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
regenerate or unregenerate which is an undiscernable work and accordingly to admit or refuse SECT XIII Proposition 11. The Lords Supper with the Word as an appendant to it may be serviceable to bring a man of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant THere is nothing hinders but that the Lords Supper with the Word as an appendant to it may be serviceable to bring up those of Covenant interest to the terms and propositions of the Covenant may serve to work a man of profession of faith unto faith saving and justifying a man in name the Lords to turn unfeignedly and sincerely to the Lord. This I shall endeavour by Arguments to confirm First Men of that interest that baptisme receives as the intention of the work in order to salvation these the Lords Supper serves to carry on by sanctification to salvation as the end of the work likewise But Baptisme receives men of visible profession onely and visible interest as the intention of the work into the visible Church in order to salvation Therefore the Lords Supper carries on these by sanctification as the intention of the work to salvation The Proposition cannot be denyed unlesse we will without reason bring in that vast difference between these two outward vâ—â—â—ble Ordinances both intrusted in the hands of man as that the one shall be of that latitude to receive men of visible interest and the other restrained to invisible members The one according to the mind of God shall let many into the Church for salvation the other shall be in capacity to nourish and bring on very few The Assumption cannot be denyed That Baptisme receives men of visible profession and visible interest in order to salvation and hath been abundantly proved we baptize infants upon the bare account of Covenant-holiness which is onely a visible interest men of years were baptized and by just warrant yet may in case not baptized upon a visible profession The conclusion then followes that the Lords Supper carries on those as the intention of the work that Baptisme receives to salvation Secondly If it be the mind of God in the Gospel revealed that men of visible interest having not yet attained to the grace of sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Table then it must needs follow that it serves as an instrument with the Word to raise them up by faith and sanctification to salvation But it is the mind of God in the Gospell revealed that men of visible interest having not yet reached unto sanctification should have admittance to the Lords Supper The Lords Supper then serves to raise up men of visible interest by faith and sanctification for salvation The Proposition is clear unlesse we will make mens admission most mens admission meerly vain having no power nor any capacity to advance their happinesse but being wholly in a tendency to increase their judgement Whatsoever the secret will of God to us unknown is that in the event it shall prove yet the work it self must have a tendency and power respective to those for whom it is appointed for edification not for destruction The Assumption is evident that those of visible interest having not attained sanctification according to the mind of God revealed in his Word should have admittance by the barres that are assigned for mens exclusion The alone barres that are ordinarily assigned to hold men in Covenant-interest off from the Lords Table are ignorance Error and Scandal But many that cannot be charged with ignorance error or scandall are yet short of sanctification Many short of sanctification then have no barre to their admission Either visible interest with capacity to improve it or saving interest in the Covenant must be the rule for admission But saving interest in â—he Covenant cannot then to use Mr Cobbets words Vindication pag. 54. it would either necessitate Ministers to come under guilt of sin or anomie breach of rule or for avoiding of that which they must needs do with such breach of rule never to administer any Church ordinances since they sometimes shall break that rule in administring it to hypocrites and albeit they do sometimes administer them to elect ones yet not being able to know that secret infallibly they observe not the rule in faith but doubtingly and so can have little comfort of any such of their administrations If any reply that saving interest in the Covenant is the rule but we are not tied infallibly to come up to the rule but as farre as our charity can judge men to be in grace we must admit them to this seal of grace To this I have several things to reply 1. God never puts mens charity to this work as respective to admission to ordinances to judge whether in grace or not whether regenerate or in unregeneration And indeed charity which is assigned by some to that place is most unfit to judge A Judge or Umpire in a businesse must be impartial and have nothing to byasse him on any hand But charity would be ready to cover a multitude of sins which is no blemish of the grace but a demonstration that this is none of its office If then man must judge as he is most unmeet his reason and not his love must take the chair for it and go as high as conjecture can reach 2. If charity or reason thus set up mistake then the rule is broke which though these will say is not the admitters sin seeing the thing is not so scibile or of possibility to be known and by the way we observe that he is therefore no competent Judge yet a seal is by this meanes put to a blank which is no small prophanation and the ordinance administred solely and necessarily for the receivers judgement 3. Though we infallibly know a mans unsanctified condition and were able to charge it yet whilest it is not open and breakes not into scandal we cannot upon this account as is confest exclude him from the Sacrament That Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper most of the Ancient held as Maldonate on Matth. 7.6 observes we have large lists brought to our hands of names that go that way The greater part of late Writers are of the same mind Ravanellus as the last man in verb. Sacrament is peremptory in it and there concludes also the interest of all in Covenant yet Judas was known to Christ to be a thief a Devil and yet he receives him Christ had doubtlesse power vested in him for his exclusion The non-suspition of the Apostles nor the close carriage of his treachery could not then have excusâ—d his receiving in case it had not been the mind of God that a man of visible interest though unsanctified might be admitted And to say that Christ acted here as a Minister and it was not fit that he should be both Judge and witnesse though it be a truth yet it serves not to take off the Argument Had it not been the mind of God that
faith is not Sanctification Sanctification is inherent the righteousnesse of faith is imputed but circumcision is a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith And that Baptisme signifies and seals the same thing we find expressely in Peters words Ast. 2.38 Be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Remission of sins is by blood Heb. 9.22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission Baptisme is for remission of sins and therefore the water in Baptisme holds out the blood of Christ And I doubt not but Ananias had respect to this in his speech to Paul Act. 22.16 Rise and be baptized and wash away thy sins Somewhat it is to which these signs engage and that is all unto which a Christian in duty as duty stands engaged whether for his change in heart or life or in order to the pardon of his sin Baptisme engages to the first work of regeneration and to the first work of making all new within To this circumcision did tye as it signified it so it engaged to it Deut. 10.16 Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts and be no more stiffenecked If by vertue of their circumcision in the flesh God did not require it why is the want of it charged on Judah as their sin or how could it lay them open with other Nations to punishment Jer. 9.25 26. Behold the dayes come saith the Lord that I will punish all them that are circumcised with the uncircumcised Egypt and Judah and Edom and the children of Ammon and Moab and all that are in the uttermost corners that dwell in the wildernesse for all these Nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel are uncicumcised in the heart And that the first work is required as well as a further degree and progresse both in circumcision and baptisme is clear In baptisme we are explicitly dedicated as the Jewes were implicitly in circumcision to Father Son and holy Ghost and therefore engaged to be sincerely his in Covenant But this cannot be till a change be wrought and we be born again from above To this therefore we are engaged We are engaged to love the Lord with all our heart with all our strength but this cannot be while our hearts are in an unchanged condition and therefore the circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 is mentioned in order to this of the love of the Lord The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul what is it but the first work that is called for in that of the Prophet Make ye a new heart and a new spirit Ezek. 10.31 And in those texts of the Apostle Awake thou that sleepest and stand up from the dead Ephes 5.14 Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds Rom. 12.2 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man And be renewed in the spirit of your minds Ephes 4.22 23. Howsoever some of these Scriptures may be conceived to be directed to men in a state of Regeneration and therefore that they call not for the first work but for a further progresse in grace yet all of them cannot be so Interpreted And there is not any of them but implyes that where the first work is not done it must be done where the old man is not put off it must be put off and where the new man is not put on it must be put on where the spirit is not renewed it must be renewed Neither is it of force against this to say that the first work is out of our power and that in it we are wholly passive and therefore we do not in baptisme engage to it but God rather engages for it To which I answer Though it be out of our power yet it is within the command of God and is matter of our duty Gods command is no rule of our strength neither is it brought down to answer our weaknesse so a carnall man should be under no spiritual command but it is a rule of our duty what we once were and still ought to be it commands us for to be And though we be passive in the first work yet we are alwaies concerned to be active and assoon as we do receive power we are to act Dead Lazarus was commanded to rise and having power communicated from God he did actually rise and come out of the grave There is not any promise of God for inherent Grace nor any work of Grace but it comes within our duty and a command lies on us as instance might be given and consequently there is an obligation and engagement to it Gods command and his promises stand not in opposition but in subordination and to say that God is engaged and not man is dangerous then all that are baptized must be regenerate or else God fails in his engagement Somewhat it is that these signs seal and in sealing ratify and confirm and that is as the text shewes the righteousnesse of Faith and consequently all other priviledges whatsoever of like nature that are annexed to it Remission Justification Adoption Glorification Sacraments as seals have not as I conceive at least immediately and directly reference to graces or inherent habits but priviledges They are as Mr. Baxter hath well observed seales of the conditional Covenant and so they must seal whatsoever they do seal on Gods terms and conditions they ratifie mercies promised on those termes that the Covenant doth promise now graces are the conditions and termes of the Covenant and mercies are promised upon those termes and therefore the Covenant requires them but the Sacraments do not ratifie and seal them The Sacraments as signs shew us our wants of or wants in grace by the help of the Word and light received from it they point us out where supply may be found they engage us to this change to the whole of duty required from the people of God and upon answer of our conscience in this work they seal and confirm all promised priviledges to us The nature efficacy and operation of Sacraments would be better understood if that which is proper to each part or the particular office in each relation were better known The seal in a Lease as from the Lessor doth not ratifie the homage that is to be done by the Lessee or the service from him due but the inheritance or benefit whatsoever which upon condition of such homage or service is conveyed Graces are the homage and priviledges are the benefit or the inheritance the priviledges then and not the graces are directly in Sacraments sealed to us It is not sealed up to us either in Baptisme or the Lords Supper that we do believe or repent but that believing and repenting we have forgivenesse of sin and salvation But some say that the Sacraments seal all that the Covenant promises but the Covenant promises Grace and therefore the Sacraments
Rome in it Page 227 Whether Infants were saved by their Parents faith and how before circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions laid down Page 29 c. Infant-Baptisme Severall benefits of it Page 185 c. See Baptisme Infirmities Men Covenant not with God to be above all infirmities Page 392 Meer infirmities no Covenant-breaches ibid. Their happiness whose sins are not above infirmities Page 393 Sins above infirmities and towards presumption ibid. See Sin Institution A word of institution necessary to the being of Sacraments Page 58 Repetition and explanation of this word of institution singularly usefull Page 59 All Sacramentall rites must be of divine institution Instrument Faith The instrumentality of Faith in justification asserted Page 437 Scripture Texts holding out the instrumentality of Faith as in other actions so in justification Page 444 Whether the action of the principall cause and of the instrument in Morall operations is alwayes one Page 445 The unanimous consent of Protestant writers that Faith is an instrument ibid. c. Faiths instrumentality makes not man the efficient cause of his justification Page 438. 464 Faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ being granted its instrumentality in justification cannot be denied Page 441 Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ Page 443 Instruments of meer reception and further operation distinguished Page 448 Faith an instrument of the proper reception of Christ Page 460 It is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification Page 448. 487 The grant of the New Covenant is not an instrument of justification solely sufficient Page 466 Concauses instrumentall have efficacy one from another Page 470 Instruments Cooperative or Passive Page 474 Whether the word be a passive instrument or Cooperative with the Spirit ibid. An instrumentall effiâ—iency ascribed to Faith respective to Salvation Page 486 Arguments for the instrumentality of faith in justification Page 485 Proofs from Antiquity for its instrumentality in justification Page 628 c. See Faith Justification The relative change in it necessarily presupposes a reall Page 447 God and man not co-ordinate causes in it Page 449 In justification of man God acts not without man Page 446 Quaeres put in what sense the grant of the New Covenant is said to be solely instrumentall in the work of justification Page 478 Arguments against the sole sufficiency of the grant of the New Covenant for justification Page 489 Justification by Gospell grant and by the sentence of the Judge how they differ Page 556 557 Justification at the day of judgement not specifically distinct from that which precedse Page 558 The Father appoints the termes of justification and salvation Page 559 Paul treats directly and industriously of justification by faith Page 576 Justifying Faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptisme Page 163 c. Severall arguments vindicated Page 120 c. Exceptions examined Page 143 Additionall arguments to prove it Page 161 Covenanting and justifying not Synonima's Page 135 136 None able to Baptize if justifying faith onely give admission Page 160 Jurisdiction Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page 253 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Objections answered Page 262 K. Knowledge A necessary prerequisite in faith Page 500 Knowledge distinguished Page 501 See Ignorance L. Law ANd Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Law Morall Arminians Socinians and Papists oppose the perfection of the Morall Law Page 601 Authorities of Protestant writers for the perfection of the Morall Law Page 602 Arguments evincing the perfection of the Morall Law Page 603 Objections answered Page 605 There is no sin that is not condemned in the Morall Law Page 603 In what sense the preceptive part of the Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Page 605 c. Actions are denominated good or bad from the Law onely Page 613 Men are denominated really and not equivocally righteous that imperfectly obey the Morall Law Page 614 The Law commanding duty and the end of the duty are not opposite but subordinate Page 614 Law nature What meant by the time of the Law of nature Page 24 No Sacraments appointed of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. Scripture silence a probable argument Page 26 Jesuites arguments herein examined ibid. The preceptive part of the Law of nature delivered to Moses and as used by Christ whether they differ Page 600 Leiturgy Divine ordinances must not stand or fall upon the want or fruition of any set leiturgy whatsoever Page 308 Leiturgy of the Church of England taken into consideration ibid. c. 1. As to the work it self Page 308 2. As to the sanction put upon it Page 309 Life What meant by it in the Covenant of works Page 11 Not barely an animall life ibid. c. The tree of life had not any naturall power to answer its name Page 12 Lord. Faith in Christ qua Lord is not the justifying act Page 554 The position at large discussed Page 555 c. Lords Supper See Sacraments Supper Lunatick Persons uncapable of any benefit by the Lords Supper Page 229 M. Man His first originall is in sin Page 363 Arguments evincing it Page 364 In mans restitution his nature must be healed and his guilt removed Page 366 The healing of his nature and the removall of guilt is the work of Christ Page 366 Manna Whence it hath its name Page 523 The time it continued with Israel Page 524 Miraculously provided ibid. A fable concerning it ibid. Of a Sacramentall nature Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Meanes Their necessity for our help in the way of faith and obedience Page 17 Objections answered Page 17 18 Mediatour See Christ Metonymies Frequent in Scripture Page 572 Marriage The Matter Page 540 Form Page 540 Minister Page 540 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 541 Minister Allegations for a Ministers sole power in admission to the Sacrament Page 251 Inconveniences objected against it answered Page 262 A Ministers prudence in this work to see with more eyes then his own Page 272 Where an Eldership is erected to make use of them ibid. To make scrutiny into mens knowledge with all tenderness Page 273 Not to refuse but upon known crimes ibid. When he cannot in this do what he would he is to do what he is able Page 274 Ministerial Dispensation of Sacraments a part of the Ministeriall function Page 277 Whether Ministeriall dispensation be of the essence of Sacraments Page 277 c. Gospell order transgrest when Sacraments are not dispenced by a Ministeriall hand Page 278 Doctor Abbots and Mr. Hookers judgement in it ibid. Mixt. Lawfull to communicate in mixt congregations Page 314 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. Morall Perfection or imperfection is in reference to a rule Page 592 Duties naturally Morall bind all Page 195 Where a positive command is given there is a Morall tye to obedience ibid See Law
THE Covenant Sealed OR A TREATISE OF THE SACRAMENTS of both COVENANTS POLEMICALL and PRACTICALL ESPECIALLY Of the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace IN WHICH The nature of them is laid open The adaequate subject is largely inquired into respective to right and proper interest to fitnesse for admission to actual participation Their necessity is made known Their whole Vse and Efficacy is set forth Their number in Old and New Testament-times is determined With several necessary and useful Corollaries Together with a brief Answer to Reverend Mr. Baxter's Apology in defence of the Treatise of the Covenant By Thomas Blake M. A. Pastor of Tamworth in the Counties of Stafford and Warwick Davenant de morte Christi pag. 1. Neque tam pugnam meditor aut dimicationem quam planam pacatam totius rei explicationem ad conflictum cum nullo hoste ventures nisi ita se nobis obviam dederit ut non possumus aliter quam pugnando viam ad veritatem aperire London Printed for Abel Roper at the Sun against Danstans Church in Fleet-street 1655. To the Right Worshipfull Sir FRANCIS NETHERSOLE of Nethersole in the County of Kent Knight THe great engagements in which I stand by many favours received to much Honoured friends of yours put me on to send forth a former Treatise into publick view under their names This being of so near affinity I thought it meet that it should come abroad under the Patronage of one of so near alliance I need not mention my particular engagements which you do not desire I know to hear Since the time that after your great imployments hath at home and abroad in affaires of State God hath been pleased to seat you in these parts your singular candour towards all those that labour in the Work to which through grace I am called is eminently seen You were tenderly consciencious without great caution put to adventure on the purchase of a Mannor to which an Impropriation was annext which yet for many reasons you could not without great inconvenience avoid And notwithstanding a Vicarage there endowed which others though not you would have judged a competency your great care was as soon as you were fully possessed finding an Incumbent there whom you had no reason to encourage nor power to remove to superinduce others one after other in a more happy and edifying way to carry on that work It was no sooner void but you took care to settle one of eminent gifts and graces with that liberal munificence that a free School for poor children built at your proper cost being provided for little remains yours of that part of your purchase Your sollicitous care is still no lesse whereof there are many knowing witnesses how to settle it with all possible speed upon posterity in such a way that God may be most honoured and piety advanced by it Which also as I have heard from your own mouth your much honoured and pious Lady deceased did often perswade to hasten although she well knew that out of your love to her you had by your last Will and Testament devised to her that whole Lordship of Polesworth to a fourth part whereof she was heir and all the rest of your Estate in these parts for an increase of her Joynture If the Lord Christ tells us that the cost which that Pious woman spent on him should be told for a memorial of her wheresoever in the world the Gospel should be preacht I suppose that this which you have done may be mentioned for your honour with hers that rests in the Lord wheresoever this small piece by Providence shall come to be read I may well look upon you as one of the most acute of my Readers If therefore this may gain your favour I shall have lesse cause to fear others censure Though in so great variety of things as are here toucht upon and so much controversal I cannot expect that any one should subscribe to every piece The whole may be serviceable though some part remain under dispute As it fares with me in reading the Labours of many others so I may well expect that it will be with others in reading any thing of mine Your great zeal as to the whole of the worship of God so to this part here treated of where you are known cannot be hid Your complaint hath often been of the sad neglect of the Lords Supper and it lyes as a sad burden on the spirits of many eminently Pious servants of Jesus Christ that they see not a door opened for their comfortable and orderly administration and participation of it If any thing be here said to give any further light in these sacred mysteries and to facilitate the way of administration to pious dispensers so as the honour of the Ordinance may be preserved and the edification of soules promoted I have that which I desire and have made my endeavour The Lord honour your hoare hairs with everlasting dayes and give you the comfort of all that you have done in and for his Name Sir I am From my Study in Tamworth Jun. 5. 1655. Your Servant in any Christian Office Thomas Blake Worthy Reader THe holy Scripture puts an eminent character Acts 18.24 25 c. upon Apollos then but an alphabetarian in the Gospel-doctrine That he was an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures of the Old Testament And if I would cut by this pattern and that either the Reverend Author whose learned Works have already spoken him to the Church Or this Judicious Treatise which now fitly followes its elder brother under the name of the Covenant sealed stood in need of an Epistle Commendatory I should not be ashamed both to testifie my honour of the man and my valuation of his Work and yet neither I nor any other man in this case ought to be interpreted as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a propugnatour of every opinion in the book by him commended to the Presse no more than the Midwife is accountable for every imperfection of the child by her brought forth to light I confesse I had the liberty and honour afforded me to peruse this Treatise before it saw the Presse but my indisposition of body prohibited me of making a full survey onely my greedy eye led me so far as that I could make observation of two things 1. The predominant scope of the Authour in this work 2. The pursuance thereof as to the main The scope is rare viz. An Essay to find a way of regular admission unto and holy administration of the Lords Supper between those extreams of promiscuous intrusion on the one hand and the total forbearance of it on the other both which do afflict the spirits of the godly that are cast into broken Congregations all the Land over without Card or Compasse to steer by to their comfort and so it is very likely to be a word spoken upon his wheeles to many Ministers who may find here a thred to direct them out
Divinity is very much to be esteemed What Casaubon said of Persius may truly be said of him Fatemur erudissimum Poëtam eruditionem ubique ostendere usquam ostentare negamus Casauâ— Prolâ—g in Peâ—s as this Treatise and his other Writings doth shew He is one that doth rather shew Learning then make a shew of it They that in some things dissent from him I think will do him so much right as to acknowledge that he is no Theologaster no Smatterer in Divinity no superficiary or unstudied Divine Neither is he rash and forward to vent his notions or one that doth affect novelty and singularity in opinion which is the garbe of many wanton Wits in these times It is very rare if he decline that which is generally received yet doth he not relie upon the authority of others neither but * Disceptatione si potes vince vince ratione Cyprian ad Demetrian reasons and argumenes are the things which sway with him Where he doth a little step aside out of the road he doth it not out of any humour of contradiction not with any uncivil censure or petulant expression but as with some rational plea so with much modest deportment As here in this Treatise where he holds that the Sacraments as appendants to the Word may be profitable to the unregenerate and instrumentall to Conversion And yet he doth withall largely and learnedly impugne the Physical operation of Sacraments which doth no more follow upon the other as some perhaps may imagine then the Physicall operation of the Word which all explode and yet confesse that the Word is an instrument or means of regeneration And so me thinks this learned and judicious Author hath here competently evinced that the Sacraments may be not solely by themselves but as accompanied with the Word and as being after a sort visible words holding out that to the eye which the Word doth to the ear and setting forth both Law and Gospel to those that understand the meaning of them Some one or other particular there is besides wherein this Author is apt to meet with either Opposers or Dissenters but as he is not unfurnished with grounds and reasons to support his opinion so neither is he desirous to impose upon any further then strength of argument shall prevail Some Digressions he hath but they are not heterogoneal to the subject in hand and he was moreover enforced to them as also to those Disputes in the Poscript Before Mr. Baxters Apologie came forth hearing of his intentions he expressed in a letter to me how much it troubled him that he should have him Antagonist whom in diverse respects he did so love and honour And surely his Book of the Covenant doth sufficiently declare how unwilling he was to appear in a way of opposition to that worthy man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist Ethic. ad Nicom lib. 1. cap. 6. But the saying of Aristotle though not in those words yet to that effect is well known and no lesse approved Though Socrates be a friend and Plato a friend yet Truth is so much more If in this Contest he sometimes shew some acrimonie which is not usual with him it is not to be considered how he was provoked Assoon as I perused his Treatise of the Covenant being not unacquainted with Mr. Baxters Aphorismes I could not but observe how he doth scarce ever name Mr. Baxter though he name him often but where he doth approve and commend him when he doth dissent from him and oppose him as he doth many times it is still so excepting onely I think where he speaks of the mannee how the Sacraments do seal and there he could not but alter his course at to conceal his name and to deal meerly with his opinion Whereas Mr. Baxter on the other side in his Apology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they say with open face doth fall upon Mr. Blake and that also oftentimes in such sort that some favourably enough affected to Mr. Baxter and his Writings have to my knowledge expressed no small dislike of him for it He that will speak his pleasure Qui quod vult loquitur quod non vult audiet they say must look to hear something to his displeasure I hope Mr. Baxter will not interpret me so as if I spake thus to exasperate him or to heighten the difference betwixt him and Mr. Blake Thas is far from my thoughts I desire onely to apologize if need be for my ancient friend so far as the justnesse of the cause doth require Vpon this account I shall makt bold to advertise the Reader that peradventure now and then though very seldome I dare say he may meet with some circumstantial mistake which as it is nothing at all to the main so neither is it any more then that which is incident to the best Writers Thus page 581. that is ascribed to Granatensis Non ego paucis Offendar maculis quas aut incuria fudit Aut humana parùm cavit natura Horat. de Art Poët which belongs not indeed to him but to another namely Michael ab Isselt who doth preface to that piece of Granatensis which is intituled Dux Peccatorum I might say more concerning this Authour and the Treatise here set forth but I would not be over-tedious I shall therefore take off onely praying that the Lord will be pleased to make both this Work profitable and also the Authour still more and more serviceable to Himself and to his people Amen Christopher Cartwright To the READER THe overture which I gave in the Treatise of the Covenant of my intentions by Gods assistance to send forth the like of the Sacraments not a few have endeavoured to turn into a promise and have much sollicited me for performance Which at last through many difficulties and interruptions is now done and exposed to thy censure which I expect to be different according as it shall meet with men aforehand principled If contention shall hereby unhappily be encreased as is too often seen in writings of this nature my intentions will be altogether disappointed and expectations frustrated I had never appeared on this subject had I not seen the best of men in their thoughts much divided if not perplext and conceived some possible hopes of contributing somewhat towards satisfaction and settlement That great Ordinance of the Lords Supper appointed of Jesus Christ for a more near union through mens mistakes and not from the nature of the Ordinance it self hath proved the greatest distraction How mighty contentions and vehement disputes have of a long time been held about Christs presence First with those of the Romish party afterward with the Lutheran Churches When there is a full agreement of parties that Christ is there supposing an administration according to his institution the manner of his presence hath occasioned all the difference When if men would consider as they confesse that it is a Sacrament about which all this contention is
To make all men see what is the fellowship of the Sacrament Eph. 3.9 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this Sacrament among the Gentiles Col. 1.27 Great is the Sacrament of godlinesse 1 Tim. 3.16 The Sacrament of the seven starres Rev. 1.20 I will tell thee the Sacrament of the woman and the beast that carries her Rev. 17.7 And Tertullian speaking of Christianity calls it k Religionis Christianae Sacramentum The Sacrament of Christian Religion and Jerom saith l Sacramenta Dei sunt praedicare benedicere confirmare communionem reddere visitare infirmos orare Refert Gerardus de Sacram. cap. 1. The Sacraments of God are to preach to blesse to strengthen and establish to hold communion to visit the sick and pray Allegorical interpretations of Scripture also are called by the Ancients by the name of Sacraments Sometimes every outward sign of any thing that is holy is called by the name of Sacrament And as they began to borrow rites from the Jews in Baptisme they called them by the name of Sacraments Their Ointments and Chrismes yea the Crosse it self which the Church of Rome makes no more then a ceremony in Sacraments are called by the name of Sacraments But these acceptations of the word are grown obsolete and are so far from holding out the nature of those Ordinances which now passe under the name of Sacraments that men cannot be brought to any mistake in reading of them The word Sacrament is ordinarily now taken in that sense as Austine doth define it An outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace that is a sign instituted of God to hold out and seal saving grace to the soul as afterward God willing may be more largely held forth Now in every Ordinance of this nature there is first an outward sign open to the senses secondly there is a spiritual grace thirdly an order established and declared between the sign and the thing signified and some of these still give the denomination Sometimes the outward sign is taken for the Sacrament and therefore the distinction is ordinary between Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti And it can be no more than a bare sign when the thing signified is apart considered and put in opposition to it Sometimes the outward sign and the thing signified considered joyntly are called by the name of a Sacrament and this Gerard sayes is the most proper and most usual acceptation Sometimes the order or analogy that is betwixt the sign and the thing signified is called by the name of Sacrament and therefore Keckerman defines a Sacrament to be m Sacramentum est ordo sanctus inter rem externam in sensus incurrentem et visus imprimis objectum tanquam â—â—gnum et inter rem spiritualem tanquam signatum à Christo Mediatore institutus ad obsignandam fidelibus redemptionis certitudinem et simul beneficia quae ex redemptione fluunt tum significanda tum confirmanda an holy order between the outward element obvious to the sense especially to the sight and the spirituall grace as the thing signified instituted of Christ the Mediatour to seal to Believers the assurance of redemption and with it all benefits that flow from redemption So that he makes neither the outward sign nor yet the thing signified apart considered to be the Sacrament in that definition nor yet the outward sign and thing signified joyntly considered but the order or analogy that is held between them Lastly the word Sacrament is taken for the outward sign with relation had to the thing signified leading to it and by way of seal confirming it and in this sense it is taken by Divines when they treat exactly about it And in that sense the Apostle takes circumcision when he defines it to be A sign and seal of the righteousnesse of Faith Rom. 4.11 The use and office of the cutting off the foreskin of the flesh as by way of sign and seal it stands in relation to the righteousnesse of faith is there held forth This therefore we may well judge to be the most proper acceptation of it Keckerman therefore as soon as he had defined a Sacrament as before presently tells us that n Sacramenti vox per se concreta est et significat rem sive subjectum cum modo rei id est cum rel tione rei additâ interim tamen potest etiam usurpari pro Ipso abstracto id est pro relatione ut nos quidem in definitione usurpavimus the word of it self is a concrete and signifies the thing or subject with the manner of it that is saith he with the relation added to it yet it may be taken for the abstract that is for the relation as saith he we have put into the definition But seeing the word of it self by our Authors confession is no abstract but a concrete and the Apostle in his definition doth so consider it we have just reason in that sense to speak to it and so in this whole Treatise I shall take it And before I proceed in any further Enquiry the Reader may justly expect such a definition as may serve as a thred through the whole Discourse But my intention being to enquire something into the nature of Sacraments in mans integrity that so the Work may answer the Title A Treatise of the Sacraments but mainly to insist on those that are appointed by God for his people in the Covenant of Grace I am necessitated to put off the enquiry after such a definition that may give satisfaction till I come to that which I intend as my principal Subject Yet that by the way he may not be wholly left unsatisfied I shall here offer such a definition that may comprehend all Sacraments as well in the Covenant of Works as in the Covenant of Grace intreating him to forbear any strict enquiry into the reasons of it untill he come into the full Body of the Discourse where by the definition which God willing shall be given of Sacraments in the Covenant of Grace and from Scripture at large confirmed he may easily judge of the definition of Sacraments in general and thus I suppose it may be held out A Sacrament is a sign instituted of God for the use of his people in Covenant to signifie and seal his Promises upon Terms and Propositions by himself prescribed and appointed CHAP. II. Sect. I. Of Sacraments in mans state of integrity I shall leave the word which is of least moment being not of divine original and come to enquire after the thing which must be distinguished before it can be defined either in the general what a Sacrament is or what this or that Sacrament viz. Baptisme or the Supper of the Lord is in particular Now Sacraments being instituted of God for the use of men in tendency towards their happinesse must be considered according to the several states of man and dispensations in which God hath
