that Justification which he calls imputing of righteousness and that by God I answer He enquires what that faith is that is medium ad Justificationem and determines that it is not a dead but a working faith that is this Justifying medium and this strengthens and not nuls the Apostles argumentation When you have made it your business to overthrow my interpretation you set upon my reason and say As for your single argument here I answer And I may reply 1. That one argument to the purposâ— is to be preferred before 31 which are all besides the qâ—estion 2. That you might have found a double argument but that you industriously leave out one to make it single You say it is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by works means not works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture And I hope I may without offence tell you tht this kind of reasoning or answering adds advantage neither to your cause nor reputation You take it for granted and would perswade your Reader that if I suppose the word is once figurative where the proper acceptation is both destructive to the sense and repugnant to the whole tenor of the Gospel which was my second reason by you omitted that I must therefore so interpret it all along But you have had Scripture instances to the contrary and are directed where you may be further furnished I conclude that when James affirms that faith without works is dead and therefore cannot justifie ad sayes Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac which Scripture says was a work of faith of if that do not please was done by faith Heb. 11.17 and further sayes that in his justification by works the Scripture was fulfill'd which sayes he was justified by faith Is it not a fair interpretation to understand a working faith which is alone of possible power to justifie when the Scripture also ascribing this instanced justifying work of Abrham to the faith of Abraham as we see Heb. 11.17 In the close of your ten arguments you speak your sense of the danger which is like to follow upon this tenent which I have thought most meet to reserve to this place What sad effects say you it may produce to
thus driven on they could not but see that Christs presence with or in the Elements can be no more then Sacramental in which the sign is still put for the thing signified The bead is the body and the cup the blood of Christ no otherwise then the rock in the wildernesse was Christ In the explication of Sacramental signs there can be expected no other then Sacramentall speeches And therefore that great Lutheran Logician was much mistaken in charging the transgression of his maxim upon Calvinists that the proper sense of Scripture is ever to be held unlesse the contrary can be evidently proved in their leaving of the letter in the words of the Supper sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he speaks Taking it for granted that no such necessity can be shewen When it is enough to evince the necessity of a trope that the words are an explanation of a Sacramental sign We must not put this Sacrament at such a distance from all others as to make the whole here rigidly proper and all others Sacramental Words must be fitted to the nature of the subject But to help himself out he wisely borrowes from Bellarmine an assertion that Reasons are not to be demanded of any that hold the proper sense why they keep to it Both of them it seems despairing of giving any reason that is satisfying But methinks he might blush in the use of the Simile that he hath also borrowed to make his assertion good This were say they as if any should ask of those that are in a journey why they hold the old beaten way and why they go in at the door and not at the window When they or either of them can make it appear that the old way of interpretation of Sacramental speeches is to understand them properly without any Metonymie then I shall say that the letter here is not to be left but in the strictest rigour to be followed But till then I shall believe them to be both out of the way And all Sacraments being appendants to promises it will likewise follow that Christs presence with him that in faith takes these Elements is no other then a presence in Spirit Where these things are happily accorded and all scruple laid aside a new quarrel is raised about the subject of Sacraments That they are institutions of Christ and gifts vouchsafed by him to his Church is acknowledged But to whom they belong and who of right can make his claim to them is not determined when yet the visibility of the Ordinances and trust reposed in man for dispensation of them whose sight is more weak then to discern that which is invisible necessarily concludes that they belong to visible Church-members not in a select way pickt out of other Churches which is a way that no Scripture-Saint ever trod but in as great a latitude as the profession of the Christian faith In this Scripture is so plain that it is wonder that ever it was made a controversie Either the Jew outwardly was mis-nam'd when the title of Circumcision was given him and a foul misprision run upon when a proselyte was circumcised or a new convert in Scripture-way baptized or else this must necessarily be granted So that as to title and right of claim if Scriptures may judge the Covenant-grant is clear Yet as there are many that have their just right in Legacies and inheritances who are not judged meet for present fruition It would be many a man's losse even to ruine to have that presently put into his hands which justly might be claimed as his own So it fares in this great Ordinance of the Lords Supper which all that partake of are to look upon and improve as a memorial of Christs death for which all are not in any possible capacity as they are not for some other duties And here in all reason they that are to dispense this Ordinance are most concerned to distinguish And if Regeneration be the mark by which they are to be steered it is not like a Sea-boy appointed for the Pilot's guide floting on the top of the water but rather as one hid in the bottome which necessarily involves both dispenser and receiver in inextricable difficulties and perplexities And when most confesse that men free from ignorance errour and scandal though unregenerate must have admission and all acknowledge that such will we nill we will enter If it be concluded that unregeneration is an undeniable and invincible barre to all possible benefit and blank paper is alwayes sealed whensoever such take it it is not yet made known how it may be dispensed by those in whose hands it is entrusted with any possible comfort A great part of this work is to render the way here more comfortably passable in giving the doubting soul hopes that yet sees not concluding evidence in his own thoughts of a new birth many of which upon principles that they have taken in sadly reason against themselves in participation of this Ordinance and withal to put courage into the hands of the Ministers of Christ to presse the power of this soul-humbling Ordinance of God on the hearts of intelligent hearers competently instructed in Gospel principles whom yet they may justly have in jealousie not yet to have come up to this great and blessed work of a thorough change wrought in the mean space differing little or nothing from the common received opinion as to the qualifications of those that are to be or are not to be denyed admittance Yet I thought not meet that they should go alone but to send out upon this occasion into publick view a just Tractate of Sacraments which occasionally