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
confederate with him in Covenant and was upon that account to be circumcised which engaged to actual faith and upon actual believing it sealed this righteousness of faith to him This precedency of faith is a separable adjunct and comes not into the definition To make the definition full and clear the whole text of the Apostle is to be taken into consideration with the context and all that in the History Gen. 17. to which it relates hath relation to it all which is vertually in the words comprized where we may observe 1. The Person receiving or by right interessed 2. The thing received 3. The end or use 4. The thing signified or sealed The Person receiving or by right interessed is Abraham and giving and receiving being relatives as Pareus on the words observes if Abraham received it it is necessarily implyed that there is some one that gave it Christ sayes Joh. 7.22 Moses gave Circumcision to the Jewes because he delivered unto them a Law concerning it Levit. 12.3 but God gave it in charge to Moses as we may see there vers 1. as Gen. 17.9 10. he had before given it in charge to Abraham And therefore Christ saith that Circumcision was of the Fathers God is then the author as Abraham the receiver of Circumcision Abraham that thus received Circumcision from the hand of God may be considered 1. As a man so he stood in no other relation to God then barely as his creature and with others in the world was without God and not within the verge of his Covenant and for seventy and five years he thus continued 2. As a professor of the faith and worshipper of the true God renouncing the gods that he had worshipped in Charran and professedly serving the Lord Jehovah onely 3. As a man upright and sincere in the Covenant comming up to the termes proposed of God and walking perfect before him In all of these capacities Abraham may be considered as any other of the sons of Abraham that are sincere and faithful In the first capacity he had no right to Circumcision all that are in that condition are called by the Apostle Circumcision yet it was not of necessity to his interest in the Covenant or Circumcision the signe and seale of it to be sincere in Covenant though it be necessary to the attainment of the grace of the Covenant and mercy sealed in the Sacrament As others came into Covenant and were intitled to the initiating sign and seale so might Abraham but others came in upon a bare profession as those multitudes of Proselytes that joyned themselves to Israel One of which was Doeg an Edomite 1 Sam. 21.9 had he not been of Israel by profession he had not been detained in the Sanctuary before the Lord upon any religious account as we find he was ver 7. And had he been right in the Covenant he had not had so many things in charge against him neither had the Psalmist spoken in that language that we read of him The Eunuch as we have cause to think had an heart right with God but it was not so with Simon Magus as Peter expresly tells him Act. 8.21 Abraham then is considered as a man professedly in Covenant when he received this sign of Circumcision The thing received is here Circumcision which I shall speak to onely as of a Sacramental kind and not consider it in the individual nature of it as the initiating Sacrament of the Old Covenant held out under that external rite of cutting off the foreskin of the flesh The use of it is to be a sign and seal for signification and ratification to those that received it The thing signified and sealed is the righteousnesse of faith so it is also called Heb. 11. Elsewhere it is called the righteousnesse of God Rom. 10.3 being freely given to us of God and onely able to justifie us in his sight but chiefly because it is wrought by Christ who was not meer man nor barely a creature but the true God as St. John stiles him 1 Joh. 5.20 This righteousness of God is applyed to us and made ours by faith Phil. 3.9 and therefore as it is called the righteousnesse of God so also here and elsewhere the righteousnesse of faith This text being thus cleared a full and compleat definition of a Sacrament may be found The definition of a Sacrament A Sacrament is a sign appointed of God to be received of his Covenant-people to seal the righteousnesse of faith unto them I know there is somewhat put into the definition of a Sacrament by some that treat of this subject which is not here in words exprest and therefore upon that account this definition may be challenged as defective as 1. The Minister by whom it is to be dispensed from God to man But whether this be essential in a Sacrament or otherwise as afterwards is to be enquired into it is sufficiently implyed In case it must be received from God by his people in that way and from that hand that he himself in his Word hath appointed 2. The Sacraments contain as well a profession of our duty towards God as Gods tender and seal to man of which here is nothing said But this we shall find both in the sign and seal which are both mentioned necessarily included and as it appears that it is comprized so to make it more clear and explicite it may by the Reader be added CHAP. V. Sect. I. Of Sacramental signes I shall here purposely wave several Schoole-niceties as in what predicament a Sacrament is to be placed Taking it in the whole nature of it as consisting of a twofold matter the one outward and earthly which is the visible signe the other inward and heavenly which is the thing signified and of a twofold forme one outward which is the due participation of it according to the way prescribed of God the other inward consisting in the analogy between the signe and the thing signified it must needs be an Ens aggregatum and so not capable of any place in that series of being And signe and seale being clearly relatives I shall leave the Reader to informe himself from learned Keckerman in the third Book and eighth Chapter of his Systeme of Philosophy what is the Relatum the Correlatum the relation it self the foundation and the terminus in this Sacramental consideration and shall go on to lay open the several parts of this definition The whole of it being comprized in this text of the Apostle every part affords some doctrinal Observation In the first place I shall observe that Sacraments are signes The truth of this observation is so clear of it self that it needs no proof Taking the word Sacrament in the largest sense that we can speak of it in which it falls short of these Gospel-Ordinances known by that name it is yet Sacrae rei Signum the sign of an holy thing And might be made good by a particular induction not only in those