manifested himself to him Distribution of Sacraments And man may be considered either in his state of integrity or in his fall either before sin or under it For the state of integrity enquiry is made whether man enjoyed any Sacrament at all or were in capacity of any In which we have Thomas Aquinas his conclusion Part 3. Quest 16. art 2. in the negative a In statu innocentiae homo non indigebat Sacramentis nec pro remedio peccati nec pro perfectione animae The trâ—e of life and the tree of the knowlâ—dge of good and evil wâ—re Sacraments That man in innocency needed no Sacrament neither for any remedy of sin or perfection of his soul His followers it seems not satisfied with his determination unlesse they themselves may have the interpretation of it yet not daring to adventure on a contradiction of their master are at odds among themselves about his meaning enquiring what he means by necessity and what by innocency whether he means Adams own state in which he actually stood or that which he should have attained if he had stood in his integrity A labour worthy of their pains had they before hand had assurance that an unerring oracle had uttered it But others have concluded that the tree of life in Paradise was no other then a Sacrament to our first parents and it is marvell that Aquinas who denies it hit not on that of Austin to have made up at least a fourth objection that b Erat homini in lignis aliis alimentum in hos Sac amentum In other trees there was nourishment but in this a Sacrament For the clearing of this point I shall lay down several propositions First Positions tending to the illustration and câ—nfiâ—mation fâ—t That all Sacraments whether in the state of integrity or under sin must answer to the Covenant which they are appointed for to ratifie and confirm Now the Covenant of God entred with man in his state of integrity was for his preservation not for his reparation as I have shewed in a Treatise of the Covenant Chap. 3. pag. 10. and so must this tree of life in case it have the nature of a Sacrament be a Sacrament of preservation not restitution And so Thomas Aquinas his foundation on which he builds that man in integrity needed no Sacrament because the whole need not the Physician but those that are sick Matth. 9.12 is answered There being a Covenant for mans preservation as well as his restauration there may be a suitable Sacrament for preservation also and so there is a plain fallacy in his argument à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter because our Sacraments in the state of sin are for recovery from the disease of sin he will have it to be so in all Sacraments even before our fall into sin Chamier returning answer to this argument distinguishes of persons subject to sickness c Resp aegrotos alios actutales dici qua les omnes homines post pecatum alâ—os potentia in quorum natura principium est morbi propinquum vel remotum Some are actually sick so are all men saith he in the state of sin some are in possibility or danger of sicknesse having a principle in them capable of it either more immediate or remote so it was with man in integrity he needed Physick for prevention not for cure to keep him in the state in which he stood that he might not fall not to recover him out of evill being fallen Secondly The Covenant of works passing between God and man in an immediate way without any reference had to Christ as hath been largely shewn and objections answered Treatise of the Covenant pag. 13. c. the Sacraments annexed must needs be without reference to Christ likewise I know many learned men suppose that Christ was a Mediatour between God and the Angels and between God and man in his integrity and these will have the tree of life Gen. 2.9 to be a symbole of Christ as the bread and wine in the Lords supper which indeed necessarily followes upon that supposition but that falling all the supposed relation of sign and thing signified between the tree of life and Christ falls with it That opinion of theirs referring the tree of life to Christ they suppose hath strength from that speech of Christ to the Church of Ephesus To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God Revel 2.7 which all Interpreters refer to Christ seeing there is no life but in Christ 1 Joh. 5.12 He that hath the Son hath life he that hath not the Son hath not life As also from Revel 22.2 speaking of the new Jerusalem it is said In the midst of the street of it and of either side of the river was the tree of life c. which can be no other but that Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings Mal. 4.2 But neither of these places serve their purpose nor is the argument drawn from thence at all cogent The tree of life in the literal Paradise was a symbole of immortality and everlasting blisse which man persisting in obedience should have enjoyed whether on earth or in heaven still remained in Gods choyce to determine In the state of sin this could not be without Christ and every symbole of it therefore in this state leads to Christ But it followes not that it was so in mans state of integrity He should then have enjoyed it by ah immediate gift from God not through Christ whose whole work was not to keep man in statu quo as before sin but to recover from sin into which he was fallen In those places of the Revelation there is after the manner of the visions of that book an allusion borrowed from that tree in Paradise which as Ravanellus observes was a type of immortality This tree assured man of it in Paradise on tearms of bedience In the state of sin the same is to be had through Christ on Gospel tearms and conditions In case any will assign the work of mans support in any transcendent way to the second person in the Trinity who is said to uphold all things by the word of his power without any reference to his wotk of mediation as to be incarnate as I dare not assert it so I will not contend about it But in this I am confident the substance of our Sacraments is Christ incarnate and all the benefits of them is through and by christ but so it was not in the Sacraments in Paradise Thirdly The life promised in the Covenant of works to man in case of obedience was not barely a prorogation of his being or preservation from dissolution to an immortality in nature This he might have enjoyed and have continued for ever perfectly wretched and so the performance of the promise should have been a curse and no blessing As it was said
it seems was the taking quality the other trees were good for food and doubtless lovely to the eye but this alone answerable to the name with the Devils comment upon it was a tree to be desired for this end but she found the contrary light was not only not encreased but put out so that man now is a beast by his own knowledge others therefore conclude that it had name not from any such effect that in nature it was apt to produce but by reason of the event that followed and upon the taste of it must of necessity follow now they experimentally know the good which they had by sin lost and the evil which they had incurred k Quemadmodum qui medicus est theoretice vim morbi sanitatis bonum cognoscit in morbum delapsus amissa sanitate nova quadam ratione per experientiam bonum sanitatis malum morbi cognoscit As a Physician faith Ri vet that hath the theory of health and sicknesse understanding what health is to desire it and what sicknesse is to shun it yet falling into sicknesse he hath another manner of knowledge out of his own experience Pererius the Jesuit dislikes this Interpretation he that pleaseth may read his reason on these words and Rivets vindication Exer. 18. in Gen. He fixes upon a third that this name was given to this tree upon occasion of the speech of Satan bearing Eve in hand that in eating of it she should gain the wisdom of God to know both good and evil And therefore it had the name of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil But whosoever gave the name whether God himself who placed the tree in the garden or Adam who to his cost knew it or Moses that wrote of it it is not probable they would borrow a name from Satans delusion The former therefore which the Jesuit confessed to be an opinion most received I judge to be most probable and till I see more shall not recede from it SECT II. Corollaries from the former assertion FIrst hence we see the necessity of the use of means Necessity of the use of means for our help and strengâ—h in the way of fai h and obedience for our help and strength in wayes of faith and obedience in all the wayes prescribed and appointed by God In case our first Parents in their integrity were to make use of a Sabbath to give God a time in a more solemn way as we see Gen. 2.2,3 and also of Sacraments who are we that we should cast off Sabbath and Sacraments that our faith and obedience should be risen to that growth and arrived at that height that all helps should be laid aside It is no marvel that upon this account so many that seemed to be somewhat refusing the assistance of God provided wholly degenerate and come to nothing In case it be replyed that Adam was left to his own keeping carried his life in his own hands but we have another manner of support and defence We are kept by the mighty power of God through faith unto Salvation 1 Pet. 1.5 and so we need not to be so sollicitous of our selves I answer though there be truth in that which is objected yet the objection is to no purpose as easily may be manifested Jesus Christ would not have provided Ordinances in New-Testament-times for the perfecting of the Saints for the edifying of the body of Christ in case he would not have his to make use of them and had not seen that they stand in need of them we are not so kept that we should sit still no more then Israel was in the conquest of the promised Land Gods power in oâ—r preservation and our diligent though not diffident and anxious care very well stands together Else Peter had not from thence inferred wherefore gird up the loynes of your mind be sober and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 1.13 Nor yet having set out Satans vigilancy annext that exhortation Whom resist stedfast in the faith 1 Pet. 5.9 nor yet had the Apostle John told us that He that is begotten of God keepeth himself and the evil one toucheth him not 1 Joh. 1.18 Souldiers are taught to go out and fight in the Name of the Lord and that he covers their head in the day of battel yet this doth not abate any thing of their watchfulness or diligence they do not cast off weapons either offensive or defensive This is an artifice of Satan to lay mens throats open to him for slaughter and destruction under pretence of Divine protection Sacraments are without Spiritual profit to those that live in breach of Covenaâ—t Secondly Know that there is no saving benefit received by any Sacraments which are seales of the Covenant longer then men in Covenant make it their business to keep up to the tearms of it Adam was in a Covenant of life from God upon tearmes of preserving himself from sin and had it by a Sacrament confirmed to him he wilfully runs upon sin the tree of life now can no more give life to him Satan then perswades to believe that in eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they should as gods know both good and evil He now perswades that being baptized in water which holds forth the Spirit and blood of Christ if they understand any such symbolical representation they partake of the Spirit and blood of Christ And that taking the Bread and Cup they enjoy all that they signifie and hold forth That no more then a Sacrament needs to make up a Christian compleat This is an outward work that may be done and all lust alive within An easie work to go through and here man would fain rest but look further to the duty to which these engage otherwise thou wilt find no more of Christ in the Sacrament then Adam found of life in the tree of life See Mr. Burges Spiritual Refining Ser. 19. Covenant failing all Sacraments relating to it necessarily fall with 〈◊〉 Thirdly It yet further followes That a Covenant falling to which Sacraments are annext as signes and seals the Srcraments fall together with it The Covenant of works being no longer of use to the attainment of Salvation the Sacraments which under that Covenant were appointed are taken out of the way and no use of them remaint I know that it is asserted by as learned hand that Christ doth not absolutely make null or repeal the Covenant of works but that it still continueth to command prohibit promise and threaten yet confessing this assertion to be difficult and disputable to which I readily yeeld and therefore in a business of no greater moment then this is I had rather suspend then either subscribe or oppose He and I are wholly agreed as to that for which it is here produced seeing he saith We must neither take that Covenant as
a may to life as though we must get Salvation by our fulfilling of its conditions nor must we look upon its curse as lying upon as remedilessely This is as much as I assert or rather imply in that which I say that the Covenant of works is of no use to the attainment of Salvation upon which the Sacraments of that Covenant the see are laid aside with it we hear no more of a tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Rivet Exer. 40. on those words Lest he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life and live for ever Observes a resemblance between that proceeding of God and the Churches proceeding in keeping unworthy men from the Sacrament The l Quemadmodum nunc ex Dei instituto à Sacramentis arcentur indigni ne sibi Symbola sumant ad judicium condemnationem ita hac prohibitione usus est Deus tanquam ex communicatione minori quam abstensionem vocant ad hominem magis magis humiliandum ut se indignum agnosceret vita qui à vitae Symbolo arcebatur unworthy saith he are kept from the Sacrament lest they should eat of those signes to their judgement And so God made use of this prohibition as a lesser excommunication called suspension for the further humiliation of man that he might see himself to be unworthy of life being kept from the outward symbole or Sacrament of it But me thinks this is so far from resemblance of that kind of Excommunication which is called the lesser that it is a sentence in terrour farre above that which is highest and greatest And this it seemes my Author saw and therefore addes m Praeterea tale Sacramentum homini lapso non erat amplius aptum quia arbor vitae non data erat ut vitam restitueret mortuo sed ut viventem in statu vitae commodo conservaret Ergo Adamo per peccatum mortuo mutanda fuerunt Sacramenta Furthermore such a Sacrament was unmeet or unsuitable to fallen man because the tree of life was not given to restore a man dead to life but to preserve life in a living man therefore Adam being dead by sin and his condition changed the Sacraments were to be changed likewise Two sorts of men then are here fitly to be parallelled with Adam in this proceeding of God against him 1. Those that God casts out of Covenant taking away their Candlestick and his Kingdom refusing to be their God or to own them as his people God denying them his Covenant all must deny them the sign and seal of it 2. Those that cast themselves out of Covenant and apostatize from the faith of Christ Jesus Where there is no Covenant in which men may expect happiness where there is no profession of such expectation there is to be no Sacrament there the seal is put to a blank and these Sacred Mysteries are prophaned Therefore I cannot but marvel at those that deny the Church of Rome all being of a Church and affirm that they are in no Covenant-relation to God yet yeeld that they have Baptisme in truth among them explaining themselves that it is as a true mans purse in the hand of a theefe But the purse and the man stand not in that relation as Covenant and Sacrament the Covenant being gone the Sacrament hath no truth of being remaining Satans imitation of God in his precepts of worship to his followers Fourthly Let us yet see how forward Satan is to imitate God in prescribing a way of worship to his servants and how ready the world is to follow Satan in these things by him prescribed God appointed a tree of life as a sign and pledge of immortality in the due use of which man might have lived for ever and been preserved from the evils and infirmities of age and Satan among those in the world that are his for worship hath of old found out a fiction of certain meats called by them Ambrosia and certain drinks named Nectar and Nepenthe which the gods using to take were preserved from age and death It cannot be imagined how they should reach such a fancy but that the posterity of Noah had scattered some Divine light of this tradition among them Their gods who were but men and some of them the worst of men bringing all wickedness to renown by their example being supposed to have an immortal being must have some way or means to come up to immortality As they had their meats and drinks that made immortal so also their fountains found out by Cadmus to whom they ascribe the first invention of letters Aganippe Hippocrene Castalius near to Parnassus at which their Muses drunk which raised them in eloquence These they have borrowed from these symboles of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil dreaming of a Physical operation and not understanding any Sacramental efficacy God also instructed his people in the use of sacrifices which we know was with his people from the beginning and I cannot believe with some Jesuits that this was of the dictates of nature which as they say led them without any revelation to the use of sacrifices For in what sense soever we take sacrifices Nature could never teach man to give it unto God If we take it more largely for a gift tendred reason would tell that the Divine Majestie stands in no need of it And in case we understand it more strictly and make the destruction of that which is offered essentiall to a sacrifice how could this in reason enter into any mans thoughts that when a man had sinned a beast must dye And that of the Apostle Heb. 11. doth fully contradict it Abell offered by faith and faith is not of nature but above it This then was a worship of God by institution not commanded in the first but second Commandment and this Satan is ready to follow As there was scarce a Nation as the Orator observed but worshipped a god so there is scarce a Nation that did not sacrifice to those gods and the Apostle gives us to understand what those gods were The things that the Gentiles offer in sacrifice they offer to Devils and not to God 1 Cor. 10. It is his worship and he teacheth his the way of it As in duties of worship there is this imitation seen so in wonders and prodigies in like manner there is an emulation God had his miracles in Egypt and Satan his We know the general Deluge in the sacred Histories in which none were preserved from death but Noah and his family by an Arke prescribed of God Heathens must have a fable in imitation and tell us of drowning of the World onely Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha in an Arke preserved likewise And as Noahs Arke rested on the Moutains of Ararat upon the asswaging of the waters so theirs rested on the Mountain of Parnassus We have a narrative of Jonah cast into the Sea
and received by a Whale and after three dayes and three nights cast safe upon the shore Satan must set up his Arion and make him famous in his Historians and Poets A skilfull Harper of Greece having by excellency in musick gained a great summe of money in Italy and Sicilia returning to his own Countrey with his treasure Mariners with whom he agreed for his Fare greedy of his money cast him into the Sea a Dolphin delighted with his musick carries him safe and landed him at Taenarus See the relation and application elegantly brought home to this purpose by Dr. Abbot Lect. 15. on Jonah making notable observations of Satans policy In case the Narrative carry any truth in it by his wonders so far as his art and power can reach Satan then makes it his business to disgrace Gods miracles and cast dishonour upon them by his imitation though he falls farre short of the Originall as he there shewes and followes him as little Ascanius his Father with very unequal steps And in case we take it for a meer fiction which is his judgement upon it his art is no lesse observable to discredit as farre as in him lyes the writings of Scriptures When this miracle of Jonahs shall be Preached and published in the world Arions fable shall be produced that like faith may be yeelded to either of both See Mr. Burges Spiritual Refining Pag. 131 132. Where this thing in many particulars is enlarged And the more high the wayes of Religion are raised of God in a Spiritual way the more easie it is for Satan who is a spirit to delude The Spirit is the great Gospel-promise to be poured out on all flesh that is on men of all sorts Joel 2.28 God will be served in types and shadowes no longer but in Spirit and truth Joh. 4.23 When the Jewes gloried of Circumcision as that which did denominate them a people of God and distinguished them from all other Nations and urged the necessity of it to salvation the Apostle tells us that they are the Circumcision that worship God in Spirit Phil. 3.3 Satan now on the other hand can take the hint and heighten his way in a destructive manner to Gospel wayes All outward Ordinances shall now be decryed as formes and beggarly rudiments and with Circumcision in the letter laid aside though they be Ordinances of the Spirit it self in which the Spirit expresses its power and efficacy 1. The written Word which was dictated by the Spirit 2 Pet. 1.19 is the sword of the Spirit by which it exercises his power on the soul must be laid aside as a dead letter and over carnal The Ministers of the Word that great gift from the Fathers right hand Ephes 4.11 set over the flocks by the holy Ghost Act. 20.28 on this pretence are to be cast off with Moses and Aaron taking too much upon them when all the Congregation is holy notwithstanding for a real confutation when this Spirit was first given in glory it came upon the heads of his Ministers in forme of tongues fiery cloven Act. 2.3 To let all know is that great appearance that was there that their tongues are sanctified of God to Preach the Word in power and life to all Nations And as the gifts of the Spirit encreased so the Ministers of the Spirit were multiplyed and that very title and name given Ministers of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 And the mind of Jesus Christ made known that these in a peculiar order distinct from other men are set apart to preach the Gospel as the Priests under the Law in a peculiar order were to wait at the Altar 1 Cor. 9.13 14. Upon the same pretence Sacraments must be laid aside the Baptisme of the Spirit is pleaded for the overthrow of the Baptisme of water Though the Apostle that first spake by the Spirit after it was given in glory doth argue the clean contrary Act. 10.47 Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we They that have the Spirit will be raised in zeal for the honour and establishment of every Ordinance of God by the Spirit the more spiritual men are the more care they will take to advance the Word the Ministers of the Word Sabbaths Sacraments Let us then observe his imitations his falsifications He vents doctrine of his own sets up wayes of his own that carry a resemblance of Gods wayes And similitude is mater erroris we shall never heed them as long as we know they are the Devils but when he transformes himself into an Angel of light and puts the stamp of God upon his own coyn we must not be ignorant of his sleights but to have our senses exercised to discern between good and evill CHAP. III. Whether there were any Sacraments from the fall to the institution of Circumcision THe next consideration of Sacraments is in mans fallen condition under a Covenant not of works but grace not for mans preservation in life but his restitution to life A further distribution of Sacâ—aments And these are to be distinguished according to Gods way of dispensation of us Covenant to his people which is wont to be done into three periods The first is from the fall till Abraham or unto the time that God entered Covenant with him and his seed which Suarez saith according to the common account doth end at the giving of the Law by Moses when the old Law began yet Circumcision which was in use long before the Law continuing the same under the Law he determines the law of nature at that time when Circucision began The second from Abraham till Christ The third from the first comming of Christ in the flesh till the second comming of his to judgement The first juncture of time hath usually been known by the time of the Law of nature The second the time of the Old And the last the time of the New Covenant Why the first of these should bear the name of the Law of nature I can read of none that have given satisfaction The phrase should seem to imply that then men had no more light then that of nature for their guide in the wayes of God But this is evidently false God did not then begin by way of supernatural revelation to speak to men in the world Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae Tom. 3. Disput 4. Sect. 1. taking upon him to answer the question hath much to amuse the Reader nothing to satisfie him he sayes a Lex naturae intelligitur dictamen rationis non solum ex naturali sed etiam ex supernaturali lumine ortum The law of nature is the dictate of reason arising not onely out of natural but supernatural light And in ihat sense the Gospel is the Law of nature Concerning this space of time whatsoever is the period of it much enquiry is made whether there were any Sacraments at all instituted of God and enjoyed
f Quo significat Dominum voluisse aptare suum sermonem ad captum auditorum ob id locutum in parabolis quod nudi sermonis nondum essent capaces at parabolas suas desumsiffe a rebus vulgaribus per quas idiotae utcunque induci parari possunt ad mysteriorum captum Hereby he signifies that Christ would fit his speech to the capacity of the hearers because they were not capable of naked truthes and he borrowed his speeches from vulgar things by which the most unlearned might be fitted for the mysteries of the kingdome of heaven Though some understand the words as they were worthy to hear and not to understand parables being above the common capacities and put for hard and difficult speeches As Matth. 13.10 Christ being demanded Why speakest thou in parables he answers ver 11 12 13 14 15. Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven but to them it is not given for whosoever hath to him it shall be given and he shall have more abundance but whosoever hath not from him shall be taken away even that he hath Therefore speake I to them in parables because they seeing see not and hearing they hear not neither do they understand And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which saith By hearing ye shall hear and not understand and seeing ye shall see and not perceive For this peoples heart is waxed grosse and their ears are dull of hearing and their eyes they have closed lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their eares and should understand with their heart and should be converted and I should heal them But blessed are your eyes for they see and your eares for they heare But these texts may be reconciled A parable or Similitude when men stay in the outward bark of it is as a riddle nothing can be more obscure Some mystery men know is hid under it but they know not what Therefore Christ having uttered a parable to the multitude Matth. 15.11 and Peter requesting Declare unto us this parable ver 15. saith Are ye also yet without understanding Parables explained are the plainest way of teaching shewing the face of heavenly things in earthly glasses and therefore the Lord to set out his dealing with his own people faith I have also spoken by the Prophets and I have multiplyed visions and used similitudes by the Ministery of the Prophets Hos 12.10 But the scope be not discerned onely that which is said of earthly things and no more is known Now what words are to the eares in similitudes and comparisons that Sacramentall signes are to the eyes by both the understanding is holpen the memory refresht and as may God willing be unfolded faith strengthened The cleansing from sin we find in Scripture held forth under the metaphor of pouring out water Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean from all your filthinesse and from all your Idols will I cleanse you To which the Apostle alludes Ephes 5.26 where he saith Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word Which was typified also in those divers washings mentioned by the Apostle Heb. 9.10 which the blood of Christ doth really work Purging our consciences from dead works to serve the living God cleansing us from all sin 1 John 1.7 and therefore it is called the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 1 Pet. 1.2 In Baptisme in a standing Ordinance this is held out The party interessed in Covenant is dipped in or washed with water and the reason of it given Acts 22.16 Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the Name of the Lord. Christ promises to his Church living bread and water whereof whosoever drinketh shall never thirst He further explaines himself The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world Joh. 6.51 My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed Joh. 6.55 Christ being to dye holds this out in outward signes and with his own Comment upon them Taking and breaking bread he saith This is my body Taking the cup he saith This is the cup in the New Testament in my blood shed for them and for many for the remission of sinnes In elements of frequent use ordinary easy to be compassed these high mysteries and singular mercies are shadowed SECT IV. A further Corollary drawn from the same Doctrine The necessity of explanation of Sacramental signes FOurthly Then there is a necessity that these Sacramental signes be opened explained the mystery cleared the thing signified held out and the Analogy and proportion made known otherwise the soul is still left in the dark and no benefit reaped either for the help of our faith or clearing of our understanding There is no Sacrament as Calvin well observes without a promise preceding The Sacrament is an appendant to the promise as a seal among men is to a Covenant an earnest to a bargain or a ring hath been to a marriage were there no promise there were nothing in those signes As where there is no Covenant there is nothing confirmed by a seal where there is no bargain nothing is ratified by earnest given where there is no matrimoniall consent the ring would be but an imposture the Word of promise gives being to the Sacrament according to that received speech g Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum The Word to added to the Element and it is made a Sacrament And there can be no improvement of the Sacrament to any spirituall advantage without understanding of the promise Were the signes such as did proclaime their own signification as a footstep the foot that made the impression or a shadow the body then the signes might stand alone and speak their own intentions But being creatures for civill uses and having only an aptnesse in them to hold out the thing that they signifie and as hath been said equally apt to other significations a further explanation is necessary Signes among men must have their significations known as well as founds in musical and military instruments otherwise as none could know in the one what is piped or harped nor upon sound could prepare themselves to battell 1 Cor. 14.7 8. so in the other none can know what is shadowed out or resembled There was a custome to ratifie Covenants by killing a calfe and the Covenanters passage between the parts of it as you may see Jerem. 34. He that understood not the meaning of that ceremony could know nothing of a Covenant by that means between parties to be solemnized none understand any more then by sight then many of us do now by the reading of it A garland at the door if custome did not give us a reason of it would speak no more to a passenger without
So that in case any will contend still that it is an inward Covenant that Scripture usually mentions and honours with that title yet being here in as for a great part we seem agreed that priviledges of Sacraments are annext to the outward Covenant or outward administration we have what we desire When this was almost ready for the Presse Mr. Baxters Apologie came forth in which pag 103. I am challenged for this distinction of an outward and inward Covenant as though I had been the Author of it when all know that it is a distinction that of a long time among Divines hath been in common use and in case it had not been commonly received I should have forborn the use of it As I heard Mr. Ball once in discourse say that he denyed any such distinction of an outward and an inward call to the Ministery all calling being external unlesse the man called were a Prophet That which men terme an inward call being onely qualifications fitting for the work so I deny in exact propriety of speech that the inward Covenant is any Covenant but the answer of the soul unto that which the Covenant requires And whereas Mr. Baxter saith It is apparent that Mr. Blake distinguisheth ex parte Dei between the outward and the inward Covenant It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised whereof some are inward and some outward for though he explain not himself fully yet I know no other sense that it will bear I thus distinguish them to apply my self to the Readers understanding that hath been accustomed so to call them and I say indeed that men that barely Covenant and keep not Covenant have onely privlledges that are outward they are visible Church-members and they have visible Church-priviledges And those who answer to Covenant engagements which usually is called the inward Covenant have priviledges both outward and inward A Jew outwardly had outward priviledges A Jew inwardly that is he that answered to his outward profession that worshipped God in his spirit hath both those that were outward and inward It is there said It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no seal for it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis If therefore it have a seal it is either the same which is promised or some other What he meanes when he saies it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis I am to learn If he mean that the seal followes the Covenant and is put to after the Covenant so it is in all Covenants whatsoever He saies they no where tell us what is the seal of their outward Covenant me thinkes we had no need to tell what the seal of that Covenant was that the Jew entred was it not Circumcision and did there not another follow viz. the Passeover Now I tell him that Circumcision and the Passeover were and Baptisme and the Lords Supper are seales of this Covenant The Nation of the Jewes were in Covenant as Mr. Baxter though he would yet must not deny they were in no inward Covenant and yet they had these seales Mr. Baxter sayes we are bound to give the seales to such Apolo 88. Vocation which is effectual onely to bring men to an outward profession of saving faith is larger then election and makes men such whom we are bound to baptize And such we say have right to Baptisme And to help Mr. Baxter those men that he saies the Church must baptize though without right we say are truely in Covenant and have right when he knowes what child he is to baptize he knowes who we say are in Covenant and have Covenant right to Baptisme so that a second Covenant of which he speakes to give right to a first is a strange fancy But of this I shall have further occasion SECT IV. Proposition 3. Fundamental rihgt and priviledge of actual admission to be distinguished VVE must yet distinguish between a fundamentall right and title to the Sacraments and the priviledg of actual admission between a first and second right in them between jus ad rem jus in re In civil titles this distinction holds A child in non-nage upon his Fathers death is entitled to his inheritance A post thumus child whose Parents death prevents his birth which was the case of Asher the son of Ezron 1. Chron. 2.24 upon the first instant that he sees the light stands thus entitled yet the law suffers not his admission to an actual personall managing of it till he be able to improve and employ it to his own and the publique benefit The leper whom the Priest had pronounced unclean so that he must dwell alone without the Camp in a several house severed from all company which was the case of Vzziah King of Judah 2 Chron. 21.26 according to the law in that case provided Levit. 13.46 had in the mean space title to his house and his whole inheritance and upon his cleansing was to be actually received unto it There is a Sequestration and there is a confiscation and proscription Men that are held from their estates upon just reasons are not yet totally and finally outed This distinction also holds in Ecclesiasticall immunities in that Passeover held in the Wildernesse by Gods appointment the fourteenth day of the first moneth there were certain men that were defiled by the dead body of a man that they could not keep the Passeover on that day and they came before Moses and Aaron and said unto them We are defiled by the dead body of a man wherefore are we kept back that we may not offer an offering to the Lord in his appointed season Numb 9.6 7. They stood equally entitled with the rest of the children of Israel to that Ordinance yet there was a barre in the way that they saw to keep them back They therefore plead their priviledg and hold it as a matter of grievance that there was any obstacle in their way This puts Moses to a stand he cannot deny their right yet by reason of the barre in the way dares not give them admission therefore he saies Stand still and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you ver 8. And the Lords order upon it was If any man among you or your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or be in a journey a farre off yet shall he keep the Passeover unto the Lord the fourteenth day of the second moneth at even shall he keep it ver 10 11. Their right is there confessed by the Lord himself and the present barre also acknowledged A physicall barre is confest when being distant in place they cannot come A legal barre is also confest when in their present condition they are not fitted for it And when some that were under this law of suspension in Hezekiahs time came to the Passeover otherwise then was written having not cleansed themselves even many of Ephraim Manasseh Issachar and Zebulon Hezekiah prayed for them 2