is grown into a bigger bulk then I ever intended That which appeares clear to my sight I doubt not but will seem otherwise in the eyes of some others And therefore I put it upon my account to meet not onely with dislike as every one does that deals in works of this nature but also with opposition I heare indeed that as of old it hath been said that unregenerate men have no true right in the sight of God to any of his creatures and that all such possessors are usurpers so also it is now maintained that all such notwithstanding their visible Church-interest are without all right to any Church-priviledges Though they make use of them as unregenerate men do of the creatures and by command from God must make use of them so that their neglect of them is justly charged as their sin yet they are still without any true right to them or title in them This I confesse with me is a strange assertion I should thinke that those immunities which Jesus Christ to whom all power is given in heaven and in earth of his good pleasure doth vouchsafe to men of meer visible Church-interest in order to bring them to an invisible right and title and which unregenerate men enjoy in order to work them to a Regenerate state are their true ana proper right
there is no truth of grace in the parent and yet am chidden for being too large I demand when I must stay in what latitude I may walk Men of the Congregational way are wont to limit me to parents one or both of the truth of grace and will allow none but beleevers children If justifying faith be not in the parent no baptismal water shall come on the child All other Christians from the beginning of Christianity those excepted that as of yesterday have opposed infant Baptisme look upon them under what notion you will have allowed to go as farre as profession of Christianity Mr. Firmin that will be larger then the one and narrower then the other must tell us where we must fix He hath my rule to except against I have not his to challenge To let me understand my error in being too large he demands But Sir I pray what if they be heretical about the natures of Christ as of old some deny the humanity of Christ and some the Deity of Christ and then proceeds to further instances To which I first answer Perhaps he may find some called Christians that it is a contradiction in adjecto to name them so such that receive not the Gospel at all but professedly abhorre it If any such are intended I shall say my meaning is known They that are no Turkes Infidels Pagans but in opposition to them of the faith worship and way that is Christian Secondly For the Heretiques instanced in such as were of old Mr. Firmin being so well verst in the way of antiquity I wish him to enquire what the Orthodox thought in those times of their Baptisme Did they rebaptize those that had received their Baptisme Did they deny their infants Baptisme They were to be trained to hear that Word that was able to convince this error And how much worse respective to salvation were these tenents then that of the denyall of the resurrection yet the Infants of som such were circumcised as I have shewen and of others baptized He goes on What if they think Christ was a Woman as he saies he hath given instance in one And indeed a wild one of one who had a prayer where this was often repeated that Jesus was her name perhaps he was a Welsh-man and then according to their dialect her is the Masculine gender This indeed were an error full of folly but not of such danger for two reasons 1. Christ were yet of mankind and had taken our nature had he been of that sex 2. It were not likely that he should make over such an opinion to his posterity He leaves heresy which he might have spared such shunne our Congregations and falls to instance in ignorance What if he knew not whether he was God or man as before what if ten Gods with abundance such stuffe I say the case of such is sad more sad in the degree then I have met with any of the use of reason and in capacity for marriage society I wish from my soul that all meanes were sought that these blind might see yet as long as God is not hereby provoked to remove our Candlestick but light still shines in our Horizon the Kingdome of God being not yet removed so that when the parent is blind the child may see as I have known many happy experiences yea the ignorant parents glorying in it There is not cause that we should be more severe then the Lord himself as to thrust out their posterity from the society of the Lords people This were to provoke them to shut their eyes and not to open them to receive the light that shines about them I think it were to exceed in our zeal against ignorance as farre as the disciples did against the Samaritanes when they would have fire to come down from heaven to consume them Luke 9.54 I had instanced in ignorance in Church-members not onely among the Jewes but Christians as the Hâ—brewes Heb. 5.12 the Corinthians 1 Cor. 15.34 That of the Hebrewes he saies he thinkes hurts him not That of the 1 Cor. 15.34 he saies is most likely when I know not whether of these two is more likely To that concerning the Corinthians some have not the knowledg of God I speak this to your shame which he onely thinkes is worthy of an answer he saies 1. Sir do you think it was such grosse ignorance as I have given instance To which I answere 1. That I know no more then the Apostle tells me and he saies it was want of the knowledge of God 2. I demand will you allow me to baptize the children of those that I find not equalling such in ignorance that you mention viz. the children of all that know that God is one and the Commandements tenne 2. He demands Was not Paul as true to his work as Abraham or the Jewes were to be in admitting to Circumcision which I mention pag. 445. To which I say I do not think that the admission of all was Pauls work and that many were admitted after he left them before he wrote this Epistle to them 2. I know he admitted few among them their admission was by Baptisme and how many or if you will how few he baptized in Corinth you may learn from himself 1 Cor. 1.14 16. 3. He saies I have found so much ignorance that the persons deserved shame but yet dared not to keep them from the Lords Supper because I found such a work on their heart though they could not expresse it in a definition To which I say that I find so much ignorance in my self that deserves shame and such that may not be able to expresse the thing that might be in question might passe with me for knowing men Periti est artificis definire But were they such that you could say to their shame that they had not the knowledge of God and yet durst you not exclude them from the Lords Supper He tells us of many sad instances of ignorance in fathers upon which he refuseth to give admission to infants But were it granted that such as to all priviledges were meer heathens as it was with those in Corinth mentioned by the Apostle that were joyned in marriage with believers and their ignorance not onely grosse but total and in all respects to be reckoned among those that were without God in the world as I shall not yeeld as long as the candlestick is not removed yet I do not hear that he makes any enquiry after the mothers of those infants that he takes the paines to go to them in Child-bed to demand any account of their proficiency perhaps they might give as good an account as some that he saies he durst not keep from the Lords Table And then as in the Apostles judgement they sanctifie their husbands in unbelief as to the producing of an holy seed being no professed infidels but in name Christians So according to his own judgement as to that end they sanctify their husbands