happinesse and that he ought to take Christ for his Lord and Saviour c. and that this may be done truly not onely as to reality of assent but as to reality of purpose to make this choyce so far as the man knowes his own heart or the mind of God in this work though there be not that integrity to yield up himself wholly which yet by the power of Ordinances through the Spirit in Gods time may be done and through grace perfected Lastly God setting up a visible Church upon earth in order to that Propos 6 which is invisible will have those admitted that give assent to Scripture-doctrine and accordingly make profession And this of it self in foro Dei brings them into Covenant-right and visible Church-membership And therefore according to the mind of God and as Apollonius speaks jure Dei in this estate are to be received Though they shall hit or misse of the mercy of the Covenant accordingly as by grace they come up to or by sin fall short of the Propositions contained in it A Scholar saâ—th Mr. Hudson that is admitted into a School is not admitted because he is doctus but ut sit doctus and if he will submit to the rules of the School and apply himself to learn it is enough for his admission The like may be said of the Church visible which is Christs School Vindicat. p. 248. To which Mr. Baxter himself if I understand him hath given his assent in his Treatise of everlasting rest Part 4. Sect. 3. The door of the visible Church is incomparably wider then the door of heaven and Christ is so tender so bountiful and forward to convey his grace and the Gospel so free an offer and invitation to all that surely Christ will keep no man off if they will come quite over in spirit to Christ they shall be welcome if they will come but onely to a visible profession he will not deny them admittance This seems to speak the mind of Jesus Christ for their admittance and that in foro Dei as well as in foro Ecclesiae they stand in Covenant-relation and have title to Church-membership Thus Mr. Baxter and the Reader may see my thoughts in this thing and though I doubt not but that he will question much that I have said yet now at last I hope both he and others may know my meaning Argument 2. vindicated Argument vindicated 2 My second Argument is All the obsurdities following the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect or men of a saving Faith follow upon this restraint of interest in baptism Mr. Baxter answers What absurdities follow such restraint of it to sound believers as I have asserted I should be willing to know though with some labour I have searched for it Bear with me therefore whilest I examine what you referre me to It is pag. 109. where you charge those absurdities I wonder that all this labour for search should need when as he saies he hath a reference and the Reader I think may see enough from Mr. Baxters own hand in the places already mentioned one part of the first absurdity which I have pressed Mr. Baxter is pleased to repeat This restriction of the Covenant to shut out all the non-regenerate makes an utter confusion betwixt the Covenant it self and the conditions of it The restriction of the Covenant to the regenerate confounds the Covenant and conditions together or if the expression do not please the Covenant it self and the duties required in it between our entrance into covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulnesse to it All know that a bargain for a Summe of money and the payment of that Summe the covenant with a servant for labour and the labour according to this covenant are different things Faithfull men that make a bargain keep it enter covenant and stand to it But the making and keeping the entring and observing are not the same and according to this opinion Regeneration is our entrance into Covenant and regeneration is our keeping of Covenant before regeneration we make no Covenant after regeneration we break no Covenant there is no such thing as Covenant-breaking All this makes an utter confusion in the Covenant After a charge big enough he saies I cannot give my judgement of the intolerablenesse and great danger of your mistake here manifested without unmannerlinesse I will therefore say but this It is in a very weighty point near the foundation wherein to erre cannot be safe To which I onely say I wish he had spoken fully out that the intolerablenesse and supposed great danger of my mistake might have been seen and I earnestly desire all my friends that in case I erre in this manner as I stand charged that they would afford me their help to discover my error but I trust I shall make it good that my error at the highest is but equivocal He addes In my Aphorisms pag. 265. I gave my reasons for the contrary we must therefore see first what is said there where he thus bespeakes his Reader Here let me mind you of one useful observation more The Covenanting on our parts is a principal part of the conditions of the Covenant though this may seem strange that a covenanting and performing conditions should be almost all one And indeed I think all intelligent Readers will judge it to be farre more strange than true though we are to hear of that which is more strange presently we are told of reasons in this page but I find no piece of a reason in it but onely I say instead of a reason And I know not where any thing towards a proof of this position may be found unlesse it be in the Poets Hyperbole Dimidium facti qui bene coepit habet He that hath well begun hath half done yet half is not almost