unbeliefe to the working of it for regeneration so we that hold that infants are confederate with their Parents do conclude likewise that they put no obstacle or barre to their admission to the sign or seal As there was no further qualification required in an infant for title to Circumcision then to be the son of an Israelite or one by Circumcision joyned to Israel so there was no barre by reason of uncleannesse or want of previous purification mentioned either in the command given to Abraham Gen. 17. or in the Law given by Moses Levit. 12. There is mention made of the uncleannesse of the Mother that hath born a man child Levit. 12.1 2 3. she was to continue in the blood of her purifying thirty three dayes and to touch no hallowed thing nor come into the Sactuary untill the dayes of her purifying be fulfilled but nothing said of the uncleanness of the child but on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin was to be circumcised without mention either of uncleanness or purification Those that can find no barre in the child tendred to Baptisme but seek for one in the Parent to withhold it from this initiating Ordinance may here see that when the Parent was personally polluted the child was clean when the Parent might touch no hollowed thing the child was yet to be circumcised And moral uncleannesse in the Parent can have no more influence on the child to indispose for this priviledge then legal when according to themselves Original sin though transfused by the Parent into the child is no barre In vain do they make the Parents actual sins an obstacle which is terminated in the Parent as defiling the person but transmitting no blot to posterity It is a most un-Scriptural way in those that in their judgement are for Paedo baptisme to inhibite the tender of infants upon pretence of either their Parents sin or their want of Congregational membership And here that supposed great argument to debarre the infants of ignorant and scandalous persons from Baptisme may have an easie answer Such Parents if they were now to be Baptized ought not to be Baptized Ergo they cannot challenge it for their children Baptisme belongs primarily to the Parent The consequence is here manifestly false seeing such Parents have unquestionably a fundamental first right both to Baptisme and the Lords Supper in their respective order by virtue of their profession of the worship of God in Christ as their God in opposition to all false gods and their profession of the wayes of Christianity in opposition to all other wayes though their ignorance and scandal do prove a barre to their present admission to either and having this right and being to be Baptized their children with them are enrighted and children putting in no barre may be actually admitted Priviledges in Church and Common-Wealth are ex traduce and so are not crimes In this I have delivered my self Treatise of the Covenant chap. 46. as also in my Birth-priviledge making good this position by several arguments That the children of all that by profession are Christian are by virtue f Covenant-interest to be received into the Church by Baptisme Enlarging my self in several particular instances in such whose seed some would debarre which yet according to Scripture rules we ought to receive Examining Mr. Firmins grounds to the contrary in his serious question stated Mr. Firmins appendix as to the latitude of infant-Baptisme examined And answering his arguments he hath been pleased in one day to read and undertake to refute what I have spoke He must therefore give his Reader leave from his own mouth to believe that it is a very hasty birth and what need there is that he should yet lick it over the work it self will speak I little expected I confesse so unfair dealing from a man of his candour he might easily have seen that all that I speak to him in this thing there is by way of Corollarie or inference drawn from that which by Scripture-testimony and arguments in several foregoing Chapters I had made good Which as it appears from his own hand when his refutation came out he had never read and therefore by his own acknowledgement hath taken my conclusion into consideration having never seen the premises and so must judge according to his own reason onely having never had any sight of mine Before I come to give answer to his exceptions against that which this Position affirmes I must clear my selfe from some imputations of his touching my dealing with him The Author cleared from some imputations I observe sometimes saith he you dresse my argument in such a fashion that I cannot know it to be mine but disclaime it then you find fault To give the Reader here an account Mr. Firmin had framed this argument against the power of mediate Parents to conferre Baptisme on posterity If that promise doth give this power to predecessours then though there were none to educate this child for the ignorant and prophane Parents will not but teach them how to breaks Covenant predecssours cannot they are dead and are not yet we must seal to the child Having explained my self to avoid mistake I first answer that Mr. Firmin himself here concludes such a childs interest In case he can be brought to break Covenant he is interessed in the priviledges of the Covenant to which he sayes nothing at all but either in haste or prudence passeth it by and dealing with Mr. Caudrey speaks fully to confirm the strength of it Interest in the Covenant of the Gospel he saith Pag. 4. gives first right to Baptisme This child hath this interest otherwise he can be in no capacity to break Covenant he hath therefore this first right and let Mr. F. see how he can deny an infant the second I add in the second place let him make it up into a formal argument and then it runs thus That child whose immediate Parents will not bring it up to the power of Godliness hath no right to Baptisme Here his exception lyes and therefore he demands Where have I mentioned the power of Godlinesse as a requisite in him who claimes Baptisme but to bring up a child in it is harder matter To which I reply 1. That here is a strange question seeing we were not speaking to any prerequisite for Baptisme but after education which was his exception 2. Though he mentions not education in the power of godlinesse in words yet in case his meaning be not so his argument answers it self For the child of such a parent that he mentions shall infallibly so farre as man can judge have education in a away of Christianity so farre as to be of the Society of professed Christians under the dispensation of those Ordinances that are able to save the soul and are called by the Apostle the power of God to salvation Rom. 1.16 He further addes Sometimes your answer is a bare laying down your own judgement with a
the one hand as it puts upon profession on the other And in case any such thing be though the Covenant is perfidiously broke yet as I conceive not totally cast off as long as any open profession is continued What shall we say of those that take their sons and daughters to give them to Moloch this can be no low crime and an high departure from the true God yet these bring forth children unto God and they are his children that they thus sacrifice Ezek. 16.20 21. So also Psal 106.35 c. Israel was mingled among the Heathen and learned their works and they served their Idols which were a snare to them yea they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto Devils and shed innocent blood even the blood of their sons and daughters Yet this as appears casts them not out of Covenant God notwithstanding remembred with them his Covenant ver 45. This was therefore doubtlesse but a partial apostasie taking in the worship of Idols they did not totally cast off the worship of God God was not totally cast off in Judah neither did cast off Judah Ahaz was of the worst of Kings and yet his posterity was reckoned among the people of the Lord. Had the Jews then been as severe disputants against a Covenant-state as are risen up now the Church of God had wanted an Hezekiah he had never lived much lesse wrought so happy a Reformation in the Church of God Propos 2 2. Those that are look'd upon by men as in Covenant with God and so ordinarily judged as the people of Israel were by the name that they bear their abode in the Church and profession that they make and so accordingly styled they are truly and really in Covenant A man may know a man to appertain to such or such a person because he sees him in his family hears him call him Master sees him sometimes at least in his work and knowes him to have the repute of his servant Though to know him to be a faithful servant requires more diligence of enquiry and a stricter scrutiny So a man may be as easily known to appertain to Jesus Christ The same Characters make him known For all that is required to being in Covenant is visible open evident but sincerity of heart in covenanting is invisible and secret And therefore the Jew outwardly Rom. 2.28 is called by the Vulgar Vatablus Tremelius Arias Montanus and Castalio Judaeus in manifesto by Calvin Judaeus in aperto by Beza Judaeus in propatulo the Jew inwardly Judaeus in abscondito or occulto Their Church or Covenant-station giving them those great advantages after mentioned was open and manifest Those that say Lord Lord as Matth. 7.21 are of those that avouch God to be their God and God avoucheth them to be his people And therefore when they come with their sacrifices though in their sins and God upon that account testifies against them yet he sayes I am God even thy God It is confess'd by Mr. Baxter that we must judge those that make profession to be in Covenant with God we must give them the name of Christians and men in Covenant with God and we must use them as Christians in works of charity and Ordinances and Church-communion and so must use their Children as Christians children And seeing reason to judge so according to Scripture-character of men in Covenant they are so Either in this we judge right or else we proceed upon mistake If we judge aright then all is well If we mistake then all in these proceedings is null Water hath been applyed to the child of such an one but no Sacrament dispens'd And according to a mans hopes thoughts or fears of his fathers regeneration are his hopes thoughts and fears of his own baptisme and consequently of his interest in Church-communion for this stands or falls according to his fathers interest or non-interest in the Covenant When Mr. Baxter is urged with this he uses to refer to his Treatise of Infant-Baptisme where he layes us down a grand Rule or Maxime and out of that extracts many others His grand Rule is That a serious Professor of the faith is to be taken for a true Believer and this being laid down he proceeds on If this Proposition were a Scripture-Maxime then it would have born a farther superstruction but being neither found there nor any proof made that it is any way deduced thence mother and daughters may all justly be called into question and seeing he cannot but know that very many as to the thing for which it is produc'd which is in order to admission to Ordinances will utterly deny it he might have done well to have made some essay to have proved it I do yield that charity is to hope the best but that we should put our charity to it or our reason either for probability or certainty when we are no where so taught and have a more sure rule for our preceeding I see no reason I can scarce meet with a Minister that sayes and I have put the question to many of the most eminent that I know that he baptizeth any Infant upon this ground of hope that the Parent is regenerate but still with earnest vehemence professes the contrary I desire the Reader to consider Mr. Cobbets third and fourth Conclusions in his just Vindication pag. 46 52. There is a bare external being in the Covenant of Grace saith he of persons who possibly never shall be saved Concl. 3d. The Church in dispensing an enjoyned initiatory seal of the Covenant of Grace looketh unto visibility of interest in the Covenant to guide her in the application thereof Concl. 4th Visibility of interest and saving interest are there oppos'd See also Mr. Hudson pag. 249. John Baptist did not in his conscience think they had all actually really and compleatly repented and reformed themselves whom he baptized but he baptized them unto Repentance Matth. 3.11 and they by receiving the same bound themselves to endeavour the practice thereof It were a sad case for Ministers if they were bound to admit none or administer the Lords Supper to none but such as were truly godly or that they judged in their conscience to be so or were bound to eject all that they judged were not so Propos 3 3. Mans obligation of himself in Covenant unto God upon the terms by him proposed necessarily implies Gods obligation to man Where God makes tenders of the Gospel by his Ministers to any one out of Covenant there he makes tender of the Covenant and where a person or people professedly accept that is engage themselves as myriads of thousands did through the Acts of the Apostles this person this people each man of them is in Covenant As Scripture calls them by the name of Saints Disciples Believers Christians so we may call them Covenanters They have all a sanctity of separation which Camero sayes is reall and Mr. Baxter disputed from thence to a right in Baptisme from that Text 1
well weighed we may well believe that the Primitive times were not acquainted with the rigour of some persons 4. There is no reason that this Ordinance should stand alone that in all other Ordinances there should be a greater latitude and men in an unregenerate state admitted and not held out with limit to men in whom a life of Sanctification through the Spirit is found and this alone pent up in so narrow a compasse I know somewhat is said for the latitude of some Ordinances that all are received to them because they are Ordinances appointed for conversion of men unconverted But this Plea in many will not serve unregenerate mens admission to prayer to thanksgiving to fasts hath been that I know questioned by few And those that deny that the Lords Supper hath any influence to conversion have not asserted these to have any such efficacy or power unregenerate men then must be admitted to the Supper or else they must be denyed to come to fasts thanks-giving and prayer Here some do distinguish between duties naturally Moral and those that are of meer positive institution Moral duties as prayer thanksgiving c. are confest to belong in general unto all but it is not so as is objected in duties of positive institution they are given with limit to some and are not of universal obligation To which I answer 1. By way of concession positive Precepts bind not all because they are not given to all the Gentile Nations were not tied to the Law of Ceremonies given to the Jewes and meer Heathens are not now tied to our Sacraments 2. For a positive answer I say Positive Precepts were never given in charge with any such distinction as to bind the regenerate and to exclude men in unregeneration Men under sin and in nature are bound to the affirmative part of the second Commandement to observe every way of worship that shall be instituted by God all of which are onely of positive right All Israel were tied to sacrifice as well as to hear and pray it was a sin not to sacrifice as not to fear an oath Eccles 9.2 And all Christians are now under an obligation to the Law of the Sacraments as they are to other duties And as to the thing in hand this distinction of Moral and Positive duties as I conceive is of no use for the positive Command being given there is a Moral tie to yeeld obedience Instance may be given in purely Ceremonial Precepts that are seconded with this sanction I am the Lord Levit. 19.23 24 25. So that when a Precept meerly Ceremonial was broke immediately yet the first Command was broken interpretatively and by way of necessary consequence the Law of nature tied Adam to abstain from the forbidden fruit when God had given him a Precept not to eat of it and the young man in the Gospel was also bound to sell all that he had and give it to the poor when Christ had manifested that it was his pleasure There are texts indeed produced seemingly taken of men under sin from the performance of positive duties as Math. 5.23 24. and as much may be said concerning those that are Moral Ezek. 14.2 3.20.2 3. We read that the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination Prov. 15.8 21.27 and as much is said of their prayers Prov. 28.9 All which textâ— sufficiently imply Gods dislike when they are acted by such hands but none of them imply mans disobligation Fifthly This limit of the Lords Supper to regenerate persons as on the one hand it will take with the consciences of many sanctified Christians to hold them back as hath been said even with all that stand short of assurance of grace so on the other hand it will give encouragement to many unsanctified ones to make addresse to it Broken hearts under the body of sin having not yet attained to the light of Gods smiling face will be so severe in their own censure as to hold themselves back The generation of formal Professors pure in their own eyes and not yet cleansed from their filthinesse Prov. 30.11 will flock to it So that we must either find some other more sure rule or else the hearts of many precious ones whom God would not have made sad will be sadned and the hands of many in sin upon their admission will be strengthned Objections answered I know there are Objections even without number multiplyed against this that I have here delivered and such that have taken with very many to carry them to determine the Point in hand in a contrary way And in case I had not seen that the weaknesse of them is more and more discerned and that by men of eminent parts and integrity I should have been by the multitude as well of Objections as Objectors discouraged to appear against them The duties of the Lords Supper are such say some that onely the sincere servants of Christ that are sanctified by Christ are able to perform The mercies of the Sacrament are such as they onely can receive and therefore onely these are the fit subjects of it And these are driven on very far The duties preparatory to the work cannot be done by others as is objected as self-examination self-judging The duties executory cannot be done that accompany the work it self How specious soever this argument appears and I doubt not but it is with all sincerity of heart and integrity urged yet I desire it may yet be further considered First That this Argument thus urged doth disable all men not sanctified from all other duties by the command of God incumbent upon them as well as from this duty they must upon this account exclude themselves from every Ordinance enjoyned of God as well as from this put the argument into form and this will easily appear They that cannot do the duties charged upon those that are put upon a work nor receive the mercies given in promise to it are to be excluded from it Now as these assume An unsanctified man cannot discharge the duties nor receive the comforts of a Communicant so will I with equal reason assume That an unsanctified man cannot perform the duties charged upon the hearers of the Word upon him that calls upon the Name of God or returns thanks to him He cannot perform the duties that are charged puon him that is to sanctifie the Sabbath to meditate to instruct his family rebuke his brother give almes follow the duties of his calling No unsanctified man does all that is required in the performance of any of these neither is any fit to receive the mercies of these duties that is unfit to receive the mercies of that duty Therefore it followes that he must neither hear pray give thanks sanctifie the Sabbath instruct or reprove any give almes labour in his Calling or any other work If any think to come off by way of distinction That there is difference between this and other duties Then the distinction should have been
necessity to suffer Though it is a matter of consolation that guilt by suffering is removed and an atonement made in which there is either present assurance or at least a possibility of future actuall interest Twelfthly That Ordiinance unto which Christ calleth none but such that have spiritual gracious qualifications is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual and gracious qualifications Ergo. The Assumption is proved Matth. 11. 28. Joh. 7.37 Isa 55.1 Matth. 22.12 1 Cor. 11.28 Cant. 5.1 Answ Onely one of these speaks of the Lords Supper the rest have immediate relation to Christ not to this Ordinance of the Supper and positive spiritual qualifications as preceding all coming is not required in any of them upon sense of want we may come to Christ for spiritual qualifications as wen may come with them though without positive spiritual qualifications there is no assurance of interest in him 2. As to that worthinesse which is spoken to in that Text of the Corinthians there is an usual distinction of worthinesse of merit and worthinesse suitable to the work in hand It is the latter onely that as is confest is called for There is yet a double suitablenesse to the work One is compleat answering to all that the work can call for which comprises grace not onely in the habit but in the act an actual improvement of our graces for the participation of it and this is alike required in other Ordinances of hearing praying c. as in this Orainance of communicating The other is a worthinesse respecting the person that doth communicate such a worthinesse of suitablenesse and conveniency whereby according to the measure of grace vouchsafed whether common or saving he addresseth himself to it Now though the regenerate man alone receives to the acceptation of his person as he onely hears and prayes with such acceptance yet a man in unregeneration may be so far suitably worthy for this work that he may know himself called untp it and that it would be his sin to hold back from it and he may hopeuMlly expect blessing in it and such a worthinesse was in Christs and John Baptists hearers so many of them as have their commendations in the Gospel for such ready and forward hearing and such a worthinesse as I take it is mentioned Matth. 10 11. Let the Learned Consider whether either the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indigne or the context in that place will necessarily take in every unregenerate man or rather the irreverend prOphanation of that duty and whether arguments drawn from want of saving faith and sincere repentance in performance of this work do not bring unregenerate men under like danger in fasting praying thanksgiving hearing Sabbath-keeping and every other duty of worship whatsoever Thirteently That Ordinance which is instituted for the Communion of Saints is intended onely for such as are Saints and not for unconverted sinners But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints and those that are members of the same body of Christ The assumption proved 1 Cor. 1016 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1.2 Answ Saint is either such that are so by calling and separation for God or else by qualifications and regeneration from God In the former sense unconverted sinners prosessing the Gospel are Saints as of old they were of the people of God and called by his Name Saint is a New Testament-word taking in all of a Christian profession and outward Covenant-interest and then the Proposition is to be denyed Saint being taken in the latter sense the assumption is false This Lords Supper is a priviledge of the Church as visible dispensed by visible officers not as invisible as those very Texts quoted do manifest Fourteenthly If Baptisme it self at least when administred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance far lesse is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance But Baptisme it self at least when ministred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance Ergo. Answ This Argument seemeth to suppose an opinion of regeneration or conversion by the very work done in Baptisme and the Lords Supper which seeing I do not own but in either of both disclaim I need to give no further answer Fifteenthly If the Baptisme even of those that are at age must necessarily precede the receiving of the Lords Supper then the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But Baptisme even of those that are of age must necessarily precede the Lords Supper Ergo. Answ I see no necessity of this consequence unlesse I should believe that all that are baptized are ipso facto regenerate and that not with an initial regeneration of which some speak that may be lost but the immortal seed of the Spirit that abides for ever But being not as I am not of that faith I suppose a baptized man may be to use Pareus his phrase Christianus non regeneratus sed regenerandus a Christian not regenerate but to be regenerate and so regeneration may as ordinarily it doth not precede but follow Baptisme Sixteenthly There is an Argument drawn from the Parable of the Prodigal There is a robe ring and shoes put upon him and a fatted calf killed for him but this when he comes to himself and sayes Father I have sinned c. But this is done in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more especially and manifestly then in any other Ordinace Ergo. Answ All Ordinances as I take it are to bring a prodigal unto such a returning posture in the discovery of the hatefulnesse of sin against such a Father and the riches that are in his Fathers family There are some Arguments of this nature follow which may seasonably be spoke to in the close of these Propositions I shall onely here by the way hint so much to the Reader that in case these Arguments had been framed against the power of this Sacrament for conversion the sense as generally the opposers of it understand it that it works as a medicine to heal and hath an opus operatum in it I should not at all have undertaken them how inconcluding soever I had judged them But seeing a tendency in them to interest alone men already in grace in this Ordinance and denying all hope of benefit by it to the majority of those that men of all interests ordinarily admit to it to the necessary ensnaring of all that are concerned in the administration of it I could not be silent let the Reader impartially weigh and determine SECT XV. Proposition 12. THose that are in a present inaptitude All of present incapacity to receive benefits by the Lords Supper are to be denyed accesse to it and incapacity to improve this Sacrament to any spiritual advantage but are under an inevitable necessity either to receive no good or much danger and damage
received If any such be detected seeing though the substance of religion be not in the Sacrament so much as in the Covenant yet a man of so low an opinion of this ordinance of necessity debarres himself of any benefit of it a diffident opinion of a medicine or conceit against it is said to hinder the working I am sure it will obstruct the working of the Sacraments which have no innate physical vertue nor any other efficacy further then our understanding and faith makes improvement For errors against Christ the summe and substance of the Sacraments as every error is some way against him who is the foundation and carries on the whole work of our salvation that which I have delivered Treatise of the Covenant pag. 232. where I made it my businesse to give rules concerning separation when we are to stay with a Church and when to leave it may here be taken into consideration weighing both the kind and degree of these errors and the place that they have got in the affections and resolutions Those errors that necessitate us to leave a Church when it is in the whole face of it tainted and polluted may justly give occasion to deny a member accesse in case he tender himself to this ordinance These as hath been said are either such that render Christ in an uncapacity to be our Mediator and Saviour or such that are inconsistent in whole or in part with his Mediatourship of the former kind are those that are against his person 1. Those that impugne the Godhead of Christ such that though they give him the glory to be above Angels yet will have him to be no more then a creature a God in title and place as are Magistrates not in nature or power an opinion that involves the Apostolique Church and all Churches in succession in Idolatry giving the honour of God the worship due to God unto him who by nature is no God a doctrine that will make Christ an impotent and not an omnipotent head too weak for his work to governe the world to bring under his enemies 2. Those that deny his manhood as having not taken our flesh and so no suitable head but a phantastique or seeming body Those that are against his Mediatorship are either such that obscure or some way eclipse it as every error doth that is any way considerable or such that rase if not utterly overthrow it in some of the necessary parts of it his Kingdome Priesthood or Prophetical office These are overthrown either directly in termes of full opposition or else by consequence and this either is immediate and evident the truth being confest they cannot be denyed or else the consequence more remote and not so easily discerned These things being premised we must bring it home to our purpose 1. Where fundamental truths are not onely questioned doubted and disputed but abjured and denyed errors directly Errors directly against the foundation or by clear consequence opposing fundamental truths tender the peâ—son uncapable of benefit by the Sacrament or by immediate cleer consequence introduced so that the fundamental truth cannot be known but the error must be seen Here is such a flaw in the Covenant that no improvement can be made of the seal to allude to that of the Psalmist Foundations are destroyed and what can the stewards of the mysteries of God do Such a soul hath framed to it self such a Christ as the Gospel never held out for his salvation These are such of whom the Apostle speaks Col. 2.19 that hold not the head from which all the body by joynts and hands having nourishment ministred and knit together increaseth with the increase of God and how can they then find any spiritual nourishment When they thus withdraw from Christ they are justly denyed to sit at his Table But when the error is of an inferiour nature as neither rendring Christ in an incapacity to be a Saviour nor yet wholly inconsistent with the work of his Mediatorship or at least not such directly but only by way of consequence and that not immediate and evident but more obscure and remote so that it may justly be hoped that in case the consequence were seen the conclusion that they draw would be best rather then the principle of truth denyed the case is then otherwise As we might live in such a Church in case doctrine of that kind were received and taught so we may not refuse such a member making his farther conviction our businesse where ignorance may stand with grace there errour is not wholly inconsistent with it And where there is any fair possibility that Christ may be there this Ordinance is not to be denyed And in case the opinion entertained and contended for be yet more soul so that we have just cause as the Apostle of the Galatians to say that their doctrine is inconsistent with grace yet being not as we can discern fixedly settled and resolutely received and concluded upon but with hesitancy and wavering their faith rather staggered then destroyed these should not hastily be refused But as the Apostle gives counsel respective as I take it to private converse After once or twice admonition reject so let it be here make essay to regain a brother rather then lose him It cannot be conceived that the Apostle when he wrote his Epistle to the Churches of Galatia would upon the account of their error how dangerous soever have discontinued this ordinance as long as he saw any hopes of their reestablishment though they were in eminent danger to be dischurched yet he would continue Church-ordinances Men of a resolved profligate course of life are uncapable of benefit by the Sacrament As for those that put a bar to their benefiting by the Sacrament by their vicious life or profligate course most mens verdict is soonest of all other against them with the Poets Peribomius Morbum gressu incessuque fatentur they have their faults written in their foreheads And certain it is that those men that are in their sin and resolved for sin in present can receive no benefit by the Sacrament First They that look upon Christ to receive benefit in the Sacrament look upon him pierced by their sins and that withall sorrow and grief of spirit The greatest grief in Family or Common-Wealth is borrowed to expresse it Zach. 12.10 11. They shall mourne for him as one mourneth for his onely son and shall be in bitternesse for him as one that in bitternesse for his first-born In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of Had adrimmon in the valley of Megiddon VVhich was the mourning upon occasion of Josiah's slaughter 2 Chron. 35.24 But these now look upon him suffering for sins with all pleasurable delights and content in sin they see him under all this burden for our trangression and in the mean time take delight to add to the weight of it and so stand at the greatest distance from
unconfest did hinder To deny penitents where there is any fair and possible hopes by reason of conviction wrought is their sad discouragement we see them lame and weak and we deny them a Crutch that is provided for them And to receive obstinate ones that without remorse carry it on in wickednesse seems dangerously to strengthen them in their wayes and not at all to help them out of their ungodly courses From this that hath been spoken a fair answer therefore may be given to the arguments before past by concerning any power in this Ordinance for conversion And first for that from the Directory where the ignorant scandalous and prophane that live in any sin or offence against their conscience are warned not to presume to come nigh that holy Table it is meant of those that purposely resolve to hold their sin and doubtlesse that purpose standing here is no comfort to be put into their hands It is no other then that counsel of our Saviour Matth. 5.23 24. If thou bring thy gift to the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way first he reconciled to thy brother and then come and offer thy gift Sacraments will not be accepted from that hand where malice is seated in the heart and implacably continued but it followes not but that where the soul is startled and such resolutions for sin do not appear this maybe a means further to awake and provoke to a resolution against it As to that of Communicating to Heathens Pagans enough hath been said before It can neither be done with allowance nor any possible benefit And for Excommunicate persons they are supposed to be in an obstinate way of wickednesse The last is onely worthy of consideration That Ordinance that is not communicable nor lawfull to be administred to any known impenitent sinner under that notion but onely as penitent sinners truly repenting of their sins is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not communicable nor lawfull to be administred to any known impenitent sinner c. Ergo. Here I might justly except against that opposition that is still put between converting and sealing Ordinances as though it must be taken for granted that no sealing Ordinance could have any hand in or towards conversion Gods seal added to his promise may by the blessing of God be serviceable here as well as his oath added for confirmation but this is grounded upon the mistake of the way of the Sacraments sealing in which I have sufficiently expressed my self For answer to the Argument it self The major Proposition is not true unlesse it be understood with just limitation Reproof is an Ordinance that may well be reckoned among those that work to conversion being the way of life Prov. 6.23 and called the reproof of life Prov. 13.31 an excellent oyl Psal 141.5 and upon that account to be used towards a brother in sin Levit. 19.17 And yet prudence must be used in the application of it Every man is not a meet subject to get good by it There is no such warinesse explicitely required in the dispensing of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as there is in the application of reproofs nor yet any so punctually pointed out not to communicate as there is not to be reproved The Wisemans observation is that He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth to himself a blot Therefore he gives advice upon it ver 8. Reprove not a scorner lest he hate thee rebuke a wise man and he will love thee Every Ordinance therefore that is for conversion is not meet to be applyed to every man in an unconverted condition Rebukes set out the danger of sin and the Lords Supper is for the aggravation of it in holding forth the sad effects of it yet neither of both meet to be applyed to all in sin That charge of our Saviour is deliveted in an universal way Cast not holy things to dogs nor pearles before swine The Proposition there included is general Nothing that is holy nothing that is of the honour of a pearly is to be cast to any dog or swine whence we may assume But there is no converting Ordinance but it is of the number of holy things Ergo. No converting Ordinances are to be given to any that are dogs and swine which way soever any think to extricate themselves by putting limits to any term in the Proposition they must necessarily be brought to yield that all converting Ordinances are not promiscuously to be applyed to all in sin But choyce must be made unto whom they may with profit be delivered And thus I have spoke my full thoughts of the subjects of this Ordinance concluding without the least hesitancy or scruple That all in Covenant have a fundamental or first right to it a jus ad rem and making it my businesse to find out who they be that may be admitted in expectation of benefit by it and who are justly detained from it In which I trust I have given just offence on no hand either in giving way to the admission of any that according to any Scripture-rule or just deduction thence should be held back and so hardening them in any way of ignorance or sin in giving them any encouragement I have a witnesse in heaven that I intended nothing in this but to find out the mind of Jesus Christ and to have this Ordinance so administred that the edification of the visible Members of Jesus Christ might be most prompted and godlinesse encouraged And in case that this which I have done may not be serviceable this way I desire that it may prove an abortive I know there is a distinction used by some and applyed to admission both of Infants to Baptisme and men of growth to the Lords Table that there is a twofold title one in foro Dei in the Court of Heaven and here onely the Infants of the elect regenerate have title as they say to Baptisme and the elect regenerate themselves to the Lords Supper The other in foro Ecclesiastico in the Court of the Church and here all tiie Infants of professed believers have right in Baptisme and the knowing and not scandalous though unregenerate to the Lords Supper By the favour of which distinction those of that judgment and I may be well enough agreed and as I think there is small difference about the persons to be admitted to this Supper yet for the distinction I confesse I do not understand it Both the Sacraments being Church-Ordinances I suppose God keeps no other Court about them save the Court of his Church If they have this right in foro Ecclesiastico then it is the mind of God that the Church should admit them and so they have right in foro Dei likewise And I marvel how those that bring this within the power of