the Disciples of Christ for discovery of a Disciple in the former sense by their affections to him and suffering of affliction for him are of singular use Christ himself hath gone before us in it But upon the notation of the word because Christ gave the Bread and Cup to Disciples to make the subject of that Sacrament to be onely those that reach these markes is besides the holy Ghosts intention All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto for the bringing of it on to Christ I should desire to know where any outward sensible Ordinance is made or how in reason and according to Scripture it can be made the proper peculiar right of invisible members SECT XI Proposition 9 THe Sacrament of the Supper no more then other Ordinances is not limited to those that have received a new life in Christ by the Spirit that are actually regenerate and in grace The Lords Supper is not limited to those that have received a new life by the Spirit others as they may be admitted without sin so they are in a capacity and possbility to receive benefit from it This I am not ignorant that some will question But let these consider before they censure First That it is an external Ordinance as hath been said Arguments a priviledge of the Church as visible put into the hands of those for edification that are not able to discern men of spiritual life and invisible interest And though there be characteristicall differnces whereby a man in grace and he that is short of it may be distinguished whereby all bad ground at the best may be differenced from that which is good yet they are such whereby a man is to make trial of himself onely they are Spirit-works and none knowes them in any man save the Spirit that is in him and therefore no marks for any others cognizance For a Minister of Christ to dispence by command the Sacrament to many when he knowes that it is of possible use and benefit to some few unto these it is food and nourishment unto life unto the others as Rats-bane Poyson and onely for death is such a snare that may hold him in his administration in all horror and amazement A fad dilemma either to lay aside an Ordinance of Christ and so never come up in his place to the whole of his duty or else to deliver to them that which will inevitably be the ruine and destruction of so many of them I know no possible way that can be supposed or so much as pretended for avoidance but in the Name of Christ to give warning to all in whom this new life by the Spirit is not to abstain every man and woman not actually regenerate on their peril to keep off Let them say some know their danger in the highest terms that can be uttered and then if they come their blood is on their own heads and the Minister of Christ hath by this means delivered his soul But to this I have three things to say 1. That it is as I suppose without all Scripture-precedent to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit wholly to keep off from this or any other Ordinance of Christ I know we must warn men of their sin and the judgement hanging over their heads for sin in which let it be our prayer that we may be more faithful but that we should warn men upon this account upon this very ground to hold off from all addresse to Ordinances I have not learnt 2. I say this doth presuppose that which is wont to be denyed unregenerate men to be in a capacity to examine themselves respective to this Ordinance How can we warn them upon want of justifying faith and the saving work of repentance to hold back when they are in an incapacity upon trial to find themselves thus wanting 3. Shall we not hereby pluck the thorne out of our own sides and as much as in us lyes thrust it into the sides of many of our hungry thirsty and poor in spirit people How many may we suppose are in grace through a work happily begun on their souls yet for several reasons are not able to see this grace or reach to any discovery of it Sometimes by reason of the infancy of the work upon their hearts being yet babes or rather embryo's in grace The first that appears upon light received is an army of lusts and potent corruptions as we know Paul sets it out This cloudes for present any other weak work that as yet in present is wrought In this time Satan is not wanting he did not shew so much artifice before to lessen their sin but he now makes use of as much to aggravate it and as he was industrious before to seduce now he is as busie to accuse He led the incestuous man to incontinency 1 Cor. 7.4 And we know Paul feares least upon continuance of the Church-censure he would gain advantage to swallow him up in overmuch sorrow 2 Cor. 2.8 11. These perhaps as yet are not able to give an account of the nature of faith and repentance or their genuine fruits much lesse are they able by a reflex act to conclude the truth of them in their souls Sometimes by reason of some sharpe conflict of temptation being under the shock and assault of it and therefore whatsoever they have seen of grace heretofore or the favour of God now it is under a cloud which I believe was Pauls case when a messenger of Satan was sent to buffet him and a thorne in the flesh given him seeing it is put in opposition to the abundance of revelations that he had being taken up into the third heavens 2 Cor. 12. and therefore had need of Ordinances for support Sometimes on a soyle received by temptation of which his own heart and not the Church is witnesse and therefore is at a losse of the joy of his salvation and stands in need of strength for recovery Sometimes by over-much sloath and rust contracted on his graces through negligence which is supposed to be the case of the spouse indulging her self too much in carnal ease Cant. 5.2 I have put off my coat how shall I put it on I have washed my feet how shall I defile them Sometimes God out of prerogative withdrawing the rayes of his Spirit and refusing to testifie with our spirits in which case the soul that is most upright with God and sincere in his feare walks in darknesse and sees no light in which there is need of all communications from God and attendance upon him in Ordinances When these shall hear all in whom the work of grace is not in truth thus warned to keep back and told of the high danger of approaching to this Table in such away aggravated will not they put in their name and say their souls are now spoke to They must therefore absent themselves and so the smoaking flax is quenched