all He goes on It is a truth so farre beyond all doubt that our own Covenanting is a principal part of the condition of the Covenant of grace as that it is in other terms a great part of the substance of the Gospel Here are mysterious words Is our covenanting a part of the condition or is the condition a part of the Covenant The condition is here made the integrum and our Covenanting one part of the condition This is above my reason And for the other part I say if our covenanting be a great part of the substance of the Gospel then the Jew outwardly did make a better progresse in Gospel-waies then we are yet aware of or the Apostle understood when he spake so much as we read Rom. 2. concerning him for he was in Covenant otherwise he had been no Jew at all but a Pagan or Heathen Having told us I cannot guesse to what end that the same act is called our conditions as the performers and Gods conditions as the imposer and promiser giving his blessings onely on these imposed conditions he addes Most properly they are called the
the inward Essence and the other according to the outward manner of Existence Yet this must be taken further into Consideration seeing from this distribution of the Church Mr. Baxter hath got up an Argument to prove visible Churches to be no Churches which is his nineteenth Argument of his 26. and is thus framed If the distribution of the Church into visible and invisible be but of the subject into divers adjuncts and not of a Genus into its Species then that part or those Members which are meerly visible are indeed no part of the Members of the Church so distributed but are onely Equivocally called a Church Church-Members c. The Antecedent must be yielded him the Consequence he saith is undeniable in that adjuncts are no part of the Essence much lesse the form or the whole Essence and therefore cannot denominate but aequivocally instead of the essence To this I answer the consequence might as fairly have been that these members which are invisible are no parts or members of the Church so distributed seeing invisibility or invisible as is confest is an adjunct as well as visibility or visible There may be a distribution of man by hundreds of adjuncts either corpulent or leane high or low black or fair old or young rich or poor learned or unlearned c. If one of these so denominated be a true man shall the other then be onely aequivocally a man If a corpulent man be a true man is a leane man no man If a tall black or old man be a true man shall then a low fair or young man be no man This must needs follow as well as the other The reason given that adjuncts are no part of the Essence is not at all to the purpose seeing the subject that is denominated by such adjuncts hath its Essence though blacknesse be not of the essence of a man yet the man that is black hath his essence and though visibility be not of the essence of the Church yet the Church which is denominated visible hath its essence And whereas we are warned to note that visibile is not the same with visum so I can give warning that invisibile is not the same with non visum though I know not to what purpose Secondly I answer the Church being an integrum and that per aggregationem and onely one in exact propriety of speech it cannot be capable of any such distribution so there must be one Church of one denomination and another of another but it is a distribution of Church-members which serve as parts to make up the whole some of which are onely visible that is all their honour to make a visible profession and to enjoy the glory of Ordinances and the Divine protection of God over his vineyard upon which account they are nigh when others are a far off The other are invisible members As they have all the visible honour before mentioned so they have an addition of a far greater glory of invisible graces The former I take to be the Church most properly though I know others are of another opinion for two reasons 1. When the Church is an integrum as Mr. Hudson hath largely proved it the visible Church containes the whole for the invisible part is also visible invisible respective to graces but visible respective to profession and outward priviledges The invisible is onely one part and so not the Church in its most proper signification 2. The Scripture almost wheresoever it speakes of a Church takes it in this acception and that which is the ordinary and common language of the holy Ghost which he uses most often almost alwayes is that which is most proper Some have said that the word Church is not more then once taken for the Church invisible which is Heb. 12.23 The Church of the first born If it should be granted that there is two or three places more which will bear that acceptation of it which is as much as can be pretended yet I dare say there is not one for twenty where the Church is taken for the Church visible And is the language of Scripture still all over aequivocal When Christ sayes The Kingdome of heaven is like to a man that sowed good seed in his field is like to a draw-net shall we say the Kingdome of heaven aequivocally taken Stephen sayes This was he that was in the Church in the wildernesse must we understand it of the Church aequivocal And when Paul gave Timothy a directory how to behave himself in the house of God which he sayes is the Church of the living God must we understand it of a Church aequivocal Such a one would be but a weak ground or pillar of the truth we may say the same of abundant other places If all these aequivocals be granted it will shortly be questioned whether there be any reality in Scripture language The Author vindicated from Arminianisme As the authority of our Divines is produced against the Papists so also their authority against the Arminians is brought forth Our Divines against the Arminians saith he do suppose the first act of believing to be the first time that God is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of grace and that it is dangerous to make God to be in actual Covenant with men in the state of nature though the conditional Covenant