more prove that a Minister hath no such power otherwise in an Ecclesiastical Consistory then it proves that he hath no power without strength of a secular Judicatory It indeed proves that which it is brought to overthrow which is the Ministers single power The Minister makes equal advantage in either Court in his prudentiall proceedings in administration of the Sacrament Cauti 8 8. As it is concluded by many that place power of admission in an Eldership that a Minister wanting that assistance may then deliver the Sacrament to those from whom otherwise he should withdraw his hand and a learned Treatise is written to that purpose wanting authority to do what regularly might be done He is not withstanding as is said to do his duty in administration So I might I think with as much reason say that in case a Minister be overborn with power in his people that he cannot do that in debarring of those which his judgement leads him to deny When a Minister cannot do what he would he must do what he is able without evident hazard of the utter disturbance of the peace of his place he is scarce to run the hazard when he cannot do the good that he would he must do the good that he can he is to do so much the more in publick warning of the sin and the danger as he can do the lesse in authoritative denyal and withholding his hand from them If it might appeare to me that God hath vested an Eldership and no other in that trust I think it were scarce safe to put a mans self without them upon administration last it should be like to that of Saul when he forced himself to offer a burnt-offering because Samuel came not in the appointed time But no such thing appearing in Scripture nor any sufficient reason evincing it I take it to be in the Ministers hands so to dispense it as the Church may receive most of edification by it And when he is so overruled that he cannot act as he would he must act as he can A Steward set over the house and a Commander or Leader in any Army is sometimes put upon such necessities Suarez is as zealous as any other against the delivery of the Sacrament to those that are unworthy of it yet bounds it with this caution If the Minister may do it without inconvenience And putting the objection That not to give the Sacrament to an unworthy person is a negative precept that binds ad semper to all times and therefore never to be done He answers that this Precept is not simply Negative but is to be reduced to an Affirmative which is prudently and faithfully to dispense this Sacrament which being formally taken is alwayes to be observed as often as this Sacrament is administred and so it comes to passe that if it may be it is to be denyed to those that are unworthy not that it is alwayes to be denyed upon any inconvenience whatsoever Nor let any charge me as being too indulgent to such men seeing none that I know of any party is of another mind They that stand for Elderships will have this done by the Minister when the Eldership overrules it And those of the Congregrational way when the Congregation in the majority votes for it And may not the Minister do the same thing when he sees that he is put upon like or greater necessity in it The Churches edification in the first place should be considered but the peace of the Church by no means neglected alwayes provided that unworthy ends of self-advantage pusillanimity base compliances which may be as soon seen in the majority of a multitude as in one single person do not over-rule it and may be our temptation in dispensation of the Word as well as the Sacrament and with all care courage study prayer to be avoided That the Apostles severe charge 1 Tim. 5.21 may be conscienciously heeded Doing nothing by partiality SECT XVII A Corollary drawn from former doctrines FRom these two observations above mentioned That God is the author Sacraments are to be received from that hand that God hath assigned and The Covenant people of God the subject of the Sacraments this follows by way of Corollary that The people of God are therefore to receive them from that hand that God is pleased to appoint to administer and dispense them to them If God please to vouchsafe a gift he is worthy to appoint the hand for conveyance This might have been the employment of Angels in glory whom he makes ministring Spirits and to whose charge he commits his servants but he hath chosen another way communicating it by man to the sons of men honouring men so farre as to entrust them with these Mysteries whereby he 1. makes tryal of their faithfulnesse whom he thus entrusts in so noble an employment as the dispensation of his Covenant and seal his Word and Sacraments 2. He makes known his power setting up weak man in his cause to oppose and get the upper hand over Satan and the world chusing the weak things of this world to confound the mighty 3. He provides for his own glory which would have been endangered in case Angels had been employed in this Ambassy when an Angel was sent to John he was ready to forget himself in his extasie to worship the Angel Revel 19.10.22.9 In case the Treasure were in heavenly vessels the glory would be of the vessel and not of God we should have conceived so much glory there that we should looked qo higher 4. He condescends to our infirmity that are not able to bear divine apparitions This man hath known by experience Judg. 13.22 Luke 2.9 and God himself hath considered Deut. 18.16 17.5 He thereby makes tryal of our humility and obedience whether we will submit to such which he sets up though no other motive but his appointment appears in it yet this is not handed over to vs promiscuously by all or any of the sons of men but those that he hath chosen from among men in things appertaining to God Heb. 5.1 The Apostle lets us know that all are not Apostles all are not Prophets all are not teachers all are not workers of miracles 1 Cor. 12.29 so we may conclude all are not stewards every household servant is not set over the household to give meat in due season The dispensation of Sacraments is a part of the Ministerial function Arguments evincing it This is a work in Gospel times proper to the Ministers of Christ as by several Arguments may be made to appear 1. They that were sent out to convert and instruct were in commission alone to baptize Matth. 28.19 But the Ministers of Christ are sent out to convert and instruct they onely are spiritual Fathers Teachers c. Therefore this is their businesse as before this commission it was by divine warranty practised by John Baptist and afterwards according to the commission through the Acts of the
are not so inviolably joyned but that the work is done though unduly by him that is not called to it yet though the validity of the work be asserted the disorder must be opposed Entring upon Aarons work and never called of God as Aaron was with Vzziah officiating in that work that appertains not to him leaving scruples in the thoughts of those to whom in this disorder they have administred these ordinances This the Church hath never suffered save onely tha Papists and Lutherans dispense with Baptisme in case of necessity putting so much weight upon it and placing such efficacy in it which the Church of England also suffered after the reformation till King James his dayes and then as appears in the conference at Hampton-Court it was reformed Dr. Abbot in his Lectures read while it stood in power appeared publickly against it and as I remember for the book is not in my hands affirmed that zealous Ministers then generally did distaste and decry it The Midwife was usually employed in the work as nearest at hand to cast water upon the infant ready to dye in her armes though in no capacity of that function by reason of her sex and though the sex might have born it she was never called to it But they must first make that good that all perish without Baptisme or that the act of Baptisme assures us of salvation before they can justifie this practice Protestant Writers with irrefragable arguments opposing it produce as a dispensation from God for the breach of an order by him set up otherwise we shall conclude that from the time of the said conference it hath justly been put into the hands of the lawful Minister and notwithstanding Mr. Tombes his quibble it was upon just grounds concluded by the late Assembly in their confession of faith Chapter 27. Sect. 4. SECT XVIII A further Corollary from the former doctrine All that are interested in Sacraments must come up to the termes of the Covenant IT further followes that all those that interest themselves in Sacraments expecting benefit by Baptisme and comfort at the Lords Table must come up to the tearms of the Covenant They receive them as signes and badges of a people in Covenant with God They receive them as seals of the Covenant God puts to his seal to be a God in Covenant In their acception they engage as by seal to be his people in Covenant The obligation now is mutual in case man fail on his part God is disobliged If any tye be upon him it is to inflict the just merit of breach of Govenant upon them I have spoken to the necessity that lyes upon the Ministers of Christ to bring their people up to the termes and Propositions of it Treatise of the Covenant chap. 20 21. Here I speak to it onely as the interest in the Sacraments tyes to it And this obligation hath all force and strength in it When God entred Covenant with man in his integrity upon condition of perfect and compleat obedience and gave him as we have heard Sacraments for the ratification and confirmation of it when man failing in obedience and falling short of the duty of the Covenant those Sacraments were of no avail notwithstanding the tree of life man dyed and notwithstanding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man became brutish in his own knowledge It fares no better with those that are under a Covenant of grace and live and persist in breach of Covenant we see the heavy curse that God pronounceth against them Jer. 11.3 4. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this Covenant which I commanded your Fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the Land of Egypt from the iron Furnace saying Obey my voyce and do them according to all which I Command so shall ye be my people and I will be your God And to this Jeremy adds his Amen or So be it O Lord which assent of his though it may be referred to the Prophets duty in obedience of Gods Command when he had said to him ver 2 3. Speak to the men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem and say unto them Thus saith the Lord Cursed be every man that obeyeth not c. The Prophet in these words says What thou hast enjoyn'd me I will do it and so Junius and Tremelius understand it or to the Prpphets earnest desire to have the promise fulfilled which the Lord utters in the close of his speech ver 5. That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers to give them a Land flowing with milk and honey as it is this day To which the Prophet answers So Lord let it be that this people being careful to keep Covenant with thee may still enjoy that land which thou didst by oath bind thy self to settle them in as the last larger Annotations understand it or to Jeremies answer in the name of the people binding themselves to obedience as Diodati understands it yet doubtlesse it also comprizeth the Prophets acknowledgement of the equity that the curse should fall on those that obey not the words of the Covenant The Amen is of that latitude that it comprizeth the whole that goes before of the Prophets duty his desire the peoples obligation and the equity of the curse that lyes upon disobedience As the Sacraments in Paradise could be no protection to man in sin so the Sacraments under the present Covenant whether in the old dispensation of it in the dayes of the Fathers or new dispensation of it in Gospel-times can be no protection of those that lye in unbelief and impenitence Let not an unbeliever let not an impenitent person think to find shelter here as the Jewes did think to find in the Temple and say They are delivered to do these abominations Priviledge of Sacraments can help Christians no more then birth-priviledge could the Jewes who are checkt by John Baptist for making it a plea to this purpose and called to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance and amendment of life Matth. 3. I do not say that unlesse you are assured that you do believe to justification and repent in sincerity and unfeignednesse that you must not come to the Lords Table I have declared my self to the contrary but I say you must make it your businesse to believe your work to repent in truth and sincerity or else you shall never find here acceptation The Covenant of works was for mans preservation in life and Adam could have help towards immortality in the tree of life no longer then he made it his businesse to keep up to that which the Covenant required The Covenant of grace is for mans restitution to life none under this Covenant can find any help towards life in any Sacraments annext to it otherwise then in keeping up faith and repentance which are the termes and conditions of it Which way doest thou expect
may be infallible and yet not known to be such to the person but I suppose that by the word demonstration you intend that the party discerns it to be an infallible demonstration which sure intimates a very high kind of certainty You may well know that I intend so when you see that I say so and I do not make that to be assurance cui potest subesse falsum If it prove in the event otherwise it was not assurance It followes 11. Yet even in that case I deny that the general Premise in the Major is equivalent to the conclusion I am justified and shall be saved though I should acknowledg that the conclusion may be said to be de fide in that the Major hath the predominant interest in the conclusion if so be that the man have better evidence of his sincerity then of the truth of the promise Neither do I say that that Proposition He that believes and repents shall be saved is of it self equivalent with that conclusion without the assumpion with Scripture-warrant and help of the Spirit that I believe and repent and I know not what to make of such strange supposals of a better evidence of a mans own sincerity in any man then of the truth of the promise which Mr. Baxter presently affirms to be a contradiction There is no man comes up to sincerity but he that is assured by faith that the promise is true Though he may be sometimes staggered yet he rises out of it and holds fast to the truth of the promise and when the soul hath evidence of both and is assured of both I say the conclusion is de fide see Mr. Ball of faith pag. 80. Mr. Baxter sayes Appen pag. 71. When the Papists alleadge that it is no where written that such or such a man is justified we answer them that it being written that he that believeth is justified this is equivalent A grosse mistake saith he as if the Major Proposition alone were equivalent to the conclusion or as if the conclusion must or can be meerly credenda a proper object of faith when but one of the premises is matter of faith and the other of sense and knowledge In my Treatise of the Covenant I opposed against him Dr. Goades speech in a conference expressing himself in these words I will maintain the contrary against you viz. Fisher the Jesuite that a conclusion may be de fide although both Propositions be not de fide but one of them otherwise and infallibly true by the light of reason or experience giving instance in such a syllogism Mr. Baxters answers Sect. 75. Dr. Goad saith but the same that I say onely I distinguish c. And I am well content then to say what both of them say and leave it to the Reader to take the benefit of his large and elaborate discourse on this occcasion He is pleased to put into his Index the difference between Mr. Bl. and me contracted and a plain cogent argument added to prove that the conclusion forementioned is not sealed which is the work of Sect. 76. pag. 139. In which much by him is granted and much affirmed to which I assent His cogent argument that the conclusion I shall be saved is not sealed is thus framed Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem vel deteriorem At propositio non obsignata est pars debilior vel deterior Ergo conclusio sequitur propositionem non obsignatam I shall give it in English that if possible all may understand us The Conclusion followes the weaker or worser part But the Proposition unsealed is the weaker or worser part Therefore the conclusion followes the Proposition unsealed And after many words he sayes For my part I know not what objection can be made against either part of the forecited argument the Major being a common Canon or Rule that holds in all figures and the Minor being yeeled by your self else I would answer to it To this I might have many things to say First That Mr. Baxter knowed that I did not allow of any such Syllogism as this which he thus frames in order to find out the sealing of the Sacraments and therefore what is here sealed or not sealed with me is little to the purpose Secondly I marvel that he makes debilior and deterior weaker and worser here to be both one when before he made a scripture Proposition to be debilior the weaker and a Proposition of reason fortior the stronger when I should be loath to make or conceive as necessarily he does a Scripture-Proposition to be deterior the worser Thirdly As to the Syllogism I shall call for proof of both his premises For the Major in his sense if I understand it I either deny or much question it and therefore distinguish of that which is said to be worser or weaker which may be either respective to the truth of the premises and then I yeeld that the conclusion ever followes the worser If either Proposition be false the Conclusion is not true But this so far as I understand is not his meaning Or they may be taken respective to the nature of them and then I know not that the denomination of the Conclusion must follow upon account either of strength or weaknesse in either of the premises For the Minor Proposition That an unsealed Proposion is the weaker or worser part I shall desire to know the quantity of it if it be universal then it is false Every unsealed Proposition is not weaker or worser then that which is sealed And whereas Mr. Baxter sayes I have yeelded it I know not that ever I was put upon it but how I shall speak my whole sense of it I yeeld that a seal adds to the strength as does an oath and therefore an unsealed Proposition is weaker then that which is sealed caeteris paribus all things being otherwise alike in both yet there may be those differences in Propositions that a Proposition may be of that strength in it self that it needs no seal and be every way equal for truth and evidence to those that are sealed and thousands of such might be named that without any seal are of equal strength to those to which a seal is added That there are lands or tenements in the County of Salop is a Proposition without a seal that R. B. hath lands or tenements in that County is a Proposition under seal yet the latter hath no more strength or evidence of truth then the former He that hath hands lineally descending upon him from his Ancestors hath a true right to inherit is a Proposition without a seal R. B. hath such an inheritance is a Proposition under seal and I desire to know whether here be not as much truth and evidence in the Major as the Minor Let us look into that Syllogism which I put to find out that which the Sacrament seals and that in the person of God himself pronounced To whom I give Christ I give all
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
seal and confirm in this that we have grace Answ Not to dispute the absolute Covenant in this place as many call it The Covenant to which Sacraments are annext as seales properly promises priviledges upon condition of graces and requires the graces though God in his elect ever graciously works what it is respective to grace that Sacraments do we have now heard that is to shew us our want of it and point us out the fountain of it engaging us to it and upon our making good our engagements through Grace they ratify these promised priviledges to us 7. Scriptures of two sorts are brought by those that would advance Sacraments above that which they work as signs and seales Seventhly The texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments above all that they do as signes and seales and to evince that they have an absolute work on the soul without respect had either to the understanding or faith of the receivers are of two sorts The first are such where no Sacrament at all is mentioned neither can it by any good argument be proved that Sacraments in those texts are directly intended Others are such wherein Baptisme indeed is mentioned but faith is evidently required to the attainment of the effect there specified when these two are proved a full answer is given to all the Scriptures which by the Adversaries in this behalf are objected Scriptures of the first rank are 1. Such wherein no Sacrament is mentioned nor can be proved that any is intended Titus 3.5 According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration Ephes 5.25 26. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word 1. Cor. 6.12 Such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Though the thing signified in Baptisme is here evidently spoken to and some allusion may be conceived to be here made to Baptisme yet I suppose that it can by no good argument be proved that the Sacrament of Baptisme in any of these Scriptures is intended First Arguments evincing that Baptisme is not intended in the Sacramental work of it The Lords Supper may be as fairely evidenced out of Christ words John 6.53 54 55. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed as Baptisme may be evinced out of any of those texts alleadged when yet Protestant Writers unanimously conclude and severall learned Papists yield that no Sacramentall eating is there intended To clear this they say there is a meer Sacramentall eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ when the outward signs are received and no more a meer spirituall eating and drinking when Christ is applyed by faith without any Sacramentall sign and an eating and drinking both Sacramental and Spirituall when the Sacrament is received by sincere believers and the text in John is understood as they conclude of bare spiritual eating and drinking The same we may apply to washing and conclude that it is meerly spiritual washing that in these texts alleadged is understood Secondly There are the same phrases or those that are parallell with them in Old Testament-Scriptures when no Sacrament of this kind was instituted and therefore could not be intended Psal 51.7 Purge me with Hyssope and I shall be clean wash me and I shall be whiter then Snow Ezek. 36.25 Then will I sprinckle cleane water upon you and you shall be clean from all your filthinesse And it must needs be that meer Spiritual and not Sacramentall washing for the reason alleadged must in these texts be understood Thirdly If outward Baptisme were there intended why should not the word Baptisme be there as in other places used when we see it is yet omitted when other words are in the stead of it industriously chosen when common washing is intended we know that the word Baptisme is frequently used as Mar. 7.8 Luk. 11.38 and so also when legall cleansing is spoken to as Heb. 9.20 And in case Baptisme it self were here purposely intended it is marvel that other words should by the Spirit of God be chose and this laid aside Fourthly This Interpreters of eminent note have seen Mr. Gataker disceptatio de Baptis Infant vi efficacia pag 51. saith It g Dubitari potest non immerito baptismine Sacramentum an interna ablutio hoc nomine eo loci designetur may justly be doubted whether the Sacrament of Baptisme or inward washing in that place of Titus 3.5 be understood then adds h Atque ego certe etiamsi ad baptismi ritum externum respectum aliquem haberi nullus negaverim de interna tamen ab lutione diserte dictum existimo quae externa illa lotione corporis designatur ut ex clausula mox sequente verba illa exponantur per lavacrum regenerationis non videtur apostolus significare baptismum sed ipsam regenerationem quam lavacro comparat Though I am not he that will deny that some respect is had in those words to the outward rite of Baptisme yet I believe that they are expressely spoken of the inward washing and that the words may be interpreted by the clause immediately following the renewing by the Holy Ghost quoting Piscator for his opinion Thes theol vol. 1. loc 25. Sect. 20. who saith By the laver of regeneration the Apostle seems not to intend baptisme but regeneration it self which he compares to a laver and also Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25 affirming That it is doubtful whether in Titus 3.5 there be any speech of the Sacrament or onely of the blood of Christ and of the Spirit and in his words as the Reader that pleases to consult him may see he takes in Ephes 5.26 likewise Vorstius speaks most fully of all to these Texts mentioning the Argument drawn from Ephes 5. Titus 3. for the opus operatum in Sacraments he sayes Our Divines answer i Aliena testimonia citari viz. quae res quidem in Sacramentis significatas metaphorice declarant attamen de Sacramentis proprie dictis non agunt That impertinent testimonies are urged which hold forth the thing signified in Sacraments by way of metaphor but do not speak of Sacraments properly so called Antibel Tom. 3. Contro 1. Thes 1. 2. And whereas Calvin is produced by some as interpreting Titus 3.5 of outward baptisme his authority will but little help them k Non dubito quin saltem ad baptismum alludat imo facile patior de baptismo locum exponi I do not doubt saith he but that the Apostle doth at least allude to baptisme and further saith I can easily bear
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
adds The like figure whereunto Baptisme doth now save us by the resurrection of Christ The Arke did save those that entered into it Baptisme doth save those that are received into the Church by it And whereas an objection is obvious that Noahs Arke and New-Testament Baptisme doth much differ and that in the very thing in which the similitude is brought few entered the Arke and were saved by it but myriads of thousands are baptized This the Apostle answers in the Parenthesis there interposed that the parallel lies not between the Arke and the outward act of Baptisme as by man administred and there called the putting away the filth of the flesh so there is a vast disproportion the outward act as administred by man saves not but between the Arke and the inward work which is The answer of a good conscience towards God That of Tertullian which Beza sayes may serve as a Comment upon these words is elegant The soul is established by answering and not by washing And further to clear this text we must know that the Covenant hath a Proposition in it to which all in Covenant must give assent He that believes and repents shall be saved This assent is presupposed in all those that make actual improvement of the Sacraments Faith and Repentance being the terms of the Covenant And this Divines in their Treatises of Conscience call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now in case we have the benefit of salvation by Sacraments conscience must answer and a good conscience onely can answer But I believe I repent This Divines call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then and not otherwise Sacraments save Dr. Slater on Rom. 2.25 hath these words Here I think the observation is easie out of the body of the text that the work done in Sacraments availes not to righteousnesse or salvation except the condition of the Covenant be performed by those that partake them first the condition then the Antithesis shewes it if thou be a breaker of the Law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision that is all one to thee as if thou hadst never been circumcised yea a gentile wanting the Sacrament having obedience is nearer heaven then thou that hast the Sacrament and neglectest obedience and weigh well that the Lord in promising or sealing binds not himself to performance but conditionally that we perform our restipulation and whence Sacraments should have their efficacy but from the promise and grace of God I see not Circumcision in the flesh engaged the receivers to circumcision in the heart Deut. 10.16 where these did concurre there was a man in Covenant and upright in Covenant And Jer. 9.25 wrath is denounced of God against several Nations and the circumcised and the uncircumcised in the threat are put in equipage together equally and alike to suffer And to take off all scruple or offence that might be taken there is a distinction brought of Circumcision in the flesh and Circumcision in heart Judah had Circumcision in the flesh to plead but remained uncircumcised in heart and therefore fares no better then those that were uncircumcised in flesh Jer. 4.4 The Prophet commands Circumcise your selves to the Lord and take away the foreskin of your heart ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem lest my fury come forth like fire and burn that none can quench it because of the evil of your doings On these terms the fury of the Lord is prevented Those Israelites that passed out of Egypt into the wildernesse for Canaan had the Cloud and the Sea of the same use as Baptisme And Manna and the Rock of the same use as the Lords Supper The two former are called by the name of Baptisme and the two latter Spiritual meat Spiritual drink All were baptized in the one and all did eat and drink of the other yet sayes the text with many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the wildernesse If you would know who suffered thus under Gods displeasure the text tells you Lusters after evil things v. 6. Idolaters v. 7. Fornicators v. 8. Tempters of Christ v. 9. Murmurers v. 10. And Heb. 3.17 The Apostle demanding But with whom was God grieued fourty years answers Was it not with them which had sinned whose carcases fell in the wilderness Further demanding to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest but to them that believed not These wanting the answer of a good conscience fell short of the Sacramental engagements and also came short of true happinesse Arguments evincing it 1. This might be further evinced with arguments 1. In this case where the soul answers not to Sacramental engagements Sacraments are but as outward shadowes and bare empty signs and set out by the Spirit of God in Scripture with all their Rites and Ceremonies as other Ordinances of like nature in the most low despicable and undervaluing words that is possible Baptisme in the letter is no better with the Apostle then putting away the filth of the flesh the cleansing of the hands the feet or face from dirt or filth is the same with it The Pharisees washing of hands yea their washing of cups platters as low as it is laid by our Saviour was as efficacious and as acceptable Circumcision also when it led not to but from Christ is called by the Apostle by the name of Concision Phil. 3.2 Any gash made in the flesh or rent in the garment as well pleaseth The Apostle therefore Rom. 2.25 saith Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law but if thou be a breaker of the Law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision If you understand the Apostle speaking the sense of the carnal Jewes with whom he had to deal then you must understand the keeping of the Law in its full perfection for to this Circumcision lookt upon as a leading Law-Ceremony did engage He that is circumcised is a debtor to the while Law if we understand him speaking of it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith then sincerity is intended If this be wanting Circumcision is uncircumcision where that of the heart is there Circumcision in Gods account is and where it is not there Circumcision is not Rom. 2.28 29. We are the Circumcision saith the Apostle that worship God in Spirit and truth when the cutting of the foreskin in those false teachers was no better then Concision the worship of God in Spirit in whomsoever it was was Circumcision Arg. 1 2. Sacraments in this case are onely aggravations of sin and heightning of judgements In case of uncircumcision in the time of the Law and Non-baptisme in these times sins were no more then transgressions of the Law but now they are breaches of Covenant Then they would have been meerly rebellion against Soveraignty but now they are Apostasie and treacherie In Sacraments we close with God and take his Name upon us as his servants in sin we depart from him and refuse to serve him Thus our bond
I hear 1 Sam. 15.14 If Gods command had been done a sheep had not been left to bleat or an oxe to low in his hearing Here is a real confutation as ready If Infant-baptisme cleanses from original sin the root being dead what means such abundance of living lively branches How come all those complaints of the timely growth of sin in Christians children Why have not Paedobaptists found a real confutation of their Adversaries in their issue being able to shew them their young ones as averse from sin as a fish is to a life in the ayr when the children of their adversaries wanting that nature-healing medicine are wholly addicted to it Neither Israelites nor Christians were ever able to hold out such an experiment And if this were our received doctrine it would necessarily herein infinitely strengthen Anabaptisme when Anabaptists have ever found the greatest opposition from their pens that never acknowledged any such power in Sacraments And in case it should fall out that our Adversaries were in the truth and we in an errour concerning this power in Sacraments I cannot possibly see what great danger can any way follow to us upon it seeing that if Sacraments confer grace this way so far above our expectation we among others shall yet have our shares in it Our Infants are in no such errour with us and they put no more bar to the working of Baptisme then the Infants of others And therefore all benefits which thus follow upon Baptisme are theirs And we urge all of growth to see that their consciences answer to all Covenant and Sacramental engagements which in case it be done will acquit them from putting any bar to any such supposed work As a man that takes a medicine not understanding the worth of it shall have equal benefit with him that most mightily extols it so we whether in Infancy or Age notwithstanding any such ignorance shall reap this unexpected benefit by either of both of the Sacraments Mr. Hooker who delivers himself in that manner touching the efficacy of Sacraments that a man cannot tell on what part he stands lib. 5. Eccles pol. Sect. 57. saith It greatly offendeth that some when they labour to shew the use of the holy Sacraments assign unto them no end but onely to teach the mind by other senses that which the Word doth teach by hearing Whereupon how easily neglect and carelesse regard of so heavenly mysteries may follow we see in part by some experience had of those men with whom that opinion is most strong For where the Word of God may be heard which teacheth with much more expedition and more full explication any thing we have to learn if all the benefit we reap by Sacraments be instruction they which at all times have opportunity of using the better means to that purpose will surely hold the worse in lesse estimation To this I may well answer 1. I know not who those be that have given offence that way They at whom this learned Authour is apt to take exceptions and most professedly opposeth do not limit the use of Sacraments within so narrow a compasse as barely to teach the mind or help the understanding that is not according to them their whole work As they are signs they have a twofold other use 1. As marks of distinction to separate Gods own from strangers 2. As bonds of obedience to God strict obligations to the mutual exercise of Christian charity provocations to godlinesse preservations from sin The Authour himself layes down both of these and I scarce think that in this he hath ever been excepted against by any As seales they have a further work upon the will for the strengthening of our Faith in assured confidence of the promises as our Authour hath likewise observed In regard of the weaknesse that is in us they are warrants saith he for the more security of our belief 2. I say they read the Scriptures with little heed and it may be feared as little benefit that do not conscienciously make use of all those helps to which Scriptures lead and that they lead to the use of Sacraments is evident 3. If that the Word and Sacrament were two distinct teachers without reference one to the other and it were left to my choyce which to take I should make use of the better and leave the more inferiour If I should be necessitated to take the one and leave the other the Word should be chosen But seeing that the Sacraments are an appendant to the Word given us in charge there and the whole use of them by the Word is taught no man can conscienciously use the one in neglect of the other But let us see whether that which the Authour himself delivereth be not as much offensive as this at which he seems so greatly offended Having laid down 3. several uses of Sacraments he addes But their chiefest force and vertue consisteth not herein so much as that they are heavenly Ceremonies which God hath sanctified and ordained to be administred in his Church first as marks whereby to know when God doth impart the vitall or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof and secondly as meanes conditionall which God requireth in them unto whom he imparteth grace For sith God is in himself invisible cannot by us be discerned working therefore when it seemeth good in the eyes of his heavenly wisdome that men for some speciall intent and purpose should take notice of his glorious presence he giveth them some plain and sensible token whereby to know what they cannot see For Moses to see God and live was impossible yet Moses by fire knew where the glory of God extraordinarily was present The Angel by whom God indued the waters of the pool of Bethesda with supernatural vertue to heal was not seen of any yet the time of the Angels presence known by the troubled motions of the waters themselves The Apostles by fiery tongues which they saw were admonished when the Spirit which they could not behold was upon them In like manner it is with us Christ and his holy Spirit with all their blessed effects though entring into the soul of man we are not able to apprehend or expresse how do notwithstanding give notice of the times when they use to make their accesse because it pleased Almighty God to communicate by sensible means those blessings which are incomprehensible Who would not wish that these elegancies might universally hold and that as sure as Moses knew that God was extraordinarily present in the burning bush and the diseased in Jerusalem knew that the Angel was present when the waters were moved and the Apostles that the Spirit was come down when they saw the fiery cloven tongues so in receiving of the Sacramental signes we might as assuredly know that vital and saving grace is imparted to us and that these sensible meanes do as assuredly communicate these incomprehensible blessings But seeing those marks of distinction between the