person is are justly dibarred from this Ordinance seeing any possible hopes of gaining good is very low if any which yet is all that can be pretended tor the expediency and Arguments on the other hand for the inconvenience and danger are many and weighty These Sacramental signes are not barely teaching but engaging signes and not barely signes but seals in which by acception of these seales we engage to God to make good his terms and propositions The Minister of Christ therefore hath little encouragement and slender hope to tender it to such or to admit such to it that are in a continual way of Covenant-breaking and proclaime to all their resolutions in it A continued dissolute course of life speaks no better then a full purpose and setled resolution for sin it can then little avail such a one to take anew these symboles and badges of a Christian profession upon him and put himself on an hypocritical profession of tht service of Christ making discovery of such resolusion it doth appear to be in vain to give this way and freedom to him Knights of the post that have often forsworne themselves are not by any prudent Judge permitted to sweare and those that have so often desperately broken Covenant and wilfully gone against all former engagements and still palpably appearing that way are as unfit to engagae And the more clearly any that is produced as deponent appears to be such with more full resolution any prudential Judge will except against it And whereas it may be objected that such upon the grounds here laid may as well be admitted to the Lords Table as to hear Sermons joyn in Prayers observe Fasts They are engaging Ordinances whilest they are done by persons in Covenant as is receiving of this Sacrament Answ First They are not certainly so highly and explicitely engaging The very name Christian is an engaging tye indeed to Christian duties and wayes To enjoy any further Christian priviledge is more But to take these pledges on the tearms proposed hath ever heen accounted the highest Secondly Though the Sacrament serve as hath been said for aggravation of sin yet as the Word is the alone means in the discovery of sin so it hath infinitely the advantage in the aggravation of it The Sacrament doth nothing at all in this work without the Word and the Word does exceedingly much more then the Sacrament and when it is clear that the Word for so long hath wrought nothing for conviction there is little hopes that the Sacrament will work any thing to aggravation Thirdly As the hope of good is either low or none at all so the danger on the other hand is high and full of terrour as we see it by the Apostle aggravated 1 Cor. 11.27 28. The unworthy receiving of the Word is indeed of danger and a savour of death to death But the hopes are fair by hearing to be brought to worthinesse The danger of unworthy Communicants is far greater and the hopes little if any at all Fourthly The scandal here taken is exceeding great and though happily sometimes weak ones take more offence then is given and are offended above reason yet when there is so little of good to be hoped in that in which they are so scandalized and so much danger in the offence it is by no means to be neglected Fifthly There is more fair hopes of good to be done them upon their denyal then upon admittance to this Ordinance when they see their own unworthinesse observed and those proceedings upon it they may more seriously reflect upon their unworthinesse When a Physician shall forbid some meats upon observation of a patients disease it is a way to make him more sensible that he is in danger so when the Minister of Christ upon observation of mens wayes shall deny this Ordinance there may be hopes of an answerable work to bring the person to some more sad and serious reflections upon his own state and condition If any think that these arguments singly considered not to be of that strength to evince a non-admission of men of openly sinfull courses to this Ordinance I shall answer in the words of the Assembly of Divines unto the reasons of the Dsslenting brethren against the instance of many Congragations in the Church of Ephesus Arguments of necessity are to be answerable to the things they prove which as well holds in t hsi of expediency or inexpediency to which I speak as it doth in matter of fact of which they speak and so say they Though the several particulars of this proof should be singly but probabilities yet being joyned together make a sufficient proof as many concurring likelihoods in Courts amount to a good evidence and many lesser stars make up a Galaxia They are with me at least so far prevailing That I believe that such are worthily excluded and as they do not come without scandal so they cannot come to their advantage In case after a former way in sin or sad fall to the scandal of the Church upon admonition there appear convictions and serious promises the case is otherwise there is all cause then to take in such a one to this Ordinance in which his sin appears in the highest aggravation and a tender and offer is made and the way held forth of pardon and forgivenesse Many of the Ancients were hasty enough to give the Sacrament to men at the instant of their death as a Viaticum to heaven when it was all too late to make any right improvement of it But we are in the mean space too slow and over-rigid in admission of professed penitents to it as appeares in many examples That of Serapion is notable mentioned by Eusebius who had lived a great while in the Church without blame but at last fell in time of persocution And often desiring to be received again by the Church no man hearkened to him till at last being sick and ready to dye he sent a boy suddenly to fetch a Priest who was found sick by the messenger that he could not come to him But he gave the boy a little of the Sacrament and bid him put it into the mans mouth who when he had tasted of it presently dyed That was expected here from the Sacrament which it wanted viz. some hidden power to carry up the soul for heaven and glory and in the mean space that was not seen for which it was instituted A provocation to repentance and corroboration and strengthning of the soul in wayes of holinesse when there was hopes of good to accrew by it it was denyed and when all hopes were past it was indulged After-ages appeared more facile but then profession of repentance was turned into a form of auricular confession they might confesse and take penance and be fit for the Sacrament and sin as soon as it was over and go again to confession That formality of confession put the Sacrament as they thought into a posture of working which sin
with the washing of water by the Word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy without blemish Ephe. 5.25 26 27. As the spot is taken off by his Spirit in working new principles in us and working us up to new obedience so the guilt is removed by his sufferings He blots out their transgressions for his Names sake He remembers them no more He hides his face from them He casts them into the bottom of the sea removes them as far as the East is from the West He doth not one of these to leave the other undone He vouchsafes purifying and he vouchsafes pacifying grace He delivers from the wrath to come and he makes meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light He conferres habitual graces and he honours with relative priviledges Fifthly These may be distinguished Blood and Spirit may be distinguished but must not be divided but they must by no means be divided Christ doth not impart his merit where he doth deny his Spirit We account it a great presumption in men of years to talke of justification and want sanctification and we can say to such If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his God writes his Law in the heart and puts it into the inward parts where he remembers sin no more Jer. 31.33 They are quickened together with Christ that have their trespasses forgiven them Col. 2.13 And it is an unwarrantable conceit to imagine that relative priviledges of adoption and pardon of sin are conferred on infants in Baptisme or otherwise when their natures remain still the same and unchanged who can think that God fits all of age for glory that he takes into glory and yet takes infants into glory their impurity and birth-defilement continuing Seeing that we have instances as of Gods love of infants Rom. 9.13 of Christs blessing of them Matth. 