may be made to them and though he hath revealed his decree for the sanctifying his elect That God is then first engaged for the graces of the Covenant I easily yeeld for then the grand condition by the help of grace is put in by the soul But let us here take up that which he is pleased to yield and compare it with that which he hath put into the Index of his Treatise of Infant-Baptisme where he notes this as Mr. T. his Error That the Covenant whereof Baptisme is the seal is onely the absolute Covenant made onely to the Elect which pag. 223. he confutes And if men in the state of nature be in that Covenant that Baptisme seales viz the conditional Covenant then men in the state of nature and short of justifying faith have right to Baptisme It follows In my opinion the transition is very easie from Mr. Blakes opinion to Arminianisme if not unavoidable save by retreat or by not seeing the connexion of the consequence to the antecedent When this was charged upon me by another hand I was acquitted by Mr. Br. and he testified for me that I had acquitted Mr. M. from any such charge I marvel therefore that now it should be fastened upon me But let us hear his reason For grant once that common faith doth coram Deo give right to Baptisme and it is very easie to prove that it gives right to the end of Baptisme God having not instituted it to be an empty sign to those that have true right to it What is it that we hear will it give immediate right to the end of Baptisme
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
are likewise seals where there are like Sacramental expressions notwithstanding they have no such name in Scripture And as the Apostle infers from the institution of Circumcision and Abrahams acceptation of it that Circumcision was a seal so may we infer in like manner that other Sacraments are signs and seals Compare that which the Apostle here deduceth from Gen. 17. concerning Abrahams Circumcision with that which may be deduced from Acts 8.34 35. concerning the Eunuchs Baptisme Abraham believed and was justified upon believing and then received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had being uncircumcised And the Eunuch did believe on Philips preaching and afterwards received Baptisme May we not well then say He received the sign of Baptisme a seal of the righteousnesse that he had being yet unbaptized so we may say of Pauls Baptisme and the Jaylours upon their miraculous conversion to the faith they received the sign of Baptisme for the same reason Secondly It is demanded whether the Covenant of grace and promises of salvation be compleat valid and firm in themselves Object without these things annexed to them or whether they be meerly void and null in Law as Kings and mens Deeds and Charters without a seal to confirm them If incompleat infirm and invalid this is extreamly derogatory to the Covenant and therefore they are not properly seals Answ 1. Sol. If there be some dissimilitude between civill seals used by men in Charters and conveyances and seals of God put to his Covenant will it then follow that upon that account they are no seals There are dissimilitudes between the Ambassadors of Princes and the Ministers of Christ respective to their functions are Ministers then no Ambassadors There is difference between servants of men and servants of God are Christians then no servants Sacraments are seals by way of metaphor because they do the office that seals do among men and if they do not per omnia quadrare as no metaphors do yet in case they agree in the main for which that serves from whence the metaphor is borrowed it is sufficient Ministers are fitly called Ambassadors being sent of God to treat from him with a people as Ambassadors are sent of Princes notwithstanding that those to whom Ambassadours come may treat or not treat at pleasure may give in Propositions as well as receive them when they to whom Gods Ministers are sent must give audience must take the Propositions delivered and not stand to Capitulate If Sacraments ratifie to us the promises of the Covenant That is enough to denominate them seales though wit could devise twenty differences And yet I read some differences assigned which I confesse I do not understand to be any differences at all 2. I know not that it is absolutely true in Law that mens grants are void altogether without a seal I have heard of Leases parol and Wills nuncupative which I am sure have no seal And seales sometimes by the injury of time are utterly broke and lost and in this case I suppose the Covenant may yet stand 3. What is objected against this office of Sacraments as seales may also be objected against the oath of God made to Abraham for confirmation of his Word That will admit the dilemma Either his Word of Promise was true and firm without it or else which I am loath to speak subject to change The application is easie The same thing was revealed to Pharaoh in a dream for seven years plenty and seven years famine by a double sign If there was truth in one we may argue the second needs not if untrue neither have cause to be heeded or regarded If we will undertake such kind of reasonings we should make no end 4. The Covenant is compleat full firm and valid in case we should never more then once hear it or never have any seal put to it nor any oath for confirmation yet our unbelief and distrust is such that we need ingeminations inculcations oaths seals and all from God to uphold us Object Thirdly It is yet demanded whether these seales are inseparably annexed to the Covenant and promises of grace in the Old or New Testament as parts or parcels of them as seales are annexed To the Charter If yea then shew us to what Covenants and Promises and in and by what Texts they are thus inseparably annexed and how any can be saved or made partakers of the benefit of the Covenant and promises of grace who do not actually receive these seales of grace when as your selves with all Orthodox Divines must grant that many who were never baptized and infinite who never received the Lords Supper are and may be saved and