righteousnesse of faith as before was hinted in opposition to and to distinguish it from the righteousnesse of works required in the Covenant entered with man in his integrity and which the Jewes for a great part conceited they were bound to answer acccording to the letter of the precepts of the Law for the attainment of salvation That of works is called by the name of our righteousnesse Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.18 being to be done by our selves in our own persons as also by the name of the righteousnesse of the Law being required at our hands by the Law so that salvation gained this way is of our selves of works Ephes 2.8 9. This other is called the righteousnesse of faith in this text as also Phil. 3.9 Heb. 11.7 Faith being the hand that receives it of Gods free gift by grace it is called also the righteousnsse of God Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.9 Either as being the gift of God which that phrase seems to imply the righteousnesse which is of God by faith or else as being the work of Christ that is God So that salvation this way gained is of grace and the gift of God Ephes 2.8 These two are still opposed one to the other when one is followed the other is quit and left Rom. 10.3 They being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God so also Rom. 10.5 6. Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them but the righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise c. Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the rigteousnesse which is of God by faith 2. This righteousnesse is synechdochically put for the whole Proposition 2 of the Covenant of grace that interests us in this righteousnesse and so it must be taken in those words of the Apostle forequoted The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise that is the Covenant which interests us in the righteousnesse of faith speaketh this language so that Sacraments sealing this righteousnesse they seal the whole of this Covenant 3. All the blessings and priviledges following upon and following Proposition 3 from this Covenant unto true and full blessednesse are here by the like figure comprized as appears by the Apostles words v. 9. Commeth this blessednesse then upon the circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse This righteousnesse and blessednesse is made one and the same in those words of the Apostle Proposition 4 4. Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant that brings man into Covenant with God is the fountain from whence all this blessednesse comes in that by him this righteousnesse is wrought so that he is the whole of all that good that is comprized in the Covenant and sealed in the Sacraments This is plain in that of the Apostle Rom. 10.4 speaking of the error of the Jewes in going about to establish their own righteousnesse and their non-submission of themselves unto the righteousnesse of God he saith that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth that is finie consummans as Gomarus saith not consumens The end at which the Law aimed and not putting an end and period to it One Christ assumes to himself It becometh us to fulfil all righteousnesse Matth. 3.15 The other he disclaimes Matth. 5.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil The Law calls us to righteousnesse but is not able to work it in us Christ hath done it for us and in our stead He is therefore called our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 Jehovah our righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 so that wheresoever we prove that Christ is sealed to us in the Sacrament or any other benefit flowing from Christ as Mediatour there is a sufficient proof of this observation Proposition 5 5. Faith is here considered as an instrument receiving this righteousnesse and interesting us in this Covenant-promise They that will not allow that faith should be called an instrument of justification yet are not much troubled that it should be called an instrument that receives Christ that doth justifie And if either may be allowed as I do not doubt but that both will hold current this will hold that faith is considered here as an instrument and not as a work neither yet as an instrument of the soul producing any act beyond its self as the hand is the instrument to the soul in labour but as receiving and taking in a gift from God This the Phrase of the Apostle Phil. 3.9 doth clear The righteousness of God by faith otherwise it might be stiled the righteousnesse of works yea when the words are the righteousnesse of faith the meaning must still be the righteousnesse of works as a man when he receives pay for threshing or digging receives pay for working But these are made directly opposite one to the other and not confounded one with the other Rom. 10.5 6. Faith therefore is considered not as a work or habitual grace in the soul So considered it is a branch of our own righteousnesse but as an instrument applying Christ and interesting us in his righteousnesse These Positions being premised The Point proved the Observation may be easily proved that the righteousnesse of faith or the righteousnesse of God by faith is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace and may be made good in an induction of particulars Circumcision the leading Sacrament of the old Covenant is expresly here spoken to and here we see what is the thing signified in it and sealed by it And in case we saw no more in it then the most carnal amongst the Jewes saw that it was a note of distinction between them and others that had no visible relation to God in Covenant yet we know that this distinction was grounded and founded in Christ By Scriptures The one stood in a visible relation to him and the other were strangers from him And the Apostle Col. 2.11 12. is full in the proof of it Having said that we are compleat in Christ enjoying him we want nothing it might be objected that we want the very leading Ordinance which receives a people into visible Communion with God which was Circumcision The Apostle answers that in him we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ This Circumcision did figure Deut. 30.6 Jer. 9.26 Rom. 2.28 29. And this is the work of Christ as we see in the Apostles words and therefore circumcision led to him For the following Sacrament of the Passeover if we look to the letter of the institution together with the explication given we shall find it
sets himself professedly against this use of Sacraments and will not have them to serve by way of seal for confirmation of our faith in particular And this he endeavours with five several Arguments SECT II. Objections against the former doctrine 1. IF Sacraments confirm our faith by way of seal or after the Object 1 manner of miracles then Sacraments must be better known and more efficacious to perswade to Faith than the Word But nothing can be more efficacious for perswasion than the Word of God and experience tells us that words are better understood than dumb signes and Sacraments compared to the Word are as dumb signes Answ 1. The assumption here should have been Nohting is Answ 1 either more easily known or more eminently efficacious than the Word But the former is left out lest it should give check to their doctrine of obscurity of Scriptures and instead of making the Word easily intelligible he contents himself to say that it is more intelligible than nods or dumb shews when yet dumb signs or such nods are better known and more easily understood as we have experience sufficient than the Word of God or any other word whatsoever in an unknown language 2. If this Argument be of force then nothing else in the Answ 2 world but the bare Word of promise revealed in Scripture is any way serviceable for more full assurance of the thing given in promise Not onely Gideons Ezekiah's and Ahaz his signs but the oath also made to Abraham was superfluous All these had the Word of God and unlesse the signs given them and the oath made to them were more efficacious then the Word which as he sayes nothing is according to him they are all superfluous 3. Comparison is not to be made between the Word and Answ 3 Sacraments whether of those considered apart is more efficacious Then the preheminence is to be given to the Word as Bellarmine sayes Luther acknowledgeth but enquiry is to be made whether the Word together with Sacraments annext to it be not more efficacious by reason of our weaknesse and inclinations to diffidence than the Word without any such visible ratification Nothing can be more firm than the promise of God seeing God cannot lye Tit. 1.2 His Oath is no more valid then his Word yet God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heires of promise the immutability of his counsel confirm'd it by an oath That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lye we might have strong consolation Object 2 2. The nature of Sacraments cannot any where be better understood than from his words that is the authour of them But in the Holy Scriptures they are no where called seales of Promises but instruments of Justification Ergo. Answ 1 Answ 1. If this Proposition stand then some at least of the Sacraments of Rome and most of their Sacramentals must fall seeing by Thomas Aquinas his acknowledgment they are not to be found in Scriptures Answ 2 2. There is nothing more false then this assumption as abundantly hath been declared and the Text in hand is a sufficient witnesse Object 3 3. If Sacraments be onely seales of the promise of grace then either they are superfluous or else of very slender use and benefit for we have more Testimonies far more efficacious Good works are better signes and testimonies of righteousnesse obtained then washing with water or taking of the Eucharist which may be received Hypocritically Answ 1 Answ 1. If this Argument be of any force then wheresoever there is one witnesse to speak in any cause all the other are vain and superfluous and so that of the Apostle will fall to the ground At the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established Answ 2 2. It is well that works are made a witnesse of assurance then this way at least assurance may be had which he and his party are wont to deny Answ 3 3. Works are not Testimonies instituted of God for this end as Amesius observes but of their own nature they evidence our fitnesse for glory and as fruits of our faith as Whitaker speaks And those which Bellarmine uses to make the best of works Almes Fasting and Prayer may be hypocritically performed likewise Answ 4 4. This witnesse or seal of Sacraments is not a distinct witnesse or seal from that which the Jesuit here produces but stands in co-ordination with it or rather in subordination to it It is upon the answer of a good conscience not otherwise that Sacraments give this witnesse 4. If Sacraments seal by way of particular application for support Object 4 Faith then it is in vain to baptize Infants But Lutherans are wholly for Infant-baptisme Ans 1. We may learn of Bellarmine that Protestants at least Answ 1 think that this doctrine and Infant-baptisme will well stand together 2. The Apostle was certainly able to have given a satisfying Answ 2 answer to this Objection seeing he tells us that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith and yet himself was circumcised the eighth day Phil. 3.5 It is of equal strength against Infant-circumcision as against baptisme 5. If Sacraments be seales of grace which in particular is conferred Object 5 upon any then oftentimes they are false viz. when the Sacrament is given to a man who pretends to believe and indeed doth not believe and so it were unlawful to baptize any lest we should cause God to give witnesse to a lye for we certainly know of none whether they believe truly or onely pretend it Ans Our Adversary here prevents us Answ and puts an answer into our mouthes Perhaps saith he they will say That the Sacrament is a seal or testimony of grace not absolutely but if he that doth receive the Sacrament do believe the promise And this indeed is their Answer as out of Amesius Whitaker Vorstius Pareus Dr. Reynolds Mr. Rutherford I have shewn to which may be added that full Testimony out of Dr. Slater before mentioned As for those that will have the Covenant to be absolute and the seales to be put without any respect had to any condition against the full stream of Protestant Writers I shall desire them to help us to any other satisfying answer to this Argument I must confesse that in case I be once convinced that the work of Sacraments is to ratifie Gods promise in an absolute way as the Rainbowe do's that God will no more destroy the World by water without respect had to any condition at all And that a seal is put to a blank in case any unregenerate person be baptized or admitted to the Lords Table I must either be holpen with further light than I can yet see or else I think I shall never more adventure upon Baptisme or the Lords Supper And Bellarmine supposing that this will be our answer can bring nothing more to avoid 〈◊〉 then two speeches of Luther and one of Melancton nothing at all to
of Christ but also the supererogation of the Saints which as they perswade themselves is satisfactory not onely for the Saints themselves but for others The Church of Rome makes it her care to take in the whole of all these branches of righteousnesse and in all of them they place their justification Here we had need of the clew of Scriptures to lead us That righteousnesse which according to the precept of the Law is to be wrought by our selves as to sanctification or qualification of the soul in the way of salvation we must vigorously pursue and not disclaim As Christ when he was accused by the Pharisees to destroy the law and to be an enemy to righteousnesse to take off this calumny he tells his Disciples Matth. 5.20 I say unto you that except your righteousnesse shall exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdome of Heaven So we may say to these adversaries that charge us to be enemies of good works except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of these superstitious ones ye can by no means enter into the Kingdome of heaven The righteousnesse of a Papist being of the self same stamp with that of the Pharisees for tradition the Trent Councel makes known their zeal Concil Triden Sess quart p. 11. With the same degree of reverence and esteem we receive the Traditions of our Fathers as we do the bookes of the Old and New Testament and how defective both of them were touching the righteousnesse of the law their agreement in the glosse which they put upon the law is a sufficient witnesse The Pharisees glosse on the law we may read in Christs refutation Matth. 5. and the several precepts which Christ there delivers transcending the Pharisees dictates Papists will have to be no branches of the law but Evangelical Counsels added to it So that B. Hall quotes a speech of Serrarius the Jesuite that the Pharisees may not unfitly be compared to Catholiques adding as his own that one egge is not liker to an other then the Tridentine Fathers to these Jesuites Supererogating righteousnesse and that which is bottom'd on tradition we must wholly shun It is enough that we can bring it up to the rule in the parts of it it must not exceed It is hard to determine whether a man that casts off all regard of righteousnesse or a man of such righteousnesse be more hatefull in Gods presence one utterly sleights the soveraignty of God and the other corrects his wisdome one refuses to serve at all the other serves onely according to his own pleasure As to the other branch of righteousnesse wrought by others The supposed satisfaction of the Saints must be left and the Lord Christs alone chosen That speech of Christ in the Prophet Isai 63.3 spoken of the conquest of his enemies I have trod the Wine-presse alone and of the people there were none with me holds true when it is applied as by many it hath been though not according to the letter of the text to his satisfaction By one offering he hath perfected for ever those that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 yea the righteousnesse of Christ in the matter of justification must stand alone in opposition to all righteousnesse in the world whether of others imaginarily to be applyed out of any publique treasury by way of indulgence or wrought by our selves either by the strength of natural abilities without grace which the Papists confesse to be too weak or in grace and these works how great an honour soever of late is put upon them come short of perfection to justification likewise as plainly appears by the Apostles argumentation Rom. 3.20 By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight giving this in for his reason for by the Law is the knowledg of sin The argument runs thus Where the Law discovers sin the works commanded by it cannot justifie This proposition is the Apostles But the law discovers sinne even in those in whom grace here hath its most perfect work This needs not to be proved Therefore works commanded in the law and done by assistance of grace in the regenerate cannot justifie And that the Apostle disclaims all righteousnesse any other way his own then by free imputation from God in the work of justification is clear 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Though he had the witnesse of a good conscience as his rejoycing 2 Cor. 1.12 Yet this is not his justification when the Rhemists on the place and Bellarmine de justificat urge this text against assurance of salvation Mr. Ball Treat of Faith pag. 107. saith This text makes strongly against justification by works but against certainty of salvation it makes nothing And Pareus upon the words saith Hence it is most firmly concluded that by the works of the law no man is justified If so great an Apostle cannot be justified by works then much lesse others His works were certainly done by the power of grace and upon new-Covenant-engagements That of Mr. Baxter Aphor. of justif pag. 307. must stand as an eternal truth who after that he had laid down the Socinians tenent that they acknowledg not that Christ hath satisfied the Law for us and consequently is none of our legal righteousnesse but onely hath set us a coppy to write after and is become our pattern and that we are justified by following him as a captain and guide to heaven and so all our proper righteousnesse is in this obedience And having mark'd it with this just brand Most cursed doctrine he addes So far am I from this that I say The righteousnesse which we must plead against the lawes accusations is not one grain of it in our faith or works but all out of us in Christs satisfaction As this righteousnesse which is no otherwise ours but by imputation being neither inherent in us Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousnesse nor wrought by us must stand entire and sole in our justification so faith must be acknowledged to be the alone grace which interests us in it and attains to our reconciliation to God in Christ otherwise why is it that not onely the denomination is still from faith onely as we see in the text and alwaies when it is named it is called the righteousnesse of faith and not of hope love obedience or repentance But that justification is evermore in Scripture ascribed to this grace The Apostle speaking of Christ who is confessed to be our righteousnesse saith Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood In him God who otherwise through wrath stands at the greatest distance is propitious and this through Faith on which Diodate hath these words All this hath been done by vertue of Gods appointment who of his meer will and full power hath from everlasting appointed Christ to be the onely means of expiation and
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
mentions and not the sense 2. Saith he I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it but I find no reason from him but that which some know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus before his Aphorismes ever came to light and had I not been able to have given my self satisfaction I had been in that opinion if not before him yet before I had any light from him to lead me to it That horned Argument of his that if faith justifie as instrument it is either as an instrument in the hand of God or in the hand of man with his reasons against both I have made use of argumentandi causâ before any work of his saw the light 3. The instrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cause of his own Justification I thought it saith he of dangerous consequence to say that man is the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins And I think every honest man should be of that mind and I shall wait the time when proof shall be made that Justification by faith in opposition to works makes man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The efficient and that Justification by works gives it to God onely If this be once made good I shall be more sorry than ever for holding such self-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Justification by faith and that ever I opposed that self-denying man-depressing doctrine of Justification by works and shall hence forth conclude Where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law of faith Nay but by the Law of works There is added Yet all this had never caused me to open my mouth against it but for the next viz. I found that many learned Divines did not onely assert this instrumentality but laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification it is say they that they fundamentally erre and we principally differ and that in these four Points Four great errours laid to the charge of Reformers 1. About the formal cause of our righteousnesse which say these Divines is the formal righteousnesse of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde in the habitual righteousnesse of his humane nature and others the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which justifies which most of our forreign Reformers say is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sin by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof Adding his own censure I doubt not but all these four are great errours Of how dangerous consequence soever it is that man should be made the efficient of justifying and pardoning himself yet it had pass'd without controll if worse than this had not been vented by the learned of the reformed Religion It is yet well that when the ignorance of all his professed Antagonists is of that eminence that yet so many learned are on their party Those learned errours should be taken into further consideration and some that are learned have entred the lists with Mr. Baxter in them The second of these great errours he tells us is true and how a great errour can be true I cannot tell unlesse his meaning be that it is truly an errour which is as high an equivocal speech as any that is fastened upon the Scriptures And when this second is true I cannot see and I think few of his Readers will see how the first to which it relates can be false If it be true that by Gods imputation of this righteousnesse of Christ we are legalitèr esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ then that is true also that they say that Christ is our righteousnesse or that the righteousnesse of Christ of meer grace is made ours And how much good will is here shewen to the reforming part is too manifest in making one Party amongst them to hold The natural righteousnesse of Christs Divine nature is not our Justification that the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature is our Justification as Bellarmine did before him and is answered by Davenant de just habit p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Protestants have exploded Hosiander It being his singular opinion and another sayes This opinion was almost like Jonas his gourd that did presently wither As for the third the charge is upon our forreign Reformers onely and not upon all that have idly busied their learned heads in this bad cause They onely say that saith is a full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood I shall request from him therefore a Latine Treatise for their better information in this thing and not to trouble Controversies in English with that in which his English Antagonists stand right himself being witnesse Neither is it all forreign Divine that go that way Gomarus putting it to the question saith That there be some of those that have opposed Papists on either part All forreign Reformers make no faith a full perswasion and himself determines with them that side in this with our English Reformers Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in these three our English Reformers at least stand fully acquitted That which followes I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers That which troubled me saith he was this to think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the reformed Religion For who can imagine but that young Popish students will be confirmed in the rest of their religion when they find that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our doctrine especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant cause what wonder if they judg our cause naught It is a greater wonder that old Popish students have not discovered this to their novices but have left this work to Mr. Baxter to give them light in this in which Reformers so erre and unreformed Papists stand right so that it must be his work not Bellarmines Stapletons Suarez or any others to unreform But lest this should be a stumbling block to offence that so eminent a man that is like if himself may be heard to draw away so many speaks out such Language let us oppose against him on the other hand Albertus Pighius whom those of his party as Peter Martyr saies loc com pag. 541. made their Achilles and thought that he alone by his subtile wit had pierced into the inward Mysteries of truth So that I hope I am not too low in my comparison Pighius
a principal efficient Mr. Baxter is I am sure as zealous as I can be to assert a conditionate Covenant and if an adversary be as streight-laced to him and me in that as he is to me in this he will hardly prove a condition either in the Covenant of works or grace I will as soon find the word instrument in Scripture applyed to justification as he shall find the word condition applyed to either Covenant And he can name I think no word implying a condition that is alwayes put for a condition and the context wheresoever we are said to be justified by faith or that Christ is a propitiation through faith is in all indifferent Readers eyes as clear for an instrument in justification as those which he and I can bring which yet are clear enough for a conditionate Covenant And that doctrine hath farre more adversaries then this though there is little cause that any man should be an adversary in either He sayes the same answer serves to Act. 15.9 and then the same reply may serve There followes To what you say from Rom. 8.13 I reply 1. An adjutor or concause is ill called an instrument must the Spirit needs be our instrument because it is by the Spirit as if by signified onely an instrument Mr. Baxters head was doubtlesse on somewhat else either when he read these passage of mine or when he framed his answer I never had it in my thoughts that justification is expressely spoken to in any of these texts nor was it my businesse to find out any instrument in them though I doubt not but that faith is spoken to instrument in two of them and as a condition non-instrumental in none of them neither did I dream of making the Spirit an instrument All that I intended was to prove The acts of God are entitled to man and the acts of man to God in Scripture that the acts of man were intitled to God and so the acts of God to man not considering as the businesse in hand let not to it about what these acts are exercised if they prove that It is to me sufficient whether it be in Justification Sanctification Mortification or any other work There is added 2. All this is nothing to the businesse of justification nothing directly immediately but much by way of Analogy It is enough to prove That to be the instrument of man and the instrument of God are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if he desire a proof more punctually applyed to justification let him consult Rom 3.30 It is one God that shall justifie the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith and Gal. 3.8 The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith Faith for justification is usually ascribed to man being properly his act and therefore that text of the Prophet Hab. 2.4 The just shall live by his faith is by the Apostle more then once applyed to justification And in the text now quoted this act of faith is ascribed to God for that work I explained my self man neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both c. To this is answered If man justifie not himself and yet faith be his instrument of justifying then farewell old Logick Mr. Baxter is the first great Logitian that I ever heard talk so much of his Logick in the last Section but one we had it and now we have it in the same thing again there I shewed that old Logick may stand and yet his consequence not yeelded 2. It is said If man sanctifie not himself under God as to the progresse and acts of sanctification then farewell old Theology And if man may be said to sanctifie himself further then hath been said or so as to be a principal efficient which will follow from Mr. Baxters reasonings then welcome the newest Divinity It will not be denyed that a sanctified man differs from one that is unsanctified and then in case it may be allowed to say I sanctifie my self he may say I make my self to differ which I never heard that any in direct termes would say against the Apostle but Grevenchovius as I find him cited by Dr. Featly and yet it seems it is my great error that I will not say so I lift man up in that height in justification as to pardon his own sin in holding that it is of faith that it may be of grace not of works lest any should boast And I raise him not high enough in sanctification If I say no more then that by faith he receives power from God by the Spirit for it that text 1 Pet. 1.22 would farre better have served my purpose if I had first hit upon it The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in sanctification Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit They that have done any thing in purifying their hearts through the Spirit will rather entitle the Spirit of God then themselves to it and will judge that he rather then they should be denominated a sanctifier And for other texts that are hinted and one mentioned 2 Cor. 7.1 To argue from the Command to the power is that old Theologie that I am ready to bid farewell to As God requires it so he doth often undertake it and declares that it is his work to do it Ezek. 36.25 26. Deut. 30.6 I think few will say that they make their own hearts new There is added 3. To close with God in pardoning me signifieth not that I pardon my self or that I or any act of mine is an efficient cause of pardon This is for me therefore I am contented it should be said over again and my faith is the instrument wherewith I close with God In case it be the instrument wherewith I receive Christ as Mr. Baxter hath sometimes yeelded There followes 4. When you say that faith as an instrument receiveth righteousnesse to justification you speak exactly the conceptions of most Divines that I have met with or read that go your way and therefore these words deserve a little further consideration and after some enquiry into their meaning There is added but these things must be more accurately considered I think Here it is confessed that I tread in the beaten road and that I do appear in the common cause and comparing what is here said with that which in his conclusion he delivers The Author is confest to appear in the common cause in behalf of Protestants It appears that the Divines of this corner of the world for 1300. years past have all taken this way which is all that go under the name Protestant whether Calvinist or Lutheran as they are wont to be distinguished I shall therefore expect that some of those that by grace have obtained to be as of the first three among Davids worthies will step in with their Auxiliary helps in case the
the mercy-seat durst not lift up his eyes to heaven seeing a large list of sins and not of vertues or praise-worthy carriages goes away justified rather then the Pharisee Here is a subject morally qualified to be a fit patient to be justified not yet actually justified which also was their case Acts 2.37 with the Jaylours Act. 16.30 which I think neither Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Woodbridge can find affirmed of any actually in the faith who according to Scripture are actually justified and not barely qualified to be fit patients in due time to receive it There followes I would have Pareus here put against this which is quoted out of Mr. Woodbridge speaking by way of objection against the Orthodox doctrine of Justification he saith Faith justifies that is Fides justificat i. e. disponit ad justitiam Respondeo Glossa contorta Scripturae ignota et repugnans Justificare enim dicitur fides accipiendo donum justitiae absque operibus non disponendo ad justitiam Nec justificatio fit per motum sicut calefactâ—o sed per imputationem Quod si sicret per motum admodum impâ—oprie fidei tribueretur Neque enim motus ad rem est res ipsa nec dispositio generat sed est via ad generationem Non igitur per motum dispositionis fides justificat it disposes or fits for Justification and answers A wrested glosse unknown to Scripture and contrary to it For faith is said to justifie by receiving the gift of righteousnesse without works and not by disposing for righteousnesse Neither is Justification by motion as is warmth but by imputations And if it were by motion it were most improperly ascrib'd to faith Neither is motion to a thing the thing it self nor doth a disposition obtain any thing but is the way to obtain it Therefore faith do's not justifie by any motion of disposition Pareus in Rom 3. Dub. 8. The reason of this is That this is onely donation or the will of the donour signified that can efficiently convey a right to his own benefits the receiver is not the giver and therefore not the conveyer of right I wonder what this is a reason of if it be intended for a reason of that which goeth immediately befote that faith doth morally qualifie in the way mentioned it is above me to see any reason in it It is further said Every instrument is an efficient cause and therefore must effect and it is onely giving that effecteth this right But it effects no such right without receiving where it is given upon that proviso that it be thus and thus received After much ado and to what purpose let others judge The conclusion is The great thing therefore that I affirm is this that if you will needs call faith the instrument of apprehending Christ or righteousnesse yet doth it not justifie proxime formaliter as such but as the condition of the gift performed And the great thing that I would affirm is That the instrumental apprehending Christ or righteousnesse is this condition of the gift It is given upon condition that we make use of our faith to apprehend it and so the summe is That faith doth not justifie formaliter proxime as apprehending Christ or righteousnesse because it doth justifie proxime formaliter as thus apprehending Faith as a condition certainly doth somewhat and this it is that it doth according to the Scripture The eighth and last of his accurate heads followes In which he saies he opens his meaning together about this point though as he saies with some repetitions I cannot then without repetitions give any further answer which to the Reader would be too troublesome yet somewhat is observable that I find not before Faith saith he must first be faith i. e. apprehensio Christi in order of nature before it can be the condition of right Actual existence not necessary to the being of a condition in a Covenant If faith must have an actual being before it can be the condition of right then perfect obedience according to the old rule as Mr. Baxter calls it must first be perfect obedience in actual being before it can be a condition of the Covenant of works and so it will follow that that Covenant hath no condition seeing there is no such actual obedience A condition may be a condition though not made good though never made good The delivery in of an hundred foreskins of the Philistines was Davids condition for Marriage of Sauls daughter before any Philistine was slain and had stood as a condition though had never been given in If he mean that faith must be faith before the condition be made good this is false for the actual being of it is the making of it good and so it is as much as if I said I must wink in order of nature before I shut my eyes He further distinguishes of apprehensio Christi and conditio praestita when apprehensio Christi is conditio praestita as though I should distinguish between Abrahams sacrificing of his son and his obedience of Gods command in sacrificing him when all know that his sacrificing him was his obedience To say that there is such a thing as faith in the general notion before Christ doth constitute a condition were somewhat but to say that we believe or apprehend Christ before we perform the condition is to say we must perform the condition before we perform it Having led the Reader through all this accuratenesse I must further consider his animadversions I said The Spirit will do nothing without our faith and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit man cannot justifie himself by believing without God and God will not justifie an unbelieving man faith then is the act of man man believes yet the instrument of God that justifies onely believers To which I have a multiplication either of answers and scornes in place of answers 1. It is said The Spirits working in sanctification is nothing to our question of justification It is yet somewhat for illustration for which alone it was brought though nothing for proof for which it was never intended 2. It is said The Spirit works our first faith without faiths coworking and that is more then nothing What need he to have told me this when I had told it him before as the Reader may see in words which he omits I speak there of the Spirits work in the soul where faith is implanted 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action before faith moveth it self Here is an exception to fill up the number If I move my pen to write before it move then I write something without my pen. 4. It is said It is not so easily proved as said That the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the soul nor yet restraineth from any evill without the coworking of faith But why is not this disproved with ease I would know for my learning what act of the Spirit upon a beleeving soul is