19.16 so also of the gift of his Spirit Jer. 1.5 Luk. 1.15 In case the former may be avoided yet certainly the later is above exception The reason given by Christ of that sentence of his holding forth an absolute necessity of regeneration Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God is the pollution of the first birth as appears by his own words ver 6. inferred immediately upon the repetition of the former That which is born of the flesh is flesh and this is of equal concernment to infants and men of years uncleannesse of birth as well as uncleannesse of life stands as a barre to our entrance into heaven and no unclean person must enter there Sixthly The Sacraments especially those of initiation whether in the old or new Covenant about which concerning this in question there is most dispute The Sacraments especially those of initiation have respeâ—t to both of these havo respect to this whole work both of the change of our nature and the removal of our guilt As the have respect to the one so also to the other and that the whole of their work and the way how it is wrought may be better understood we are to consider that First Somewhat is hinted and implyed in those respective signs of Circumcision and Baptisme and that is our uncleannesse in nature and guilt contracted upon it Why should either infant or man of years have the foreskin of his flesh in that way by Divine appointment cut off but to let us understand the propagation of corruption and derivation of it from man to posterity Why should water be applyed which is of an abstersive cleansing faculty but to let us know that there is uncleannesse to be removed Cleansing for that which is clean is vain and needlesse As Sacrifices for atonement did imply wrath so this cleansing implyes filth and consequently guilt filth and guilt being inseparable Secondly Somewhat is signified and taught us in them somewhat the bare signs themselves are apt to signifie viz. That the taking off of the staine and the removal of our guilt is to be done by anothers power Why is this applyed by another hand but to let us know that it is above our strength Somewhat not the signes of themselves but the Word of the Covenant that is annext teaches and that is That the blood of Christ removes this guilt and that the Spirit of Christ takes away this stain This the signes of themselves could never shew but the words of the Covenant abundantly do demonstrate that remission of guilt is the work of the blood of Christ and Regeneration or Sanctification the work of the Spirit That the water in Baptisme holds out the Spirit unto us for Sanctification and change of our wayes is that I know denyed by none and in the Scripture it is plain I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Deut. 30.6 Circumcision is that of the heart Rom. 2.29 which by the Apostle Col. 2.11 is interpreted the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Baptisme is the same as to the signification as we see in the same place from the Apostle Col. 2.11 12 13. In whom ye are also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptisme wherein ye are also risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead and you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickned together with him having forgiven all your trespasses And this death to sin and life in grace are both from the Spirit Rom. 8.11 12 13. and both of these Baptisme holds out to us Rom. 6.4 We are buried with him by Baptisme into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of life But whether the blood of Christ be at all signified by this element of water some have questioned Sticking so rigidly to that phrase of the Apostle Tit. 3.5 that they will not alone have it understood of Baptisme but they will have nothing else looked after in Baptisme but the work of regeneration But this doubtlesse is a clear mistake The blood that was shed in circumcision gave the circumcised to understand that the guilt propagated could not without blood be remitted And if any think that this is too dark and obscure a proof of a Mystery of this weight let them compare with it the text under hand and the Apostles scope and aime in it which as we have heard is to shew that Abrahams circumcision was not his justification seeing he was justified by faith in his state of uncircumcision and that he received circumcision as a sign and seal of it justification is by blood Rom. 3.25 Circumcision is a sign and seal of justification Righteousnesse of
that this place should be interpreted of baptisme on which words of his Mr. Gataker pag. 123. very well comments l Quasi aliam potius quorundam expositionem probaturus ni aliorum importunitas aliò impelleret Verba sunt enim alii concedentis aliquid potius quam animi sui sensum enuntiantis As though he would rather saith he allow another interpretation if the importunity of others did not lead him that way They are words of one granting or rather yielding somewhat to another man then speaking his own mind as he further observes And Mr. Burges Spiritual Refining Part 1. pag. 214. speaking of Baptisme saith it is called the laver of regeneration Titus 3.5 as some expound it giving us to understand that it is no exposition universally agreed upon and sufficiently hinting that it is the more inconsiderable part that do interpret it this way Fifthly Though we should yield that these places were to be understood of the Sacrament of Baptisme as Calvin saith he could be content to do yet all this while nothing is gained seeing it still rests to be proved that this is meant any otherwise then by way of sign and seal they conclude no abolute work but onely as they have their influence upon the understanding and faith of the receivers And therefore Calvin when he was prevailed withall to yield so farre as we have heard presently addes m Non quod in externo aquae symbolo inclusa sit salus sed quia partam à Christo salutem Baptismus nobis obsignat Not that salvation is included in the outward symbole of water but because Baptisme seales it to us when Christ hath obtained it for us And Danaeus speaking to that Argument of Bellarmine that the Scripture witnesseth that the words of the Sacrament are active instruments of our justification and not seales of the promise giving instance in these and the like Scriptures for this purpose answers n Instrumenta signa etiam mere obsignantia testantia dicuntur per tropum metonymiam id facere quod obsignant nam annulus sponsalium qui solus est signum eorum dicitur conjun gere obligare sponsos contractus instrumentum quod solum consensus signum obstringere contrahentes Doctoratus sigillum literae creasse effecisse n. Doctoâ—em quaeenim nos juvant efficere ea ipsa dicuntur propter finem in quem spectant in quibus ab eis juvamur Verum vitanda est verborum hujusmodi quae ut causis vel signis vel instrumentis actionem tribuunt homonymia ne propterea censcamus ea signa vel instrumenta esse causas istâ—us actionis vel effecti vel fructus efficientes efficiunt enim aut efficere di cuntur illa effecta suo tantum modo nempe per modum duntaxat signi quatenus obsignant certificant eam actionem vel effectionem aut per modum instrumenti quoniam ad effectionem ad hibentur multum enim signa vera instrumenta inter se proprie differunt signa vero nihil plane ad effectio nem conferunt qualia sunt Sacramenta sed affectionem Sp. S. opus illius in nobis duntaxat vâ—rissime certissime testantur consignant Instruments and signs meerly testifying and sealing are said by a trope and metonymy to do that which they seal for even a ring used in espousals which onely is a sign is said to joyn and bind the espoused an instrument of contract which is onely a token of agreement is said to bind the