clearnesse as to accuse the doctrine of his adversaries which are all Reformers Forreign and English of such notable obscurity I must now look into that which he hath said for the sole-sufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant of the Gospel to stand in stead of faith for an instrument in this work And if I meet with no more satisfaction in this then in the former I must crave leave to say that I have very little in either I said in my Treatise of the Covenant The promise or grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel is instead of faith made the instrument in the work of justification adding This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the Covenant of God the promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise up man to justification To which Mr. Baxter replyes I say there is none but Gods for non datur instrumentum quod non est causae principalis instrumentum And I say still that God acts not in this work without the concurrence of him that is justified which Mr. Baxter grants And this concurrence of man having its instrument In justification of man God acts not without man God thereby doth carry on his work otherwise the Apostle had not onely said that God is a justifier of those that believe in Jesus Rom. 3.26 but also that he justifies the circumcision by faith and the uncircumsion through faith And this act of man is interpretativè the instrument of God but more directly and properly the instrument of man where I say it is of it self unable to raise up man to justification he gives in his answer In which we have First his concession what of it self it is not able to do Secondly his assertion what of it self it can do Thirdly his explication under what notion it doth it His concession is That it is not of it self able to do all other works antecedent to justification Mr. Baxters concession as to humble to give faith regenerate c. But he doth not tell us from whence it hath any supply for those antedaneous works or whether it be employed in those works at all His assertion is that as to the act of justification His assertion or conveying right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse it is able of it self But it is worth our enquiry to whom this new Covenant grant doth convey right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse whether to the unhumbled unbelieving unregenerate or to the humble believing and regenerate soul The former are not in a present capacity of him and the latter are already in possession if he can find me an humble believing regenerate man void of all right to Christ pardon and righteousnesse I will confesse that the grant of the new Covenant is of it self able to do what Mr. Baxter sayes I looked that he should have proved that the grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel doth this constitutivè as he useth to speak That it should work an unjustified man up to a justified state but it seems he will have it to do it onely declarative to make it appear that he is already justified which honours is very low and that about which I intend not to raise disputes If I mistake him and that he will say that he means more then a naked declaration I would he would explaine himself and speak out what more it is that he inteds for if he intend more I know not how to help him out of an high contradiction seeing he talkes of conveyance right to them that all know are possessed before-hand of right The same Gospel-grant which works those antecedaneous acts of which he speaks doth together convey right to all those in whom such a work is found It is able to do it of it self as he explaines himself ac signum voluntatis divinae but where is it revealed from God that either the unhumbled unbelieving unregenerate shall have right to Christ pardon justification or that the humble believing regenerate want it Faith with Mr. Baxter is an acceptance of a freely given Christ and life in him how doth a man in faith stand in need of a new conveyance of right to him There followes If you should mean that that of it self i. e. without the concomitance of faith as a condition is not able I answer that is not fitly called disablity or if you will so call it the reason of that disability is not because there is a necessity of faiths instrumentall coefficiency but of its presence as the performed condition It being the will of the donor that his grant should not efficere actualites till the condition were performed This assertion That there is no efficiency in faith but a naked presence to stand by and as it were to look on in the work of justification calls for some proof seeing he well knowes that among all Reformers his adversaries this will passe for so high a Paradox How is Christ a propitiation through faith and how are we still said to be justified by faith If no more then a bare presence is required the presence of other graces is equally required as love meeknesse temperance chastity they have still been confest necessary in justification quoad presentiam though not quoad efficientiam yet Mr. Baxter can I think no where shew that Christs is set forth a propitiation through any one of these graces or that we are justified by love meeknesse temperance c. I shall as soon believe that the presence of the eye is barely required for sight without further efficiency as I shall believe that the bare presence of faith is required and no more for justification and where he will will prove that it is the will of the Donor that his grant should not efficere actualiter till the condition be performed intending as he expresseth himself that after the condition is performed a new grant must passe actualy to effect this right I cannot tell when the condition is to accept Christ which is present possession They cannot take Christ for justification but by virtue of this grant and when they have thus taken him and are possest of him must they have a new grant for right to him If I give a begger a gift upon condition that he will come and take it when he hath taken it and is possest of it hath he need of any further grant of right to it I said It is often tendered and justication not alwayes wrought and so disabled from the office of an instrument by Keckerman in his Comment on his first Canon concerning an instrument As soon as the instrument serves not the principal agent so soon it loseth the nature of an instrument mentioning instances that he gives and adding neither is the Gospel an instrument of justification where it justifies not Mr. Baxter being gotten into a vein that he hath not yet a mind to leave replyes I am too shallow to reach the reason of
these words I know you had not leisure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper 1. I may fear there was a worse end in the reply then barely to fill paper In contentions of this nature it is easie for great wits voluble tongues and nimble pens to be more then vain And here is scarce fair declaring to cut off my words before any full period and so render them to the Reader That my meaning cannot be seen till he have gone over three or four Sections interlaced with needlesse triflings 2. If Mr. Baxter know as he sayes that I will not own such an argumentation as he there frames without so much as colour of sense in it which were vain to repeat what was his end but meerly to fill up paper or somewhat worse in framing of it A Reader of half Mr. Baxters wit if he look on my words as they lye in my Treatise and not as mangled by his divisions may easily see another way of argumentation and such that carries sense and I leave to the Reader whether or no it carries strength And for his satisfaction Tht Authors argument against the sole-sufficiency of Covenant grace as instrument in justification I thus put it into forme That which often failes of obtaining the end for which it is employed and never can attain to it without the concurrence of some other with it is no sole instrument in any work But the Gospel or Covenant-grant often failes of attaining that end of justification when it is to that end published and imployed and never can obtain it without the concurrence of somewhat further to be joyned with it Ergo it is no sole instrument in the work Mr. Br. signifies that it may still be the same thing and have the same aptitude to produce the effect even when it is not applyed I answer then Mr. Kendall hath well told him it is an instrument aptitudinaliter and is no instrument in actual being but when the end is obtained and then it is no sole instrument being not sole in producing the effect Mr. Baxter takes it for granted that it alwayes hath its effect when it is employed and I took it for granted that it is often employed and the effect not produced but I did not then think that Mr. Baxter had meant an application to convey right where right is already in possession I added When the Minister is a Minister of condemnation and the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death and so comes short of justification To this is replyed 1. So it is if there be no Minister where it is known any way 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel you speak of his commination 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari the promise or gift is the proper instrument of justification I grant his first and he threapes kindnesse with me in the two last he will have me to speak of the threat onely when I speak as well as he of Gods grant or promise Gospel promises are a savour of death to many This is a savour of death unto death unto many It is as great an evil to sleight a Promise as to disobey a Command or neglect a threatning his third therefore migt well have been spared but that I intend not to trifle away time I could easily shew him if I had spoke of threat a great disparity I added which should not have come in thus dismembred The efficacy that is in the Gospel for justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred To this is replyed Darkly but dangerously spoken and reasons given For it is possible you may mean that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine qua homo non est subjuctum proxime capax and so I grant the sense There is no possiblity that I should mean so having sufficiently as he after observes declared my self to the contrary if I understand his sine qua non frequently found in his writings which men eminently learned professe they do not It followes Dangerously for the words would seem to any impartial Reader to import more viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel It is my meaning that the word is inefficacious without faith and that faith renders it efficacious not by infusion of any new power into it but raising up the soul with strength to answer it which is not barely said but proved But my bare speech must first be censured and then my proof in a disjunct way at pleasure as we shall see dealt with A reason is rendred why for the truths sake and my own these words have never been seen For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy 1. It cannot be as a concause instrumental coordinate but as a superiour more principal cause to the subordinate By Mr. Baxters leave I do believe that concauses instrumental may receive efficacy one from another The thred hath efficacy from a needle and is a concause instrumental to sow up a rent or to make a seam or hem The line gives efficacy to the anglers hook to take a fish I believe he hath seen a knife touched with a Loadstone fetch up a needle from the bottome of a vessel of water Here the hand is the principall agent or the man using his hand The knife is the instrument yet such an instrument as receives efficacy from the spirits of the Loadstone as a concause instrumental The Gospel works no more without faith then a knife in this thing can work without a Loadstone It followes 2. If it were the former that is meant yet it were intolerable For which reasons are given but how these hang together I know not His former now spoken to was brought in as the first in order to disprove what I had said taking my words in the second sense which he gives of them and this which is in order the second is to shew by three reasons that in case they be taken in the first sense which he himself professedly grants yet it were intolerable seeing therefore that I take it not in that sense and if I did he grants the sense there is no cause that I should trouble my self with his Reasons I added in way of proof Heb. 4.2 Unto us was the Gospel preached c. 1 Thess 2.12 13. To which is replyed But where 's your conclusion or any shew of advantage to your cause I must speak nothing it seems but syllogismes in form and he that cannot here make up a syllogisme and find out a formall conclusion is a very Infant in Logick In the first Text the Apostle as he sayes speaks of the Words profiting in the reall change of the soul and our question is of the relative Heb. 4.2 Vindicated And what shew of proof is there that it is
it such To which I say I read in Divines of a justification active and that is the work of God and a justification passive of which man is the subject as I read of a double miraculous faith one active to work a cure the other passive to be cured Paul saw that the Cripple at Lystra had faith to be healed Acts 14.9 Yet I suppose that this is called a passive faith not that it acted not at all which is contradicted by Christ in saying Thy faith hath made thee whole but that it served for a passive work on the diseased so I think this faith which tends to our justification is not meerly passive though it serves for such a work as receives that denomination When I receive a gift that enriches I act Yet he that gives onely does enrich and I that receive am enriched so it is in justification we do not justifie but are justified and yet act in receiving Christ for justification as sick ones in Christs tyme did not heal but were healed yet their faith acted for cure and ours for justification I confesse I did somewhat needlessely runne upon this discourse of passive instruments upon occasion of Mr. Pembles words and Mr. Baxters denyal that there was any such thing as a passive instrument never intending to make faith meerly passive which was never my opinion neither am I altogether without scruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers yet I would have those that are confidently opposite to weigh the streng◠〈◊〉 his reasons and find out if they can a more moderate middle◠〈◊〉 to ascribe somewhat more to the Word without injury do◠〈◊〉 the working of Gods Spirit I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either and of two extreames detracting from the Spirit I take to be the greater which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry further to determine I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occasion of some passages in Mr. Baxters Aphorismes I mentioned that if Burgersdicius his gladius and culter be active instruments and Keckermans incus c. yet it followeth not that there is no passive instrument but onely to rectifie Mr. Baxters complaint that these words do import an intimation as he expresses it that I said all these were active instruments And as the words stand in my Book it is hard to say what they import It should have been expressed and Keckermans incus c. and his scamnum and mensa accubitus and terra ambulationis no instruments which words I know not by what meanes were left out yet the Reader may see that they were intended seeing they are opposed to the other which are made active instruments But so much is spoken of passive instruments by others that I may well spare my paines neither is it any way necessary for me to speak to them seeing though I doubt not but there are thousands of such kind of instruments I put not faith into that number as I know many godly learned do But it is easie to bear a dissent in a word of art when the thing in question is agreed upon As to the rest which followes in this tract against me in this thing there is very little but what hath been spoken to and this paper already growing more big then is meet for an interposition in this kind in a positive Treatise though not impertinent to the subject in hand I am loath to cause it to swell further with impertinencies onely I must take notice of two passages one where I am charged with ignorance the other with complyance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit In the first there are several particulars 1. A charge of misunderstanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped that I had understood better I suspect saith he by your words when you say the Word is produced and held forth of God and by your discourse all along that you understand not what I mean by the Covenants justifying yet I had hoped you had understood the thing it self So 〈◊〉 it is taken for granted that he cannot be mistaken when 〈◊〉 â—ruth is known Mr. Baxters writings and truth are one and 〈◊〉 same 2. My error is detected and I am sent where I may understand my self better You seem to think that the Covenant justifies by some real operation on the soul as the Papists say and our Divines say it sanctifies or as it doth justifie in foro Conscientiae by giving assurance and comfort but Sir saith he I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoris pag. 173 174 c. I scarce bestowed so many words on any one particular point But I marvel that it should be expected that my new learning should be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered seeing himself there speaks with so much vacillancy Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and hesitation in this doctrine pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein justification is conferred upon every believer and in the close of all when he hath spoke his full mind he addes pag. 180. This is the present apprehension I have of the nature of remission and justification adding Si quid novisti rectigus c. But now he peremptorily sayes I speak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens heart but as it is lex promulgata foedus testamentum and so doth convey right or constitute the duenesse of the benefit 1 Joh. 5.11 12. I would learn of my Catechrist that is now thus raised out of douhtings in this manner to take the chair 1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant which is the transient act in which justification is conferred on every believer find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it If so then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant if not whether he presupposeth that men upon the Lawes promulgation will believe of themselves without any further work or whether God makes use of any other instrument for the work of faith If these be answered in the negative that men will not believe of themselves upon such promulgation nor there is any other like instrument for this work then I think it must follow that God makes use of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe and so I am further confirmed in my former supposed mistake that the Covenant works by a real operation on the soul in order to justification Namely By working men out of unbelief into faith I had thought that when Paul and Appollos are Ministers by whom men believe that they had by the means of this encted or promulgated Covenant brought men to this posture And though justification be a relative change and not a real as is truly affirmed yet that a real change had been wrought in the soul for this work Whereas
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
This proposition consists of two parts 1. That faith puts into possession of Christ 2. That justification necessarily followes this possession But I shall stand upon the proof of neither seeing as in themselves they are plain so they are confessed by Mr. Baxter Faith then is either the efficient or instrument in our justication Not the efficient all know and therefore an instrument 4. That which is ascribed in Scripture both to God and man in a work in which there is a concurrence of God and man in such expressions which usually hold forth the efficiency of an instrument and cannot fairly be interpreted otherwise is not unfitly called an instrument both of God and man in such a work This I know not how fairly can be denyed and any man will but abuse his reason that calls for a proof of it But faith in Scripture is ascribed both to God and man in the work of justification in which there is a mutual concurrence of God and man and in words that usually hold out the working of an instrument and cannot fairly be interpreted otherwise Therefore faith is not unfitly called the instrument of God and man in justification The Minor consists of four parts 1. That faith in justification is ascribed both to God and man and this consists also of two parts 1. That faith is ascribed to God in justification and this we have already proved from Rom. 3.30 Gal. 3.8 as it is also ascribed to him in sanctification Act. 17.9 2. That it is ascribed to man in justification which is held out to us wheresoever we are said to be justified by faith seeing faith is the act of man and the Prophet tells us The just shall live by his faith which the Apostle applyes to justification Rom. 1.17 Gal. 3.11 The second part in this Proposition is That there is a mutual concurrence of God and man in this work as God gives a discharge so man accepts Which by Mr. Br. himself is acknowledged according to that before quoted out of Austin The third part is That thâ—â— is ascribed to God and man in expressions that usually hold forth the efficiency of an instrument which the phrases by and through do manifest The fourth is That it cannot be fairly interpreted otherwise or of any other thing but an instrument And this is also clear Either it must hold out a meritorious cause a meer condition or else an instrument A meritorious cause none will say a meer condition or bare causa sine quâ non it cannot be for two reasons 1. Such phrases are uncouth to say That a thing is done by that which is meerly a condition sine quâ non of it 2. There are many other such conditions to which this is never thus applyed as the Apostle saith To which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And again I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Sonne Heb. 1.5 To which of the Angels said he at any time Sit on my right hand untill I make thine enemies thy footstoole Heh 1.13 so we may say To which of the graces when all are reckoned up by number was it ever said that we are justified by it Tthe conclusion then followes as before that faith is an instrument of God and man in justification 5. Out of this we may more briefly thus argue If the holy Ghost single out faith from among all other graces which are yet conditions or causae sine quibus non and ascribes alone to it that which in the ordinary acceptation holds out an instrumental efficiency then it is not a bare condition or causa sine quâ non but an instrumental efficient But the holy Ghost singles out faith from among all other graces which are conditions and causae sine quibus non and ascribes to it and no other that which in the ordinary acceptation implies an iâ—strumental efficiency The conclusion then followes that faith is an instrumental efficient in justification Lastly To bring if it may be a compromizing argument If faith works at least that which is proportionable to an instrument properly and rigidly so called in the work of justification then it is not unfitly called by the name of an instrument This is plain that which does work that every way answers to the work of an instrument that may fitly be called by that name But faith works at least that which is proportionable to the work of an instrument This is confest by Mr. Br. who is ready to yield that it should be called Instrumentum Metaphoricum and a Metaphor is a figure whereby a word is carried out of its most proper signification unto an other that carries resemblance and proportion with it In case then it does not that whch is proportionable to an instrument properly so called it is no instrumentum Metaphporicum but Catachresticon And indeed Mr. Baxters glosse renders it such a Catachresis as may make all Rhetorique ashamed of it A Metaphoricall Instrument that shall have no resemblance of an instrument in it But if any will say that an instrument is externall sensible whether it be for operation or reception but faith is internall invisible and therefore no instrument rigidly and properly so called though there be no cogent reason to yield it for as is the agent so well may be the instrument yet I shall not be so stiff to contend about it yield that it doth the work to put into Christ from whom Justification necessarily followes and I will no longer contend about the Word but let it be an instrument in exact property of speech or in a Metaphor as men shall please As to that of the sole sufficiency of the Word without faith as an instrument in Justification I might take up an argument from Mr. Baxters and thus reason That which cannot bring a man to the works that are antecedent to justification cannot justify This is clear That which cannot work the prerequisites cannot work the thing it self But the Word alone according to Mr. Baxter cannot bring a man to these antecedent works Sect. 14. Chap. 29. Ergo. But I shall content my self at present with this onely That which the Word saies is done by faith it cannot do without it This is clear But the Word saies and frequently saies we are justified by faith Ergo the Word cannot justify without faith Here some distinction must be used if any evasion be endeavored But then it must be confessed that it is an other kind of justification that is spoke to by Mr. Baxter then is laid down in Scripture For Scripture-justification is still by faith that is the Holy Ghosts constant language And to come to a right understanding if it may be of parties somewhat must be yielded and somewhat asserted and maintained That which must be yielded is That God in his Word declares upon what terms a man may attain unto justification and to this the Word
to the question Saving from the power of Sin Sanctifies and not Justifies Your fourth Of faiths receiving Christ as he Justifies us affirming that he Justifies us as King Judge and Benefactor is the same for ought I can discern with your tenth and there is to be considered Your fifth is If receiving Christ as Satisfier and Meritor be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds we must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification If you put this argument into form the word meritor will be found aequivocall and the Syllogism to consist of four termes We look at Christ for Justification as satisfying Justice and meriting pardon and remission not as meriting Sanctification Sixthly you say Rejecting Christ as a King is the condemning sin therefore receiving him as King is the Justifying faith This is like the old argument Evill works merit condemnation Ergo good works merit salvation An ill meaning damnes Prov. 21.27 Our good meaning therefore saves I further answer Rejecting Christ as a King is a sin against the Morall Law which damnes Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Morall Law is required that a sinner may be saved You give in your reason of your consequent Because unbelief say you condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the Justifying Faith explaining your self that you speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the New Law To this I answer Unbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemne further then as it is a breach of a Morall Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be your judgment as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the New Law as you call it to an Act of Oblivion And an Act of Oblivion saves many but condemnes none If a Traytor or Murtherer be exempted in any such Act of Oblivion it is their crime that condemnes them only the Act provides no remedy for them It harmes them not only it does not help them If one of those which were stung by the fiery serpent Numb 21. had refused to have look'd on the brazâ—n serpent The sting had been his death and such obstinate refusall had kept him from the meanes of cure Your seventh is Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath Answ If you had said A condition you had spoken fairlier The condition implies the sole condition The yeelding up of our selves to him in all his functions as the Lords Christ vers 2. is there understood which is of necessity in all that will escape his wrath Eighthly you say Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of case and of rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our comming to Christ as a teacher and example of meeknesse and lowlinesse and our learning of him a taking on us his yoke and burthen Answ This text shewes the duty of men to be not alone to seek rest and ease from Christ but to learn of Christ and follow him But neither their learning nor their imitation but faith in his blood is their freedome or Justification Ninthly you say That faith which is the condition of salvation is the condition of Justification or remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as a satisfier that is the condition of our salvation Therfore c. Answ Here the Conclusion is safely granted You know that we yeeld that the faith that accepts Christ as a King Justifies But that is not the Justifying act The hand hath more officers then one It works as well as receives and so hath faith And that there is more reqâ—ired as a condition to Salvation then to Justification speaking of it in Scripture phrase you yeeld sufficiently where you distinguish of Justification begun the condition whereof is faith only and Justification consummate there you bring in Repentance and Obedience That which you call Justification begun is Justification properly so called Faith only is serviceable to reconcile us unto God but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications to hold us up in communion with God Of this I have spoke Chap. 1.2 13 14. of my treatise of the Covenant Your tenth and last reason is If accepting Christ a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Justificat i. e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is meerly strictly and properly the Justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs righteousnesse is But the Antecedent you say is granted by all Divines that you have to do with Therefore c. Answ If they grant your Antecedent simply as in this phrase you deliver it I much marvell This seemes to imply that Christ acted quà Lord in paying the price of our Redemption and that this work of his is to be referred to his exaltation and not to his state of humiliation And I am sure the Scripture speaks otherwise That which I yeeld is That the faith which accepts Christ who is our Lord and Redeemer is the faith which Justifies and the condition of our Justification But as it lookes upon Redemption a sacrificing act of Priest-hood The distinctias fides quae and fides quà asserted done by him who is indeed a Lord and King sit only Justifies But this distinction of Fides quae Justificat and Fides quà Justificat is as you are pleas'd to say the generall cheat so that your Antecedent it seemes is granted you by all those Divines with whom you deal under this limit And as it seems you have met with a pack of impostors that of the most learned in the Land that out of their great condescension have written for your satisfaction This word you think sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon as indeed it doth and is no small blemish to his great paines you may then judge how it will take from your self in the ears of others And I much marvell that this distinction that every where else would passe and be confessed to be of necessity to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities in which men usually act should here not alone be questioned but thus branded Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variously act according to them And do not men that make addresse addresse themselves in like variety He that is at once a Husband a Parent a Master a School-master a Physician acts variously according to all of these capacities Some come to him as a father some as a Master some as a Teacher all of them come unto him as a Physician But only they that come to him as a Physician are cur'd by him Believers through faith go to Christ that bears all the relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding which is an act of his Priest-hood they are justified Learned Amesius may
personally righteous And in this sense it is that the faith and duties of believers are said to please God viz. as they are related to the covenant of Grace and not as they are measur'd by the Covenant of works Are not faith and duties here our personall righteousnesse and is not faith a branch of holinesse as well as it is of righteousnesse And hath it not its degrees as well as righteousness Surely the Apostles thought so when they prayed Lord increase our faith Luk. 17.5 And the Lord Christ had no other thoughts when he rebukes his hearers for their little faith Matth. 6.30 And commends the Woman of Canaan for the greatnesse of her faith Matth. 15.28 And as it riseth and falls so do other duties with it they are more intense or remisse in like manner And as for their speeches which you challenge do you think that their ignorance was in that measure intolerable as to believe the righteousnesse of what they spake was a meer non-entity i.e. had nothing of the being of righteousnesse in it They doubtlesse looked upon righteousnesse as a renewed quality as you do upon holinesse and the Apostle both upon holinesse and righteousnesse Eph. 4.24 The new man is so put on that we must be still putting it on It follows that seeing these things are exactioris indigationis understand that the reason of my assertion lyes here The law as it is the rule of obedience doth require perfect obedience in degree and so here is an imperfection in our actions in the degree as being short of what the rule requireth and it being these actions with their habits which we call our holinesse therefore we must needs say our holinesse is imperfect And if our righteousnesse were to be denominated from this law commanding perfection we must say not that such righteousnesse were imperfect because the holinesse or obedience is imperfect but it is none at all because they are imperfect It seems you intend here exactnesse equall to that in which you appeared to the learned brother before mentioned and as you did distinguish before of a metaphysicall and morall perfection so you seem here to distinguish of righteousnesse and holinesse either as a duty performed by men in the Covenant of grace according to rule or else as a condition required by the Covenant of works respective to the attainment of life upon terms there required This seems to be your meaning in your last words in this Paragraph Duty simply as duty and holiness or supernaturall grace as such may be more or less But holiness and duty as the materia requisita vel subjectum proximum justitiae consistit in indivisibili How duty and holiness can be the subject of it self I know not for so they are if they be the subjects of righteousness That righteousness in which we must exceed the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees is our duty and our holiness as well as of our righteousness but if you carry it thence to make it the righteousness of the covenant of works it is easily granted that the imperfection of it renders it as no righteousness respective to that end of attainment of life by it A Pharisee might as well be justified upon the terms of that covenant as Noah Daniel and Job Zachary and Elizabeth or any other of those that were most perfect and eminent in righteousness But I think no Reader could observe either in your own words or theirs that you censure any such meaning To assert the imperfection of our righteousness I said Isaiah I am sure saith All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is 64.6 no greater charge of imperfection can lie against the most imperfect holiness then the Prophet layes upon our righteousness Interpreting the Prophets words as I think the sense of them is generally given by interpreters ancient and modern But seeing you go off to speak of righteousness of another kind I will not contend I there added Neither do I understand how holiness should be imperfect taken materially and righteousness perfect taken formally in reference to a rule After such courteous censure that you please to give you fall to examine what that is that I understand not In which you take one piece of my sentence apart and say How holiness should be imperfect taken materially sure you understand that It is therefore say you no doubt the other branch that you mean How righteousness is perfect taken formally in reference to a rule If the Reader please to consult my words he may see that I put them not divisim but conjunctim giving in my reason why to me it is non-intelligible telling you that we may for ought I know as well make holiness formall and refer it to a rule and righteousness materiall in an absolute consideration without reference to any rule at all This you disjoyn from the rest and fall upon my words apart for what reason is best known to your self And I leave it to the Reader to judge whether that I may not call holiness perfect and righteousness imperfect as well as you may call righteousness perfect and holiness imperfect and whether there is not a materiality and formality not in the one or the other but in the one as well as the other and this was that which I spake to And any man that understands no more then I will I think take this to be a material exception against that which in your Aphorismes was delivered You say if you or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness if I once know your minds I will not contradict you for I find no pleasure in contending about Words but for my self I must use them in the common sense if I will be understood Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used But you might have done well to let us know that that is the common sense of the word righteousness taken for personall inherent righteousness which you here use till I see that made good I shall judge it to be your own peculiar acceptation of it I would know what interpreter of Zachary's words Luk. 1.75 of Paul's words Eph. 4.24 of John's words Revel 22.11 do put such a difference as you make between righteousnesse holiness as to make one a renewed quality of the Spirit the other no such thing but a relation in esse formali to what you must explain your self I have read so much difference indeed made as to put holiness for duties of the first Table in immediate reference to God righteousness for duties of the second Table in immediate concernment to man but thus taken they are both equally new qualities from the Spirit and have their intension and remission one as well as the other And I have read a rule given that where they are put together as in the Scriptures quoted they are to be distinguished as before but where the one is put apart it is to be understood as comprehensive of