contractors and the letters and seal of a Doctor to create a Doctor for those things that are helpful to us are said to effect those things as to such an end in which they are helpful But the homonymy of words of this nature is to be shunned which attributes actions to signes or instruments as to causes lest upon that account we may think that such signes or instruments are causes of such actions or efficients of such fruits and effects For they effect or are said to do such a work alone after their manner that is onely by way of sign as they seal or certify such an act or work or by way of instrument because they are used in the work For signes and instruments properly so called do very much differ For signes contribute nothing to the work of which sort are Sacraments but onely truely and certainly testifie and seal the work of the Spirit of God wrought Danaeus Contra Bellarmi Tom. Contro 2. Cap. 14. ad Arg. 2. Abundance more might be added to clear these Texts and take them out of their hands that urge them for this purpose though they were meant of the Sacraments which is not to be granted And what we have said of these Texts may be affirmed of that also Deut. 30.6 I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Circumcision which was a Sacrament is indeed there named but the speech is onely borrowed by way of metaphor from the circumcision of the flesh and applyed to the heart as is clear Deut. 10.16 where that work is given in command to the Jewes and they were not commanded to circumcise themselves but were already in Circumsion A second sort of Scriptures are such in which baptisme is mentioned but faith evidently required to the attainment of the effects of it A second sort of Scriptures are such where Baptisme is indeed mentioned and the Sacrament of Baptisme intended but faith is evidently required for the attainment of the effect specified These especially are Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Acts 22.16 Rise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the Name of the Lord. I shall referre the Reader for a full vindication of these Scriptures to Mr. Gatakers disceptation pag. 9 10 c. pag. 56 57. and shall onely adde that that phrase in the Name of the Lord utterly destroies all that they would build on these words seeing it implies faith in his Name as Acts 3.16 may be seen And howsoever Infants that are in Covenant upon their parents profession of faith are baptized into this Name yet those of yeares as these were to whom this speech is directed are in their own persons not onely to make profession of faith but in sincerity to believe in order to attainment to the pardon of their sins or any other spiritual priviledge of the Covenant whatsoever Yea that which these men would draw from these Texts stands not with their principles that urge them The Sacraments work grace say they as instruments I shall then desire to know whether positive infidelity be not such a barre that will hinder If it be a barre in men of yeares then the Sacrament works not without actual faith in the baptized It is the priviledge of faith to obtain forgivenesse of sin Act. 13.39 Rom. 3.25 It is the work then
how great things they ascribe to the body of Christ received if no barre be put which they understand of the Sacramental bread is very well known But as some have observed where poyson growes providence takes care that there be antidotes found so none of these ever appeared in the Church but some by the good hand of God have stood up in opposition How mightily did the Prophet Jeremy oppose himself against that over-high opinion that the Jewes in his time had of Circumcision Jer. 9.25 26. As also Paul making use of his authority against the Jewes in his time and disputing at large against it Rom. 2. And the Apostle Peter foreseeing it seems that Baptisme would be set up as high among Christians as ever Circumcision was among the Jewes makes it his businesse to prevent it Having affirmed that Baptisme saves he is careful to let us know that it is not by its own power but by the resurrection of Christ that is Faith in the Resurrection and further explains himself that it is not the outward act alone but as answered with an inward work that hath that power as you have heard And Popish Schoolmen making it their work as we have heard to advance Sacraments to that height Protestant Writers in a sull stream have appeared to set them on their right bottome and to make it appear what it is that Scripture attributes to them and what in their right use may be expected from them Calvin's words lib. 4. instit cap. 14. Sect. 14. are high and notable having opposed the doctrine of nuda signa which makes Sacraments to be bare and naked signs On the other hand saith he b Rursum admonendi sumus ut isti vim Sacramentorum enervant usumq prorsus evertunt ita ab adversâ parte stare alios qui arcanas nescio quas virtures Sacramentis affingunt quae nusquam illis à Deo insitae leguntur Quo errore periculosè falluntur simpliciores et imperiti dum et Dei dona quaerere docentur ubi reperiri minime possunt et à Deo sensim abstrahuntur ut pro ejus veritate meram amplexentur vanitatem Magno enim consensu Sophisticae Scholae tradiderunt Sacramenta novae legis hoc est quae in usu nunc sunt Ecclesiae justificare et conferre gratiam modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortalâ—s Quae sententia dici non potest quà m sit exitialis et pestilens eoque magis quod multis ante saeculis magna Ecclesiae jactura in bonâ orbis parte obtinuit Planè certe diabolica est nam dum justitiam cirra fidem pollicetur animas in exitium praecipites agit deinde quia justitiae causam à Sacramentis ducit miseras hominum mentés in terram sâ— apte sponte plus satis inclinatas hâc superstitione illigat ut in spectaculo rei corpore ae potius quam in Deo ipso acquiescant we are to be advertis'd that as those weaken the efficacy of Sacraments and utterly overthrow their use so there are others on the other hand that assign I know not what vertue to them such that we never read that God ever put into them which errour saith he dangerously deceives the simple and unlearned Whilest they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot be found they are by degrees drawn from God to imbrace meer vanity instead of truth For the Schooles of Sophisters with great consent have taught that the Sacraments of the new law that is those that are now in use among Christians do Justifie and confer grace provided that we put no barre of mortal sin Which opinion saith he hath been of more deadly danger than can be spoken and so much the more because for many Ages to the great losse of the Church it hath prevailed It is certainly saith he devillish for whilest it promiseth Justification without Faith it casts soules headlong to destruction And upon that account because they derive the cause of righteousnesse or Justification from the Sacraments by this superstition they so ensnare the poor soules of men over-much of their own accord inclined to earth that they had rather rest in a corporeall element than in God himself This is his entrance upon the dispute That which he hath further upon it in four whole Sections is very well worth the reading The consent of other Writers of his time and that have followed after him as a cloud of witnesses might be produced but this as the Reader hath heard is already done to my hand And when some of reverend esteem and singularly deserving in the Church of God have gone overmuch on this hand as soon as it was carried abroad in Manuscripts a learned