speaking of agenda and not credenda and that here should be any rule de agendis but the precept determining of duty or that the promise There is a righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law or any act that goes along with the promise which what it means I cannot imagine should be any rule of our actions I never heard but from your mouth And for your inference That all our Actions and Habits comming short of the precept determining of duty no man therefore hath a righteousness consisting in this conformity I should think all but your self would take to be a Non sequitur There is a righteousness in conformity to the precept which yet fals short of a full and perfect conformity Look I pray you upon Zacharie and Elizabeth that have this praise in the Gospel that they were both righteous before God and by what rule this righteousness had its denomination let the Text be consulted If walking in all the ordinances and commandements of God blameless give men the denomination of righteousness then there is a righteousness in conformity to the precept But walking in all the commandments and ordinances of God denominates men righteous Ergo doing righteousness denominates righteous He that doth righteousness is righteous 1 John 4.7 And what should be the rule of doing but the precept I cannot imagine If we break the precept when we sin the precept is our rule but we break the precept when we sin 1 John 5.4 Abel hath often that Testimony to be righteous and that because his works were righteous 1 John 3.12 And so Lot in like manner 2 Pet. 2.8 there is a righteousness then in conformity to the Law of works though not to the covenant of works Zachary saies We are redeemed to serve without fear in holiness and righteousness before God B. concedimus renatos diligere deum proximum sed imperfectè diligere per consequens imperfectè legem implere Luk. 1.74 75. And this righteousness is not without its rule and hath no other rule then that which Zacharies righteousness had in the sixth verse of the same Chapter There is an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and so an imperfect righteousness in conformity to it b We grant saith Davenant that the regenerate love God and their neighbour but they love imperfectly and by consequence they fulfil the Law imperfectly de Justit actuali p. 551. And if you acknowledge an imperfection in Pauls frame as you say you do you then acknowledge an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and an imperfect conformity to the Law It is in reference to the Law that he had his imperfections and gradual inconformity He delights he saies in the Law in the inward man but sees an opposite power drawing him aside and he quotes the precept and not the promise annex'd Thou shalt not covet to which in such imperfection he conformed I added in my Treatise Whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers that commonly understand the word Righteousness and Righteous as it refers to the old Rule I profess my self to have little of their learning but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Here you first complain of want of candor in me in not repeating all that you spoke and if is but this once that I know that I am thus charged And the sense I think is full in those words that I do set down Secondly you go about to clear your self from some aspersions concerning harsh speeches used by you against learned Divines in which you say you speak not to me but to others standing thus charged by them and not by me In which I am well content that you should stand as right in your Readers eyes as you can desire and shall forbear to rake further into that ulcer Thirdly you take me to task and are content to put my name at length As for Mr. Blake's profession that he hath little of their learning but is wholly theirs in this ignorance I did still think otherwise of him and durst not to have describ'd him But yet my acquaintance with him is not so great as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself and I dare not judge but he speaks as he thinks Good Sir say it over again that it may be known from an hand of your eminence that I say my learning is little and that I speak it not more modestly then truly neither do you know how much I suffer that it is no more Yet least the cause in which I appear should suffer with me or rather in me let me assume so much boldnesse as to tell you that I yet think that that little which through grace I have obtained may serve to satisfie those arguments which this piece of yours holds forth against me I have been often confounded with your multitude but never perceived my self shatter'd by your strength not that my learning is equall with yours I know my self better then to enter such comparisons but your cause is unequall to mine Your advantage is not so great against me in the greatnesse of your abilities as mine against you in the goodnesse of the cause It would often go ill with a good cause if the most able Advocates should not sometimes be worsted in the presence of impartiall Judges Should you and I make exchange So that I were to appear in the cause that you maintain and you in that which I defend a weaker then you would easily do that which I think you have not yet done But your willingnesse is observable to take a hint from my mouth to strip me of all the learning of these learned men charged with intolerable ignorance and leave their ignorance only with me as the whole you are willing to allow me Yet in the next place you engage me to you in your endeavours to help me out of my ignorance in this Let me be hold to shew him say you part of that which he sayth he is wholly ignorant of That our personall inherent Righteousnesse is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant as if we were called righteous besides our imputed Righteousness only because our Sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works But I were ignorant indeed if you could surprize me with your confounding of these terms Law and Covenant Those two I take much to differ In your Aphorisms where you think you speak most full and here complain that I omitted somewhat of that which you there said you have the word Law and the word Rule But I hear not of the word Covenant at all But here Law and Covenant are confounded as though every Law were a Covenant and every Covenant a Law And I were yet more in ignorance if I should let your Syllogisms pass
sufficient Rule for us now for believing in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a generall command say you of believing all that God revealeth is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part c. To this I say 1. As before I think I may answer out of your own mouth where you say Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandement and unbelief is a breach of the first If we break the Commandement in unbelief then the Commandement binds us to believe 2. Much of that which I have spoke by way of answer to your former may be applyed to this likewise 3. I have already spoke to this that faith is a duty of the Moral Law Treat of the Covenant Chap. 3. pag. 18 19. To which I refer the Reader 4. If Adam had no command for faith then he was not in any capacity to believe and by his fall lost not power of believing And consequently it will not stand with the Justice of God to exact it at our hands having never had power for the performance of it 5. I say there was power in Adam for that faith that justified but not to act for justification Adam had that habit and the Law calls for it from all that are under the Command of it But the Gospel discovers the object by which a sinner through faith is Justified 3. The same answer may serve to your third objection 3. Exception which indeed is the same with the former only a great deal of flourishing is bestowed in discourse of the understanding and will paralleling them with the Prefaces grounds and occasions of Laws And at last bringing all to the Articles of the Creed to which enough allready is spoken 4. You say But what if all this had been left out 4. Exception and you had proved the Morall Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow theâ—efore that it is the only Rule Answ I take righteousnesse to be matter of duty and then the only Râ—le of duty is the only Rule of righteousnesse You say further Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding And I say Rewarding is none of our work but Gods and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours and that we are to make our business I confess an imperfection in it to give life but assert a perfection as thâ— Rule of our lives It justifies no man but it orders and regulates every justified man 5. You say The same I may say of the Rule of Punishment 5 Exception To which I give the same answer It is not our work bu Gods either to reward or punish And here you speak of a part of the penalty of the new Law And I know no penalty properly distinct from the penalty of the old You were wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to have their penalties You instance in that of the Parable None of them that were bidden shall tast of the supper when thâ— sin for which they there suffer is a breach of a Morall Command 6. You say The principall thing that I intend is 6. Exception that the Morall Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we muâ—t now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Vnjust To this I have already given a sufficient answer and if I had not you answer fully for me Aphor. p. 144 Thes 28. Where you say The precepts of the Covenant as meer precepts must be distinguished from the same precepts considered as conditions upon performance of which we must live or die for non-performance And I speak of them as meer precepts and so they are our Rule of righteousness and not as they are conditions either of the Covenant of works or grace And a man may be denominated righteous by the Laws Rule when he cannot stand before the sentence of it as a Covenant of which we have heard sufficient After a long discourse against all possibilitie of Justification by the Law of works as though I were therein your adversarie or that the Antinomian fancy were above all answer that a man cannot make the Law his Rule but he makes it withall his Justification you go about to prevent an objection and say If you should say this is the Covenant and not the Law you then tell me that you will reply 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule To which I say When my work is to make it good that the Law is our only Rule I marvaile that you will so much as imagine that I will say that which makes it not the only Rule But perhaps you think I do not see how it cannot follow as indeed I do not neither can I see any colour for it 2. You reply It is the same thing in severall respects that we call a Law and a Covenant except you mean it of our Covenant-act to God of which we speak not who knowes not that praemiare and punire are Acts of a Law And that an Act of Obliviom or generall pardon on certain terms is a Law and that the promise is the principall part of the Law of Grace To which I say that praemiare and punire are not essentiall in a Law Some have power of command so that their words in just things is to be a Law where most deny any power of punishment as an Husband over the Wife Some Parents have Authority to command Children Children remaining under the obligation of the fifth Commandment as long as the relation of a Child continueth when they have neither power to reward or punish Jacob took himself to be in power to command Joseph among the rest of his Sons as appears in the charge that he gives concerning his buriall Gen. 47.29 30. and Chap. 49.29 So compared and yet he was not in power either to reward or punish him And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power Yet they are no parts of a Rule nor any directiory of life to him to whom they are proposed I know that an Act of Oblivion or generall pardon may be called a Law as many other things are catachresticè and abusivè but that it should be a Law properly so called I know not The Romanes defined a Law whilst that a Democratie was in force among them to be Generale jussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu Afterwards when the State was changed and the Legislative power was in other hands they defined it to be Jussum Regis aut Imperatoris And Tullye's definition of a Law is that it is Ratio summa insita in natura quae recta suadet prohibetque contraria Here jussio suasio and prohibitio are express'd which are not found in Acts of Oblivion That every man who
is within the verge of such an Act may be said to be acquit by Law I willingly grant seeing that Act takes off the form of the Law force condemning him But that it is a Law strictly so taken I know not You conclude that you have now given some of your reasons why you presumed to call that Ignorance And I must presume to acquaint you that till I hear more of your reasons I shall remain in this as Ignorant as ever SECT IV. Imperfect conformity to the Law is Righteousness inherent as an Image less like the Pattern is an Image I Said in my Treatise The perfection of this Holiness and Righteousness in mans integrity stood in the perfect conformity to this Law and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate in which the Apostle placeth the Image of God must have reference as to God as a pattern so to his Law as a Rule Here I pass by some words of yours of a Transcendentall pâ—rfection not well understanding them much less understanding that they serve at all to our purpose and come to your second There is a partial reparation of inherent righteousness in regeneration where you answer That there is a partial reparation of our Holiness in Regeneration but no reparation of our personall inherent Righteousness at all Is Righteousness by the Law of works I take this to be dangerous doctrine Answ You entituled this controversie pag. 41. Sect. 28. Of Evangelical personal Righteousness And now you understand it of personal inherent Legal Righteousness Are Legal and Evangelical the same or are not you the same When the Apostle joyns Righteousness and true holiness together as that in which the Image of God did consist and is to be repaired in the Regenerate Is there a partial reparation of the one and no reparation at all of the other In your former reply you say I hope you observe that we speak not of that called Morall Righteousness consisting in an habit of giving every man his own but of justitia forensis where you seem to make that a full definition of such Righteousness when I had thought that Moral righteousness had given God as well as man his own And if we speak not of this righteousness when we speak of a Rule of righteousness I cannot but observe that it hath been a wild discourse and little to purpose ever since either of us entred upon it either we speak of this or else I think we might as well have kept silence I know no inherent Righteousness that is not Moral Righteousness You demand Is Righteousness by the Law of works I take this for dangerous doctrine Answ You put it as though I intâ—nded that the Law raiseth a man to that Righteousness for which it calls in order to justification and life according to the tenor of the Covenant of works which were dangerous doctrine indeed rendring Christs death to be in vain as we may see from the Apostle Gal. 2.21 And of the more danger it is the more I suffer I say that the Righteousness of which I speak and which all I think understand when they speak as you do of a believing mans personal inherent Righteousness is from the Spirit of God working with power in the hearts of his chosen but yet according to the Rule of the Law of God and led by no other Rule And here I think there is no danger I illustrated this with a comparison As an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Sampler is an Image so conformity imperfectly answering the Rule is conformity likewise Here 1. You come in with yoor Dilemma against me Either that Image say you is like the Sampler in some parts and unlike in others or else it is like in no part but near to like If the latter then it is but near to a true Image of that thing and not one indeed If the former then it is nothing to our case Answ You may do well to tell us what near to like means in the mean time I must tell you that you bring no perfect enumeration It is like in all parts though not with a full resemblance compleat in degree 2. You tell me that Scheibler saies that similitude do's lie in puncto as it were and ex parte sui admits not of magìs and minùs and therefore strictè philosophicè loquendo saith he that is only simile which is perfectly so but vulgariter loquendo that is called simile which is properly but miâ—ùs dissimile And then you adde by way of concession Similitude consisteth not in puncto but admits of magìs and minùs that Scripture speaks vulgariter often and not strictè Philosophicè as speaking to vulgar wits to whom it must speak as they can understand Give me leave then that pretend to know no more then a vulgar wit to speak the language of Scripture which I think was your own language in the last Section where you said that There is a partiall reparation of our holiness in our regeneration and this the Apostle tels us is the reparation of the Image of God Eph. 4.24 And as I take it the language of Scheibler also in his Topicks where I had thought he had spoken strictè or logicè at least and there he saith Paria â similibus omnino differunt and how they differ I know not if there be not magìs and minùs in simili as there is not in Pari. As you confess it to be true in Scripture-sense so I take it with Scheiblers leave to be true in the exactest philosophical sense Similitude is founded in quality as parity in quantity And that qualities are intended and remitted I shall believe till I have learn'd new Logick Davenant in Colos 3.10 saith This is to be held that Christ is otherwise the Image of the Father then we He is the Image of equality enjoying the same nature with the Father whose Image he is Every regenerate man is the Image of imitation imperfectly resembling some similitude of the divine nature in certain gifts of grace You conclude If all this were otherwise it is little to your purpose for in this conformity of ours there is somthing of quantitative resemblance as well as qualitative and so it hath a kind of quantity and parity in it as well as similitude to the rule Answ What there is of quantity and how much you do not tell and if there be not only a similitude but also a parity between God and man so that when God is judged of man he should be tryed by his peers I shall say nothing but rest amazed SECT V. Our actions are denominated good or evill from the Law only TO your next Section in which you complain of unfair dealing at my hands I have spoken sufficiently your close only is observable No doubt say you but that sincere obedience consisteth in a faithfull endeavour to obey the whole preceptive part of Gods Law both natural and positive
but no man can by it be denominated righteous nisi aequivocè but he that perfectly obeyeth in degree Your concession I accept but wonder at your assertion Is not doing required in and by the Law and did John equivocate when he said He that doth righteousness is Righteous 1 John 3.7 And do you equivocate also when you put it in your title page of this piece against me Is that an equivocal honour that is given to Zachary and Elizabeth to Abel Lot Joseph Simeon and divers others in Scriptures The men of Sodom were denominated wicked upon their breach of Gods Law being sinners exceedingly And Lot is denominated Righteous upon his observation of it I said in my Treatise A perfection of sufficiency to attain ths end I willingly grant God condescending through rich grace to crown our weak obedience In this sense our imperfection hath its perfectness otherwise I must say that our inherent Righteousness is an imperfect Righteousness is an imperfect conformity to the Rule of Righteousness Here you are displeased with the ambiguity as you say of the word otherwise and tell me of a natural perfection or imperfection of which actions are capable without relation to the Rule which you confess is nothing to this business And then you adde Many a School Divine hath written Gibieuf at large that our actions are specified à fine and denominated good or evill and so perfect or imperfect à fine more especially à fine then à lege But this requires more sbutilty and acurateness for the discission then you or I in these loose disputes do shew our selves guilty of Answ If there be no more subtlety acurateness in these many School-men Gibieuf then that which you please to quote out of them and particularly out of him there is no despair but either you or I might soon render our selves guilty of as much subtlety and acurateness as they And indeed guilty is the most proper term I think that can be given to discourses of this nature Actions say they as you quote them are denominated good or evill and so perfect or imperfect à fine rather then à lege Though the Law that commands an action and the end at which the action aimes or ought to aime stand in a Diametrical opposition and the end is wholly without the cognizance of the Law Did not those Jewes in the time of the captivity transgress the Law of God when they fasted and mourned did not fast and mourn at all unto God Zach. 7.5 And did not the Pharisees break the Law when they did their almes to be seen of men and pray'd in Synagogues and Streets upon that account also that men should observe them The Law had it been heeded would have led them hgther as we may see in our Savious words Mat. 22.37 According to this doctrine a good meaning or intention will salve the worst action Saul had then performed the Commandment of the Lord as he said to Samuel when he spared the best of the Sheep and Oxen for sacrifice to the Lord God that had been a pious end if no command had prohibited it But to give Gibieuf his due I have examined his dispute De fine and there cannot find that he makes any such comparison or puts such opposition nor that he so much as mentions the Law when he speaks so much De fine as you mention I referred to Dr. Davenant De Justit habit 349. disputing against Justification by inherent Righteousness upon the account of the imperfection of it To this is replyyd Do not you observe that I affirm that which you call inherent Righteousness to he imperfect as well as Bp. Davenant Answ Why is it then that you laid so high a charge of ignorance on learned Divines calling it imperfect when you well know that they had not any such notion of a Metaphysical entity in their heads but maintained what they spake as indeed Reverend Davenant do's with that which you call a simple objection that as we are called holy by an imperfect holiness so we are called Righteous by an imperfect Righteousness They never refer their Righteousness to the Law as a Covenant You can find no way to charge them and acquit him As to this They are as learned as he and he as ignorant as they You adde Yea I say more that in reference to the Law of works our works are no true Righteousness at all Answ If you mean by the Law of works not a Rule but a Covenant I say with you That they are no such righteousnesse as will obtain the grace or avoid the penalty of it yet this reference to this Covenant cannot make imperfect righteousness simpliciter no righteousness though secundum quid or versus hoc it is such If I am bound in strict justice to pay the sum of a thousand pound and bring an hundred instead of it this is money though it is no full pay or totall discharge You say further He that saith they are no Righteousness saith as little for them as he that saith they are an imperfect Righteousness Answ The question is not who speaks more or less against this righteousness but who speaks most truth And Righteousness being as Rollock on Ephes 4.24 observes A vertue in man whereby he wils and do's those things which agree with the Law of God and as Gomarus on Mat. 3.15 defines it An obedience due to God and still joyn'd with holinesse it cannot be nothing and yet it can be no better then imperfect You say You suppose that I know that Bp. Davenant doth not onely say as much as you for the interest of works in justification but also speaks in the very same notions as you do referring me where I may find it in Davenant Answ 1. The interest of works in justification is not to our present question of the perfection or imperfection of righteousness therefore whether he be therein for you or against you it is not to this question much materiall Yet seeing you speak so confidently here to me and more fully else where that you have this Reverend Author in that point firm on your part insomuch that having qâ—oted a Century of witnesses that are as you say for you you adde If the reader would know which of these speak most my own thoughts I answer most of them if not all in a great part but Davenant most fully Confess pag. 457. It will be worth our pains to make some further enquiry And at the fi st sight the thing doubtless will appear to all your Readers that have read as Davenant as wonderfully strange If he speak your thoughts so fully how comes it to pass that you have so many adversaries as you complain of when he for ought I know amongst Protestant writers hath none at all If you speak both the same thing your Adversaries doubtlesse would be his And his work being so much more large then yours he would have found so
writers of note much differing one from the other in one particular subject I think I should first mention Bp. Davenant and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of justification Your Reader may well judge that he is amongst those that you say Confes pag. 459. you may safely and boldly advise all those that love the everlasting happiness of their souls that they take heed of Where you warn all such that they take heed of their doctrine who make the meer receiving of that is affiance in the righteousness of Christ to be the sole condition of their first justification excluding Repentance and the reception of Christ as a Teacher and King and Head and Husband from being any condition of it yea and will have no other condition of our justification at judgement who call that affiance only by the name of justifying faith and all other acts by the name of works And as to that which you here assert that he speaks as much as you for the interest of works in justification you may conceit it but those that have perused him will hardly be induced to assent to it Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant then faith only (m) In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur conditio quà m verae vivae fidei In this Covenant saith he cap. 30. de Justit act pag. 396 there is no other condition then that of true faith required to obtain Reconciliation Justification and life eternall And having quoted Rom. 3.16 Rom. 4.5 Gal. 3.8 he adds Justification therefore and right to life eternall is suspended upon condition of faith alone But good works are also required of justified men not to constitute a state of justification or demerit life eternall but to yield obedience and testifie thankfulness towards God who justified us freely and hath markt out that way for their walk whom he hath designed for the kingdome of glory How is it (n) Justificatio igitur jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione solius fidei suspenditur Sed ab hominibus jam justificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur non ad constituendum statum justificationis aut promerendam vitam aeternam sed ad exhibendam obedientiam testificandum gratitudinem erga Deum qui nos gratuito justificavit atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae designatis ipse delineavit then Haec gratia sc inhaerens ut saepe dictum est est appendix five consequens gratuitae justificationis that again and again as he says himself hath said that it is but an Appendix or consequence of Justification pag. 317 If he thus interest works in Justification how he will be reconciled to himself where in the passage before quoted he says that They that affirme that man is Justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of Mans salvation in Justification alone to God but ascribe some part to themselves And in all that you quote out of him Pag. 319 c. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way You think you have just cause to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the first and second part of Justification Because having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant concerning the imputation of Christs active obedience in which they scarce differ in termes yet afterwards adds Though holy works do not justifie yet by them a man is continued in a state and condition of Justification So that did not the Covenant of grace interpose grosse and wicked waies would cut off our Justification and put us in a state of condemnation If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant which I doubt not may be done this Author may then be as easily reconciled to himself Passages of this kind only you quote out of Davenant which are as much opposite to himself as to the Author now mentioned SECT VI. Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace THe next you enter upon is a Query How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant Opposing your self against that Position of mine Chap. 33. Pag. 245. The men in impenitency and unbelief that lie in sin and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ live in a continuall breach of Covenant Here you confesse that I cite no words of yours and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you To which I say that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted which you seem to do Aphor. Thes 34. Pag. 163 Where you say That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken But before I enter upon the thing it self Men in finall unbelief and impenitency in Covenant with God a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth That men in finall unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God This is clear They that break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if are in Covenant The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise and bâ—each of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant Jer. 34.18 The Lord threatneth those that trasgressed his Covenant and had not performed the words of Covenant And those that thus transgressed Covenant did likewise as wee see there enter into Covenant But these as you affirm break Covenant and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it Therefore it follows that they are in Covenant And as the Covenant is that they transgresse such the Covenant is that they enter They do not enter one Covenant and transgresse another They transgresse a reall and not equivocall halfe-erring Covenant It is therefore a reall and not an equivocall halfe-erring Covenant that they enter And as this clearly follows from hence so that from you prosition that immediatly goes before it That Christs passive obedience and merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of works but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace it clearly follows Universall Redemption overthown That there is no universall Redemption by Christs Death or satisfaction If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace then he died not for the sins of all This is clear But according to you he died not to make satisfaction for their sin that thus stand guilty Therefore he died not for the sins of all Yea it will follow that he dyed for the lesser part only of those that make profession of his name Seeing the greater part die in impenitency and unbelief Yea it will follow that he dyed for the Elect only For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect All others
proper conditionall Covenant THE next in order in which I am spoken unto is that which Sect. 55. Pag. 108. you fall upon Entituling it Whether Faith and Repentance be Gods works Where having repeated words of mine out of Chap. 15. Pag. 101. of the Treatise of the Covenant somewhat largely but very brokenly you are pleased to say Mr. Bls. businesse here is to refute the answer that I gave to that objection The objection was thus put by one that excepted against your Aphorismes How make you Faith and Repentance to be the conditions of the Covenant on our part seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part Can they be Gods conditions and ours too To which I answered which in part you transcribe In case these two cannot stand together that they should be conditions both Gods and ours we may answer by way of retortion And am I sure we have the better end of the staffe that they are our conditions they are conditions on our part therefore they cannot be Gods That they are ours is made known of God as by the beame of the Sun in his word And I shall not stand to distinguish of an absolute and conditionall Covenant and so making the whole in the absolute Covenant to be Gods and in the conditionall this part to be ours which I know not whether exactly understood the Scripture will bear but in plain termes deny them to be the Gods conditions and affirme them to be ours In all which I can confidently speak that I never had it in my thoughts to oppose you yea I assuredly expected that how many adversaries soever I should find yet I should have had you here on my party Grounds on which the Author was confident that Mr. Br. herein was on his party My confidence herein was upon these grounds 1. In that you have shewed your self so well pleased with that which I had spoke in my answer to Mr. Tombs for explanation of that text of Jeremiah after quoted as may be seen Pag. 224. of your Treatise of Infant-Baptisme and I am sure there is nothing here to crosse any thing that I had spoken there Shewing your self then so far my friend I could not imagine that persisting in the same I should have had you to be my Adversary 2. In that you had plainly enough to my understanding declared your self against any such thing as absolute promises Aphor. Pag. 8 9. in these words Those promises of taking the hard heart out of us and giving us hearts of flesh c. are generally taken to be absolute promises and after some more words you infer Therefore these absolute promises are but meere gratious predictions what God will do for his Elect the comfort whereof can be received by no man till the benefit be received and they be to him fulfilled Therefore as all meer predictions so also these promises do fall under the will of purpose and not of precept And Commenting on those 〈◊〉 words of the Prophet as applyed by the Apostle Heb. 8. you sâ—y Appen Pag. 42. Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise is a great doubt and having yeelded so far as to say I think you may call it an absolute promise you caution this freedome of calling it so very largely Pag. 43. And then you make all up in these words So that I conclude that it is most properly but a propheâ—ie what God will do de eventuâ— as it hath reference to the parties on whom it shall be fulfilled and so is the revealing part of Gods purposing will and belongeth not at all to his preceptive or legislative will by which he doth govern and will judge the world And that Gods Covenant and promises properly so called belong to his preceptive and legislative will whereby he governes the world and not to his purposing will according to you is manifest 3. You have appeared at large with much zeal for the conditionality of the Covenant on mans part and that it is not made alone with Christ but Christians with conditions imposâ—d on them but not on him And how this can be when those are Gods conditions and not m ns I cannot see If Faith and Repentance be Gods conditions and not mans Where is there any conditions on mans part remaining 4. Summing up your answer to your Querists 6. and 7. question you say Now I hope you can hence answer to both your own demands To the seaventh You see there is a Covenant absolute and a Covenant conditionall but the last is the proper Gospel-Covenant To the sixth You see that in the absolute Covenant or prophâ—câ—e he promiseth Faith and Repentance in promimising his Spirit and a new heart to the Elect who are we know not who And in the conditionall proper Covenant he requireth the same Faith and Repentance of us if we will be saved So that they are Gods part which he hath discovered that he will performe in one Covenant and they are made our conditions in another And you very well know that I speak of the conditionall proper Covenant or else why do I contend for conditions in it and in this Covenant of which we speak you say they are required of us and are our conditions And for the other Covenant where you say that they are Gods part which he hath discovered that he will performe see how full I come up to you Chap. 9. Pag. 64. of my Treatise where I say I suppose they may be more fitly called the declaration or indication of Gods work in the conditions to which he ingageth and of the necessary concurrence of the power of his grace in that which he requireth So that had you had no more mind to have been upon contradiction of me then I of you we had here shaken hands together and not lift up oâ—r hands one against the other You say Section 38. pag. 37. that you are uncertain whether my 33. Chapt. be against you because I recite no words of yours though it be indeed full against your opinion Here I think I recite no words of yours neither did I as I thought oppose any opinion of yours Yet you say my business is to confute your answer You say A brief reply may satisfie this confutation And I say No r ply would have been more fit for no confutation You acquaint me how you explain'd your self plainly shewing that the thing called God's condition was not precisely the same with that called ours Ours was Believing and repenting God is The bestowing of these as the question expressed Answ I think you should have made the difference far more wide Oâ—r conditions in this conditional proper Covenant are faith and repentance to these we are called as you say if we will be justified and saved God's conditions in this conditionall proper Covenant are those to which he engages himself viz. rewards in case of Covenant-keeping and punishments in case of Covenant-breaking One he promises the
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
as from God but reqâ—ired of God from us are not Gods conditions but ours in that Covenant This is cleare Being there expresly required of us and not so much as mentioned as from God they cannot be his engagement but ours to performe But Faith and Repentance are not mentioned as from God in the proper conditionall Covenant but required of God from us This proposition is your own in your answer as we have heard before pag. 45 46. Therefore Faith and Repentance are not God's conditions in the proper conditionall Covenant but ours 2. The conditions of a Covenant are his that performeth and not his that imposeth This Proposition is your own in this Section and clear in reason But we perform and God imposeth Faith and Repentance This is of two parts First that they are performed by us This you confess where you yield that they are our acts For the second that they are imposed on us none can deny See 1 John 3.23 Act. 17.30 They are therefore our conditions and not God's in this Covenant 3. Covenant-conditions are theirs that are charg'd with falshood in case of failing in them and non-performance of them This is plain in all Covenants To make conditions and to fail in them is to be false to them But in case of failing in Faith and Repentance man is charged and not God God fails not but man deals falsly Therefore they are mans conditions and not Gods 4. Covenant-conditions are theirs who upon failing in them and not performance of them suffer as Covenant-breakers This is clear Israel covenanted to dismiss their Hebrew servants and dismissed them not And Israel suffered for it Jer. 34. But upon failing in Faith and Repentance God suffers not so much as in his name He is not charged with mens unbelief and impenitence Men themselves suffer Therefore Faith and Repentance are mans conditions not God's So that though I have not refuted your answer which never was in my eye yet I have answered your Querist's demand and made it good that Faith and Repentance are mans conditions and not God's in the Gospel-covenant SECT VIII The Covenant of Grace requires and accepts sincerity I Have pass'd through those debates in which our judgements stand at difference for in the last you will differ though I had thought there had been a full accord between us Now I must come to that in which we do agree which pag. 144. Sect. 82. you entitle Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection and accept sincerity In which I take to the negative conceiving that it requires the same that it accepts And in your Aphorismes if I understand any thing you have clearly delivered your self with me pag. 157 158. in these words As when the old Covenant said Thou shalt obey perfectly the Moral Law did partly I think you mean perfectly tell them wherein they should obey So when the new Covenant saith Thou shalt obey sincerely the Moral Law doth perfectly tell us wherein or what we must endeavour to do c. Whereupon Mr. Crandon is herein against you with as great vehemence as in any other of your doctrines Neither do I perceive by any thing that you have said that your mind is changed And I had much rather answer Mr. Crandon in defence of truth which he in you here opposeth then to spend time in my own quarrel Though my Tenent give you not distast yet it seems my arguments do not please But if truth stand it matters less though I fall You answer all my arguments in order as though you judged me to be in the fowlest error when I am yet perswaded that if not onely some but all of my arguments fail which you make your business to impugn the Position it self which with you is truth as well as with me will fall with it After a short Apology and conjecture made who that Divine may be whom with much reverence I mention supposing him the first that manifested himself in the contrary way that the Gospel requires perfection and accepts sincerity You tell me that you conceive this difference is occasioned by the ambiguity of the word Covenant of Grace and tell me that in your judgement I ought to have removed it by distinguishing before I had argued against their opinion And so you fall upon my work for me and give in abundance of acceptations of the word Covenant of Grace And if I may take the boldness to be as free with you as you with me I think you might have done well to have made it appear where and by whom this word is taken in all of these different senses and significations If your Reader knew all this before your Book fell into his hand you have nothing benefited him you have only told him what he knew before If he he knew it not he hath now alone your word for it And I know not where else any Reader may find a great part of it but from your hand I profess my self to be much more amazed then edified in Reading all that you have spoke of it When you have reckoned up very many senses of the word you say Now if the question be whether in any of these senses the Covenant doth command perfect obedience you answer An explication of the Authors meaning All the doubt is of the three latter one of which is Promises Prophecies and Types before Christ's comming And to speak mine own meaning and I had thought no man had doubted of it I take Covenant of grace in this dispute for the whole transaction that passes in a Covenant-way betwixt God and his people in order to Salvation as comprizing all that God requires promises or threats and all that to which man engages himself and which he expects But when I speak of that which the Covenant thus taken promiseth I mean that which it promiseth in the promissory part of it when I speak of what it threatneth I mean in the Minatory part of it and when I speak of what it requires I mean in the preceptive part of it Now this preceptive part must needs have some rule at which men in Covenant must look as distinguished from threats or promises and containing Agenda things to be done and not Credenda Speranda or Timenda things to be Believed Hoped or Feared The rule or Standard here in these things which man in Covenant is called to do is the Moral Law God quits not man of his Subjection He is a subject in this as he was in the former Covenant The Covenant of works called to the keeping of it in the highest fullest and most compleat perfection The Covenant of Gâ—ace cals us to eye it and with sincere endeavour to conform to it When God spake to Abraham the leading man in Covenant respective to all after-Covenanters whether Jewes or Gentiles he saith I am the Almighty God or God al-sufficient walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 In which words we have first the
parties in Covenant and the engagement of either party Gods engagement is to be to Abraham Almighty and Al-sufficient for protection for provision so that he need not look else-where to compass good or keep off evill Abrahams Engagement is to walk before God and to be perfect or as it is in the Margent reading upright sincere which walking saith Ainsworth comprehendeth both true faith Heb. 11.5 6. and carefull obedience to God's Commandments That faith is called for in this perfection see 2 Chron. 16.8 9. To rely alone upon God in one verse is to be perfect in the other That this perfection of service of obedience is no other then sincerity all interpreters that I have seen acknowledge See Peter Martyr Vaetablus Paraeus Calvin on the place God Covenants for obedience saith Calvin from his servant and the integrity which is here mentioned is opposed to hypocrisie Rivet closeth with Calvin and in many words expresseth himself that this perfection means nothing else but integrity or sincerity otherwise saith he they that walk and are yet in the way do not attain to a perfection properly so called So that according to him the Covenant requires the same that through grace the Saints here attain and that is a perfection not property so called Dr. Preston on the words is very large to this purpose As for that which you produce as an opinion of an acquaintance friend of mine of extraordinary learning and judgement leaving me to guess whom you mean as indeed I do but with possibility of mistake That the Morall Law is the matter of the new Covenant I cannot well understand at least as you express it How far the word matter may reach I know not I believe that it is their Rule in the New Covenant but otherwise held out then it was in the Covenant of works as I have before expressed my self As a Law it loses nothing of it's ancient strictness for it is ever unchangeably the same the rule of our duty and not of our strength onely the terms of the Covenant of Grace are not for exact observation but sincere endeavour So that the least failing is a sin against the Law but not a breach of Covenant which for ought I discern is the sense that you give As for that which in the second place you urge from him whom you stile Learned Judicious and much Honoured Brother and my friend and acquaintance making these two but one Law quo ad formam I command thee fal'n man perfect obedience and oblige thee to punishment for every sin yet not remedilesly but so as that if thou Believe and Repent this obligation shall be dissolved thou saved else not I should rather take them disjunctim then conjunctim but I know not whether there be any considerable difference I so far subscribe that all that perish by the sentence of the Law to whom the Covenant was ever tendered are by neglect of Covenant left in a remediless condition The Law damns the unbeliever and impenitent unbelief holds him that he is not by the Covenant of Grace delivered from the Law 's sentence When you come to bring all home by application to me with your censure for laying an heavy charge upon them that I oppose and apologizing on their part I do not well know how to understand your words that so I might see my own error You say It is most likely that those Divines that affirm that the Covenant of Grace doth require perfect obedience and accepts sincere do take that Covenant in this last and largest sense and as containing the Moral Law as part of the matter Before you spake of the Moral Law as the matter of the Covenant and now you speak of it as part of the matter And so understood you say No doubt it is true if I understand it of perfection for the future And then doubtless it is an error for I understand perfection for the present And what the Law of God or Covenant do's require it doth in present as I think require And what gave you occasion to suspect otherwise I cannot imagin When you have taken upon you their defence or at least their excuse that hold against you you come to answer my arguments that hold with you I said This opinion Arguments that the Covenant of grace requires onely sincerity vindicated That the Covenant requires perfection establishes the former opinion opposed by Protestants and but now refuted as to the obedience and the degree of it called for in-covenant You answer If you interpret the Papists as meaning that the Law requires true perfection but accepts of sincere then if it be spoken of the Law of works or nature it is false and not the same with theirs whom you oppose Answ I marvail that you will put the case if I do when I tell you expresly that I do not I limit the parallel to the obedience and degree called for in Covenant which these Reverend Divines make to be the same as those that I had spoken to but differ respective to acceptation and so their mistake if it be one is infinitely below the Popish error in the Councill of Trent held forth which I did oppose You further say If you take them as no doubt you do as meaning it of the Law of Christ as the Trent Council express themselves then no doubt but they take the Law of Christ in the same extended sense as was before expressed and then they differ from us but in the fore-mentioned notion Answ I do not understand your distinction between the Law of nature and the Law of Christ as I have before largely told you and given in my reasons You speak somewhat in that which follows that the Papists do not indeed take the Covenant or Law it self to command true perfection but that which they call perfection which is no other then the grace of Sanctification as I expressed out of some of the chief of the writers But it is true perfection that those mean whom I now write against And so you conclude that you see not the least ground for my first charge But you might observe what I further say in words more at large then is here fit to he repeated purposely to prevent this objection that they look upon this which we say is no more then Sanctification as full Perfection and such that answers to the Law in the sense in which it was given Our character of grace inherent is their interpretation of the Law and so they raise up men in a conceit that they answer the Law when they live in a continual breach of it 2. I said If this opinion stand then God accepts of Covenant-breakers of those that deal falsly in it whereas Scripture chargeth it upon the wicked upon those of whom God complains as rebellious Deut. 29.25 Jos 7.15 Jer. 11.10 and 22.8 9. c. You answer This charge proceedeth meerely from the confounding of the duty as such
much for you as the most of those that are by you produced You may see that I distinguish of conditions serviceable to man in his return to God 1. For recovery of his lost estate of happiness 2. For the repair or new frame of his qualifications depraved and spoiled cap. 11. pag. 74. The condition immediately serviceable for mans return to God reconciled in Christ I say is Faith in the page quoted The condition respecting mans reparation in his qualifications to hold up communion with God I say is Repentance cap. 14. pag. 93. This then with me enters not the act of justification but is the justified mans way to bliss and glory And when Repentance is at the highest and obedience at the best it is not repentance nor obedience but the bloud of Christ in which faith alone interests us that must be our discharge So that if I may take the boldness to interpose my thoughts as to that multitude of quotations which you have produced for the interest of works in justification I think for the greatest part they labour of that Fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi Put them into Syllogistical form and the Reader shall find that they do not conclude the thing in question They very fully speak a necessity of good works to Salvation which is the unanimous judgement of all Orthodox writers and the question is about their interest in Justification Which two in the judgement of Protestant writers very much differ as you may see in Mr. Ball Treatise of the Covenant pag. 18. Whose testimony I have produced at large p. 434. c. and thither I here refer you Where you may see the sole interest of faith the instrumentall efficiency or causality of it with an utter deniall of any interest of works in this of justification So that he alone may speak for all that the acknowledgement of the interest of works according to the tenor of the Covenant as a way appointed of God for attainment of glory doth not argue any interest at all of works in the work of justification But to return to that from which these quotations have caused this short digression I think you might have spared those words If I were on one side and all the Divines in England on the other there is yet the same reason to prefer all the first Churches before all them as there is to prefer all them before me In a word I shall ever think him more culpably singular who differeth from Christ and his Apostles and all his Church for 1200. or 1400. yeers then he that differeth from any party now living and differeth not from them forementioned Unless you could make it better appear that Christ and his Apostles and the Church for this space of time were more cleerly for you It is the Churches Testimony that is now our business and if the Reader have no more then Chemnitius bare word affirming with so much confidence as we have heard that all ages have been against you it is enough against your bare word that all former ages have been for you You now see my thoughts how they stand upon the Reading of that part of your Apology in which I am concerned Though it be above my hopes to give you satisfaction yet others I doubt not wil be more flexible in their opinion What you wil please to do further I know not it is enough that I understand my own mind which is so far as I can before-hand resolve not to intermeddle further and whatsoever I shall hear from you to impose silence on my self You have drawn me out to speak what is here said in my own just defence If this will not do it I shall think it will not be done Let me request that Christian Candor that the Common cause may not suffer and that you will not dwell on literall mistakes or unaptness as you may conceive sometimes of the phrase but take that which you shall judge to be my full meaning which I have made my business as fully as I can to make known I have no more to make yours or the Readers trouble but shall leave all to your candid interpretation and his impartiall censure and not onely subscribe but with unfeigned resolution by the help of grace remain in acknowledgement of your manifold eminent graces Your true affectionated Friend Brother and fellow labourer THOMAS BLAKE An Alphabeticall Table relating to the chief heads handled in this Treatise A. Abraham WHether any Sacraments from Adam to him Page 24 The question discussed in severall propositions Ibid. c. Acts Of God are entitled to man and the acts of man to God in Scripture Page 451 Actions Are denominated good or evill from the Law onely Page 613 Adam Was not Created an infant in understanding Page 15 Admission Of men of yeers to Baptisme examined Page 101 The way of the Primitives in it laid open ibid. Admission by a Church-Covenant examined Page 102 Admission to the Lords Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page 253 Admission to the Lords Supper not to be exempted from cognizance of Church power Page 273. c. Rules for admission to Sacraments more explicite in the Old Testament Page 92 Antiquity Who they be that make the highest claimes to it as being on their party Page 652 Chemnitius his thoughts of the judgement of Antiquity concerning the Protestants doctrine of iustification Page 65â— 653 Quere's put concerning Mr. Brs appeal to Antiquity in point of Controversie Page 653 c. Proofs from Antiquity for the instrumentality faith Page 628 c. Evasions of these testimonies examined Page 661 Proofs from Antiquity that faith in Christ as pardoning sin is the justifying act Page 633 Proofs from Antiquity against the interest of mans obedience in justification as consummate Page 665 Apostates Application of the Seales of the Covenant to them is a putting a Seale to a blank Page 20 Assent Essentiall in Faith Page 502 It must be firm Page 503 Vnlimitted ibid. Assurance Of faith is possible Page 496 What sins cloud it Page 394 Astrology Judiciall Astrology censured Page 39 c. Arminianisme The Author vindicated from it Page 158 c. B. Mr. Ball. HIs testimony of the instrumentality of faith in justification Page 434 That works do not justifie ibid. That the New Covenant hath its conditions ib. That repentance is a condition of the Covenant Page 435 No condition of justification Page 436 Baptisme Johns Baptisme in the whole of it of divine institution Page 436 Contempt and neglect of Baptisme censured Page 68 An emprovement is to be made of it Page 72 The sin of Covenant Parents destroyes not the Child 's right to Baptisme Page 97 Visibility of interest the Churches guide in admission to Baptisme Page 104. 110 How far Faith and Repentance antiently were required in Baptisme Page 109 Their grounds or reasons who delayed Baptisme in the Primitive times Page 110 Their way of admission of the Catechumeni to Baptisme
Page 111 Over much rigour in admission to Baptisme hinders the progress of the Gospell Page 112 The admission of some to Baptisme in prudence may be delayed Page 113 Papists expect not grace for but a convenient disposition to grace in the person to be Baptized Page 111 The restraint of right to Baptisme a breach in the Church of Christ Page 181 Baptisme a leading Church-privilege Page 161 In what sense Baptisme works what it figures Page 383 Babtisme engages to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The Bloud and Spirit of Christ are not alwayes applyed in it Page 381 Dangers attending the restraint of Baptisme to the regenerate Page 551 Baptized A man unbaptized is bound to believe in Jesus Christ for justification Page 144 The Author vindicated from a supposed assertion of the contrary ibid. Titles given by the Apostle to Baptized persons do not argue they were alwayes answered with inherent grace Page 149 Vpon what grounds Simon Magus was Baptized Page 160 c. Believers A title in Scripture not proper to the justifyed Believing What ordinarily meant by believing in the History of the Acts. Page 177 The distinction of believing Christ and believing in Christ groundless ibid. Bloud Faith in the bloud of Christ onely justifies Page 766 This assertion quit from danger Page 582 Bloud and Spirit may be distinguished but must not be divided Page 367 C. Call AN outward call asserted Page 169 Calvin Vindicated Page 118. 550 Catholick And universall in Authors use of them distinguished Page 155 Chemnitins His testimony for the instrumentality of the word and faith in justification Page 490 See Antiquity Christ The Covenant of works was without reference to Christ as Mediator Page 10 Whether the Covenant of works be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Faith in his bloud onely justifies Page 566 Faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship Page 562 Interest in him interests us in all other privileges Page 458 Scripture speaks of receiving Christ and not of the Species of Christ onely Page 459 The healing of our nature and the removall of our guilt is his work Page 366 Faiths instrumentality in receiviug Christ being granted it 's instrumentality in justification cannot be denyed Page 441 Communication of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448. 449 Christians Vnregenerates are reall and not equivocall members of visible Churches Page 153 Humane authority vouched for it ibid. c. Christian a title in Scripture not proper to the justified Page 149 Church-Membership What gives right to it Page 201 102 Circumcision How Infants were saved before Circumcision Page 26 27 28 Severall propositions for clearing of the truth Page 24 Circumcision and Baptisme engaged to the first work of regeneration Page 369 The right of Circumcision implyed the propagation of corruption Page 368 Circumcision was no earnall badge Page 425 Cloud Whether two or onely one Cloud with Israel in the wilderness Page 521 No ordinary one but supernaturall Page 522 The motion of it guided by an Angell ibid. The form of it in appearance as a pillar ib. The use of it twofold As Israels guide Page 522 As Israels guard ibid. It was of the nature of a Sacrament Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Communicants The Lords Supper must be administred for their edification Page 199 Communication Of titles between Christ and his Church Page 448 Conclusions Desperate conclusions often inferred from right principles Page 579 Condition The great condition to which Baptisme engages is not a prerequisite to the essence and being of Baptisme Page 143 44 The Authors meaning cleered Page 145 In what sense faith is the condition of the promise of remission of sin Page 171 Actuall existence not necessary to the being of conditions in a Covenant Page 462 One and the same thing is not the condition of both parties in a Covenant Page 632 Confirmation Preferred by the Church of Rome before Baptisme Page 528 Perfects what Baptisme begins ibid. The matter of it Page 529 The form Page 529 The fruit Minister Ceremonies at consecration at administration Page 529 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament Page 530 The Apostles imposition of hands no proof of it Page 530 The ancient use of it degenerated Page 531 Consecration Respects not elements but participants Page 58 Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be Consecratorium or Concionatorium ibid. Contradiction The Author acquit from any Page 447 Conversion The Lords Supper with the word as an Appendant to it may be serviceable towards Conversion Page 200 Arguments evincing it Page 200 201 c. Whether the Lords Supper may be stiled a Converting Ordinance Page 211 Explicatory propositions ibid. c. The Lords Supper doth not necessarily suppose a through conversion Page 217 Covenant Law and Covenant are not to be confounded Page 598 Keeping Covenant failing in Covenant and forfeiture of it to be distinguished Page 392 The Covenant falling Sacraments annexed fall with it Page 18 c. Where God denies his Covenant there the seal must not be granted Page 20 The Covenant people of God the adaequate subject of Sacraments Page 74 All relation to God in tendency to salvation is founded in the Covenant ibid. Interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75 c. God enters a Covenant with his people exactly and properly so called Page 79 The word Covenant asserted ibid. The thing it self asserted Page 80 in the essentials of it Page 80 81 in the solemnities Page 81 Arguments evincing a Covenant between God and man in its proper nature Page 82 Covenant and seal are commensurate Page 120 Covenant outward and inward This distinction examined Page 83 The Author vindicated in it Page 124 The outward Covenant is most properly a Covenant Page 83 c. To it belongs the definition of a Covenant ibid. It usually bears the name in Scripture Page 84 Men enjoy privileges of Ordinances and interest in Sacraments upon account of the outward Covenant Page 86 Scripture characters of men in Covenant Page 115 Covenant God Gods Covenant with his people not equivocall Page 80 Men of a visible profession timely and really not equivocally in Covenant with God Page 128 Covenant of works Passe between God and man in an immediate way without any reference to Christ as Mediatour Page 10 11 Whether this Covenant be made null or repealed by Christ Page 19 Covenant of Grace Righteousness of faith the great promise of it Page 414 Duty and condition in it are one and the same Page 641 643 It requires and accepts sincerity Page 637 Arguments evincing it vindicated Page 639 Mr. Cramdons Arguments against Mr. Br. herein answered Page 645 Covenant absolute Conditionall Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant Page 626 Faith and Repentance are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Covenant Old and New Sacraments under the old and new Covenant one and the
Moses Baptisme into him what Page 526 N. Names GIven by God not empty titles Page 12 Nature What meant by the times of the Law of nature Page 24 Necessity Of Sacraments asserted Page 285 c. Argumeats evincing it Page 288 c. The kind of degree of the necessity of Sacraments enquired into Page 289 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation Page 289 Objections answered Page 290 Explicatory Rules delivered in it Page 294 c. A greater degree of necessity in the initiatory leading Sacrament then in that which follows Page 298 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. O. Obedience MAns sin disobligeth him not from obedience Page 195 196 197 Obligation Mans Obligation of himself unto God implies Gods mutuall obligation Page 130 Oblige Mans inability for duty doth not disoblige from duty Page 197 Orders Their number in the Church of Rome and their divisions Page 538 Most of this number doubted by themselves whether they be Sacraments ibid. The Matter Page 539 Form Page 539 Effect Page 539 Minister Page 539 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. Ordinances All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto Page 189 Sacraments must have the Honour of divine Ordinances Page 68 Originall sin Asserted Page 363 Distinguished into peccatum originans orinatum Page 365 Originall sin not a meer want of primitive integrity but attended with unversall defilement ibid. c. Oyle Anointing with Oyle Jam. 14 15. What it means Page 536 537 Queres put to those that would revive this practice Page 537 P. Parables CHrist speaking in Parables what it meaneth Page â—4 Pardon Closing with God for pardon is not to pardon a mans self Page 452 Passive Neither believing nor receiving are to be judged meerly passive Page 442 In what sense faith passive in justification Page 476 c. Pemble Not sole and singular in asserting the word to be a passive instrument Page 476 He is large in reasons of it Page 475 Penance The parts of it Contrition Page 531 532 Confession Page 531 532 Satisfaction Page 531 532 Papists agree not what that is in Penance that makes up a Sacrament Page 533 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. People Allegations for their power examined Page 252 264 Perfection Of the subject and perfection of parts respective to the universality of the object distinguished Page 586 Pighius A learned Papist with divers others joynes with us in the doctrine of justification Page 440 Pope He hath his visible pardoner as well as others Page 464 Prayer A necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 509 Priest The several functions of Christ as Priest King Prophet are to be distinguished but not divided Page 562 Priestly Levitical types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 Privileges A faith short of justifying entitles to visible privileges Page 161 Profession Men of a visible profession truly and really in Covenant with God Page 128 Profession of faith engages to a lively working faith Page 172 c. Promise That which is the condition of the thing promised is not the condition of the Seal Page 173 Exceptions against it examined ibid. Gospell promises are a savour of death unto many Page 469 Protestants Vindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 The author is confest to appear in the common cause of Protestants ibid. R. Rainbow DEfined Page 516 It had respect to a Covenant improperly so called Page 517 It was an instituted sign ibid. Correspondencies between it and the promise Page 518 How far it was Sacramentall ibid. How far it fals short ibid 519 Reall Covenants may be broke by men in Covenant Page 138 Common grace is reall Page 132 Men of a visible profession really in Covenant with God Page 128 Regenerate Duties of positive institution do not onely bind the regenerate Page 195 Repentance How prerequired in Baptisme Page 108 Repentance and Faith Are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Right Fundamentall and actuall distinguished Page 88 The distinction cleered In civill immunities Page 88 Ecclesiasticall privileges Page 89 They must be both written Page 90 Right unto a bar to detain from Sacraments not alwayes express Page 91 Righteous Men are so denominated really and not equivocally that imperfectly obey the Law Page 614 Righteousness Non reaâ—us is not righteousness Page 588 Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction Page 589 Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted ib. Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used Page 592 Righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law asserted Page 595 There is a partiall reparation of in herent righteousness in regeneration Page 611 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Righteousness Christ The naturall righteousness of Christ is not our justification Page 439 Whether the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous be given to us Page 453 Queries put concerning this gift of righteousness Page 454 Faith being terminated on Christ is terminated on his righteousness Page 455 To receive his righteousness for justification no fancy or delusion Page 456 Righteousness Faith The Righteousness of Faith is the great promise of the Covenant of grace Page 414 This righteousness is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace Page 415 Proved by Scriptures Page 417 Confirmed by reasons Page 418 Explained by rules Page 419 420 Bellarmines five objections answered Page 421 c. Propositions explaining the meaning of the righteousness of Faith Page 415 So called in opposition to the righteousness of works required in the Covenant ibid. It is the Synechdochically put for the whole of the Covenant that interests us in this righteousness ibid. c. All blessings and privileges flowing from and following upon this Covenant unto true blessedness are comprized under the righteousness of faith Page 416 Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant is the fountain from whence the blessedness of this righteousness comes ibid. Faith considered as an instrument receiving this righteousness ib. All must see that they be right principled in the doctrine of the righteousness of faith Page 429 Ignorance here was the Jews undoing ib. Papists mistake in this point Page 429 c. Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness Page 432 Rock How it was said to follow Israel Page 524 The Rock it self was not intended as a sign but the water flowing out of it Page 525 Of the nature of a Sacrament ib. No standing Sacrament Page 526 Rule See Law S. Sacrament THe word vindicated Page 2 3 The reason of the word enquired after Page 4 5 The various acceptations of it Page 6 7 8 Whether man enjoyed or was capable of a Sacrament in the state of integrity Page 9 No Sacrament instituted of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. A Sacrament may be defined Page 32 c. The definition of a Sacrament in generall Page
8 The Apostles definition Rom. 4 11 Vindicated Page 33 34 A full definition thence laid down Page 36 The sign and thing signifiâ—d in every Sacrament are Analogically one Page 49 50 No Sacrament without a promise preceding Page 56 Sacraments The distribution of them Page 9 God not tyed to Sacraments Page 30 31 They are standing Ordinances Page 294 Reasons evincing it Page 295 296 When they are dispensed they may not without weighty reasons be omitted Page 306 The being of them consists in their usâ— Page 317 c. Arguments evincing it ib. The Sacrament of the Supper not exempted Page 119 Reasons given ibid. c. Sacraments have respect both to the change of of our nature and the removall of our guilt Page 368 We are to look for no more from Sacraments then God hath put into them Page 405 As the word teacheth by the ear so Sacraments by the help of the word teach by the eye Page 413 Men professing relation to God may see in Sacraments further engagements and provocations to holiness ibid. Sacraments are necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 508 Sacraments are seales entrusted in the hand of men Page 192 c. Sacraments seal the promise of the Gospell condionally Page 194 Gospell Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his priestly office Page 567 All Sacraments from the fall substantially one Page 424 426 Sacramentall Gods condescension in sacramentall signes Page 52 53 Sacramentall signes must be explained Page 56 Mens aptness to delude themselves in Sacramentall privileges Page 405 All ages have over-highly advanced Sacramental privileges Page 406 Sacraments Covenant All interested in Sacraments must come up to the terms of the Covenant Page 280 Sacraments annexed te the Covenant of works were without relation to Christ Page 10 11 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Sacraments are ever suitable to Covenants Page 413 All Sacraments must answer to the Covenant to which they are annexed Page 6 Sacraments without spirituall profit to them that live in breach of Covenant Page 18 A Covenant falling Sacraments that are annexed fall with it Page 18 c. Sacraments under the Old and New Covenant one and the same Page 25 The Covenant people of God the adequat subject of Sacraments Page 74 All interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75 c. Sacraments Number The way to find out the number of Sacraments Page 514 No express Scripture to determine their number Page 515 Two onely standing ordinances in the Old Testament of the nature of Sacraments ibid. Five suppositious Sacrments of Rome examined Page 528 Sacrifices Whether of the dictates of nature Page 21 Not Sacraments Page 529 How far Sacramentall ibid. How they differ from Sacraments ibid. Saint A title in Scripture not proper in the justified Page 149 Sanctification The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in it Page 452 Satisfaction How Christs satisfaction to God for us is received by us Page 457 Sathan His imitation of God in the wayes of his worship Page 20 Sea Israels passage through it of the nature of a Sacrament Page 525 No standing Sacrament Page 526 Seales Various acceptation of the word Page 326 Severall use of a Seal Page 327 For secrecy ibid. For warranty ibid. For distinction ibid. For security ibid. For ratification ib. c. Seal of the Covenant and the Seal of the Spirit not of equall latitude Page 141 Seals Sacraments Sacraments are Seales Page 326 Serving for ratification of promises Page 328 Objections answered ibid. c. The whole use and office of Sacraments is by way of signe and seal Page 352 Reasons confirming it Page 354 355 Humane authorities produced Page 356 Variety of opinions about the working of Sacraments Page 359 c. Propositions tending to cleer the truth Page 363 Texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments higher of two sorts Page 372 1. Such where no Sacrament is mentioned ib. 2. Such where faith is required to the attainment of the effect Page 376 Objections answered Page 380 Sermon Formally so called not essentiall to a Sacrament Page 61 Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be concionatorium or consecratorium Page 57. c. Scripture Must not be left to hunt after humane authorities Page 111 Scripture order of words no foundation for arguments Page 170 Scripture characters of men in grace are laid down for men to try themselves by Page 189 Signe What it is Page 38 c. Severall kinds of Signes Page 39 Naturall ibid. Prodigious Page 41 c. By institution Page 42 Rules for the right understanding of naturall signes Page 39 Remote causes are no signes ibid. Partiall causes are no signes Page 40 Natural signes when causes work unavoidably Page 41 Sacramentall signes Sacraments are signes Page 38 Sacraments are to be defined as signes Page 321 Objections answered ibid. c. Sacramentall signes Their properties Page 43 Externall and sensible ibid. Visible Page 43 44 Analogicall Page 45 Rituall Page 46 Distinguishing Page 46 47 65 c. Congregating Page 47 48 Engaging ibid. Remembrancing ibid. 49 Ratifying Page 49 Gods condescension in Sacramental signes Page 52 53 Sacramentall signes must be explained Page 56 Sin All sins are not Spirit-grieving sins Page 392 Notable sins in regenerate persons followed with many dangers Page 394 They cloud assurance of glory ibid. They bring an inaptitude on the soul to enter into glory Page 395 They bring under wrath and displeasure though they work not into a state of wrath Page 396 They are such an obstruction in the way of bliss that they bring a necessity on the soul to come in by repentance Page 397 Rules to discern the nature and quality of sins Page 399 The more of light the less of weakness and the crime more hainous ibid. The less of temptation the more of sin and the less of weakness ibid. c. The more of deliberation and conviction the more of sin Page 400 The more opportunity for duty the greater the neglect Page 401 Severall sorts of sins that are Covenant forfeitures Page 402 c. Sincerity Of heart in covenanting not of the essence and being of a Covenant Page 131 Spirit The seal of the Covenant and the seal of the Spirit not of equall latitude Page 141 Bloud and Spirit way be distinguished but must not be divided Page 367 The acts of the Spirit in a believing soul are ascribed to faith Page 463 The Spirit works not in us respective to Salvation after faith is implanted without us ibid. The Spirit hath a further hand in justification or pardon of sin then alone by enditing the Gospell Page 483 Scriptures and humane authorities produced for it ibid. The Spirit of God and not man is to have the denomination in Sanctification Page 452 Lords Supper A privilege of the Church visible Page 187 It is not limited to