Manuscript of Mr. Gatakers met with it and afterwards appearing in print as a Posthumous work this as soon as it came to the Authors cognizance by his zeal to the truth followed it And let me here adde to that which hath been said that if nothing else yet experience might correct this over-high conceit of the work of Sacraments That which we evidently see is not wrought by Sacraments we cannot believe they are assign'd of God to work This Proposition hath certainly reason in it They certainly do that office which God hath assign'd and appointed them But we evidently see that they do not actually work all that they figure out even where according to these there is no bar put therefore there is no cause to believe that they are design'd of God for it Here I might instance in their failing in the work of remission of sin in Infants seeing when they come to growth we oft see them in that way of sin that stands not with actual forgivenesse But I know that many that here are adversaries confesse an intercision of Justification and therefore this is not against them and others that admit not that doctrine speak of a double Justification one for the state of Infancy another of those that are of growth upon their acceptation of Christ by faith and therefore though sins be remitted in Infancy and afterward upon their acting of sin charged here is no such intercision of justification which Arminians hold and their adversaries oppose I shall therefore wave this and instance in the failing of Baptisme in the work of regeneration which is as well figured out in Baptisme as that other of remission of sin Baptisme comes not alone to remove the guilt but also to correct the power of original corruption and so to work in us a freedome from the power of sin as well as the pardon of it And in case Baptisme effects this work how is it that sin in Infants is so apt to shew it self that as soon as they act they are so readily prone to act that which is evill When Saul said he had done the Commandment of the Lord Samuel had a confutation ready What means then sayes he this bleating of sheep and lowing of oxen in mine ears that
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
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
I desire Mr. Baxter to take into consideration that Text of the Apostle Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weakned through the flesh c. And whether he understand it respective to sanctification which is not agreed upon among Interpreters to give his Reader satisfaction Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione Quid patitur ut fi at impotens et inefficax Quomodo haec impotentia inefficacia fuit in carne utrum eminenter an formaliter Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem And I doubt not but I may as easily answer his Queries in order to the vindication of my assertion as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apostle delivers Answering the last all is indeed answered Caro agit injiciendo obices remoras Quo minus Lex operatur in corde hominis Spiritus agit per fidem ut causa removens impedimentum E medio tollens obices remoras istas Incitando potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promissionis divinae I desire also his full Comment on the Apostles words 2 Cor. 3.6 Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life with a satisfying answer to all like Quaeries that thence may be made I suppose he will grant that they are able Ministers of the New Testament no otherwise then in preaching the Gospel and when the bare Scripture as Tremelius reads it is of power onely to kill we may demand how the Gospel suffers in receiving any such quickening power from the Spirit And indeed the Gospel suffers not but the soul in receiving power to answer the Gospels call whether to Justification oâ— sanctification And that the Spirit makes use of faith in this quickening power I think will not be denyed seeing the Apostle tells us The life that I live in the flesh is by faith in the Son of God Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work and he addes Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof adding What though onely believers are justified by the Covenant doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie then either there are no conditions or causae sine quibus non or else they are all efficients and give efficacy and power to other efficients I confesse those words taken by themselves in that sense as he may fancy and the words in themselves may bear will not come up to a full proof Justification may be restrained onely to believers and yet faith have no hand in it but seeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work some of them speaking of it as Gods instrument Rom. 3.30 most of them as mans we may well then know that Scripture holds it not out as any such naked condition To others the Gospel-grant lyes dead to these through faith it is effectuall There is added Your terms of faiths giving power through the Spirit tell me that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel not at its moral act of conveyance or donation but at its reall operation on mans heart I do look at the act of the Gospel as its real operation on mans heart and yet I look at the right act of it The Gospel is an instrument to justifie by the intervening act of faith according to Protestants and by the intervening work of sanctification according to Papists and according to both there is a real work on the soul necessary to put into a posture for Justification All know that Divines distinguish between redemption wrought by Christ and the application of it Redemption is the proper work of the Son but Application they ascribe to the Spirit a Hinc Pater Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem istam perficiendam The Father and the Son are said saith Amesius to send the Spirit to perfect this application Medull Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture nor Divines use to say that the Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by inditing the Gospel c. Though I own not this phrase that is here put upon me and I might expect so much priviledge as to be Master of my own words yet I would have it taken into further consideration whether Divines use his language or mine or whether they judge not that tâ—â—e the right act of the Gospel for pardon of sin which I mention The Leyden Divines having spoke of the application of the righteousnesse of Christ Disp 33. Sect. 21. have these words Sect 24. b Haec applicatio in nobis fit à Spiritu sancto 1 Cor. 6.11 dono scilicet fidei Ipse enim eam per Ministerium Evangelii Quod Ministerium Spiritûs dicitur 2 Cor. 3.8 ingenerat ac verbo suo ac Sacramentis confirmat auget Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5.5 Unde Spiritus fidei dicitur 2 Cor. 4.13 quâ Deum ut gratiosum Christum ut redemptorem ejusque justitiam ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus Joan. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 This application in us is made by the holy Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 viz. by the gift of faith For he works it by the Ministery of the Gospel which is called the Ministery of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.8 and encreases it by his Word and Sacraments Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith 2 Cor. 4.13 whereby we apprehend God as gracious Christ as Redeemer and his righteousnesse and from it everlasting life Joh. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith Rom. 5.1 Acts 26.18 A parte nostrâ fide Rom. 5.2 Actor 26.18 ex fide per fidem Ro. 3.30 Justistficamur justificat nos Deus By faith and through faith Rom. 3.30 We are justified and God justified us with much more to that purpose And Ravanellus in verbum justificatio speaking of the instrument of justification saith it is either outward or inward c Causa instrumentalis externa verbum Dei Sâ—cramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11 ubi circumcisio appellatur s gillum justitiae fidei nam verbum Dei Sacramenta sunt organa per quae Deus nos vocat per quae operatur conservat ac auget in nobis fidem obsignatque in cordibus nostris gratiam justificationis atque adeo Ministri Ecclesiae alii qui docent nos viam salutis Dan. 12.3 The outward instrumental cause he saith is the Word of God and the Sacraments as appears from Rom. 4.11 where circumcision is called the seal of the righteousnesse of faith for saith he the Word of God and Sacraments are instruments by which God doth call and by which he works preserves and encreases faith in us and seals in
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
your self having in this very page said The condition is his that performeth it not his that imposeth it And I am sure that God imposeth and we perform the conditions of Faith and Repentance therefore they are not his conditions but ours You say There are sufficient reasons why God is said not to believe though he cause us to believe If you please to produce these reasons I shall he artily thank you I have said plainly enough that God causes us to believe denâ—'d that he is properly said to believe Your reasons then must needs be acceptable You tell me of Praedeterminants and their Adversaries Jesuites Arminians All of which acknowledge God to be the cause of uâ—â—acts And I acknowledge the same and so far there is a â—aire and â—â—iâ—ndly accord Bâ—t you say I adventure a step farher and say that faith and repentance are mans work and not Gods To which yâ—u reply 1. What meane you then to yeeld afterward that God worketh all our works in us Those which he worketh are sure his work Answ What need you to aske that question when I there explaine mine own meaning Your â—râ—uâ—ent à conjugatis What God worketh is his work must have its due limits or else you will run into many absurdities God works our motion from place to place and yet he himself does not move The text it self by me quoted gives an answer Having asserted that God works them the denominâ—tion is still given to man God workâ— all our works in uâ— when he has wrought them they are yet said to be ours I freely subscribe to that of Eâ—â—ius upon the words Deus omne bonum ac totum ab initio bonae voluntatis usque ad consummationem boni operis in nobis efficâ—citer operatur ordine sc causalitatis You â—dde I never met with any Orthodox Divine but would yeeld that Faith is a work of Gods Spirit and the Spirits work is doubtleâ—s Gods work Farther telling me If you go the Common way of he Praedeterminants you must acknowledge that God is the Physicall Efficient Praedeâ—ermining Principall Immediate cause of every act of every creature and therefore doubtlesse of our Faith and that both immediatione virtutis suppositi So that it is more properly his act then ours Here you furnish me with an answer Though in the highest way of Praedeterminants I should ascribe all in every act to God yet they are not Gods works or acts in a rigid proper sense but by a Metonymie of the cause He works them because he work us for the acting of them and so I explained my self We are his workmanship fitted and prepared for good works Christ was the principall efficient when he raised Lazarus yet it was Lazarus and not Christ that did rise Concerning acts of this nature that we are upon I believe that Quod voluntas agit liberè agit interim ex naturâ non est libera ad bonum sed per gratiam liberata libera in radice non in termino Homo denuò natus vult perficit quod est bonum Deus autem operatur velle perficere ordine sc causalitatis You professe your self of Bp. Davenants mind who saith As for the predetermination of mens wills it is a controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuits with whose Metaphysicall speculations our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains or at least should not Declaring your self that you take it to be a poynt beyond the knowledge of any man which way God works on the will in these respects I much marvaile then that you will so much trouble your Reader about it You tell us that if you must incline to any way it would be rather to Durandus for stronger reasons then you find in Ludovicus à Dola who yet you say hath more then you have seen well answered And yet perhaps à Dola in case he had seen your arguments would have judged his as strong as yours Notwithstanding your great abilities to give answer to them when all others that you have seene have been wanting So farr as I have looked into the Author I see him a man of much modesty and one in whome reason is not wanting though I will not undertake to declare either with or against him When I say Our dexterity for holy duties is from the frame into which grace puts us and so still the work is ours though power for action is vouchsafed of God You reply Both velle and perficere are the gift of God and not only posse velle perficere To which I say I had thought that Power for action had included that wnich you say and not denyed it namely a powerfull inclination of the will to the work Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Psal 110.3 The will is still mans when grace has wrought him up to it I had thought there had been no such danger in Paules words Phil. 4.13 I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me You conclude that I have not confuted your answer namely to your Quaerists question when indeed I never intended it and if I would now go about it I need not finding it as I think done to my hand You give in your reason 1. That I have not disproved the absolute promise of the first speciall Grace Answ You say no more of this in your reply to your Querist that I can find but Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise is a great doubt and that you think we may call it an absolute promise when you had said before that they are meer gratious predictions 2. These supposed promises as you say in your answer are not within the proper conditionall Covenant and therefore I had nothing to do with it 2. You further say that I have not disproved God to be the Author of our faith so as that it is his work Answ I do not find that in all your answer and you most unfairely make the title of this Section to be Whether Faith and Repentance are Gods works My businsse was against your Querist affirming them to be Gods conditions not ours 3. You say If I had yet Believing which is our work is not the same with giving faith or moving us to believe which is Gods work Answ This I confesse You did not affirme it before that I know and I yeeld it now The former is ours viz. to believe the latter Gods viz. to give Faith or move us to believe A mighty proofe sure that your answer is not confuted if it had been intended because I have gainsayed what your answer never asserted For that wich I intended not against you but as I thought for you That Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods I thus further argue Arguments evincing that Faith and Repentance are our conditions and not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Those conditions that are not mentioned in the proper conditionall Covenant