are made partakers of the Covenant and promises of grace without receiving or enjoying these seales of grace If no then how can these be termed seales of the Covenant and promises of grace which are not inseparably affixed to them as seales are to Charters since many receive the Covenant and promises of grace without these seales and other receive these seales without the Covenant or promises the benefit whereof they never enjoy Answ They are inseparably joyned respectu praecepti Sol. as being enjoyned of God and here all the Texts brought to prove the Sacraments not arbitrary but necessary may be brought in to witnesse though not so respectu medii The Covenant may have its effect without them The Covenant is intire in it self without them They are not inseparable quoad esse yet they have their necessity though not simple and absolute quoad operari for the Covenant to have its due work on our hearts God saw them necessary helpful and useful and therefore gave them in charge as many Scriptures witnesse and we of necessity must submit to them in order to obtain the end to which they serve and for which they are designed and appointed SECT II. Rules for a right understanding of Sacramental Seales FIrst These are outward visible seales Explicatory Propositions touching the sealing of Sacraments and priviledges of visible Churches and Church-membership committed to the Stewards of God in his house to dispense and apply to their people And so different from that other seal of God frequently mentioned the seal of the Spirit which is internal invisible proper onely to the elect regenerate reserved in the hand of God according to prerogative to give That these are external and visible needs no more then our eyes and that they are the priviledg of visible Churches and Church-members sufficient hath been spoken And therefore they both agree in the general nature of a seal both are for ratification and confirmation of the truth of Gods promises yet in a different way and different latitude They have the former that never reacht the latter and the former is serviceable to attain to the latter Secondly They are seales not to confirm any truth of God in it self or to work in us any assent to general Scripture-Propositions But
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
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
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
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
Lastly as Durand Reas 4 doth observe The whole that is done in it speaks its own use and signification and the use and signification of Sacraments wholly depends upon divine institution They have nothing that beares any colour to say for the Sacramentality of it save that Text of the Apostle Ephes 5.32 where the Apostle having illustrated that love which is due from the husband to the wife by that similitude of the love of Christ to the Church concludes This is a great Mystery and having spoke both of the union betwixt Christ and the Church and between man and his wife to prevent all mistakes he addes but I speak of Christ and his Church so that first we have not the word Sacrament there but the word Mystery which by Bellarmines own confession is not elsewhere in Scripture to be understood of any Sacrament and Cajetan on the words as Amesius observes warnes the prudent Reader to observe that we have not from Paul in this place that Marriage is any Sacrament So that neither word nor thing is found in Scripture that Marriage is a Sacrament Every one of these might have born a large discourse as is well known to all that are verst in these controversies But so many having spoken so fully to them though I was unwilling intending a Treatise of the Sacraments wholly to omit them yet was resolved that the Reader might not be overburthened to be as brief as possible in them FINIS A POSTSCRIPT TO REVEREND and LEARNED Master BAXTER IN WHICH These following QVESTIONS are friendly debated Whether faith in Christ quà Lord be the justifying act Whether mans Evangelicall personall righteousness be here perfect Whether the Morall Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Whether Vnbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace Whether Faith and Repentance be Gods conditions or mans in the proper conditionall Covenant Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection and accept sincerity With an enquiry into the judgement of Antiquity about severall things in reference to Justification Sicut meritum Christi non potest apprehendi ad justitiam salutem nisi per organon fidei divinitùs ad hoc ordinatum ita si fides alibi quà m in suo proprio principali objecto quaerat Justificationem non invenit nec accipitillam Chemnit exam concil Trident de fid Justif pag. 159. LONDON Printed by S. G. for Abel Roper at the Sign of the Sun against Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1655. THE INTRODVCTION REverend Beloved and much Honoured I have received your Apologie according to your appointment from your Stationer for which I return you hearty thanks as for the gift it self so for the pains that you have taken to rectifie me where in your judgement I have publickly stept aside An error in Divine things if it stand alone without addition of further aggravations is not light Truth being of such divine excellency that no pensil can draw out all deviation from it into opposite error must needs answer in black deformity and darkness But when it is not simple error but joyned with endeavour to engage others it is far above it self in fowlness To reduce a brother therefore not onely erring but thus erring must needs be an high acceptable office of love But in this I need to do no more than to say over to you what you have said to me in your first and second page which you stile your Prologue In this if we both speak our hearts thoughts we are one And I wish that in all other things there were a like unity in judgement and the time I hope with some confidence is near at hand that all mists and clouds will be so dispelled that we shall arrive at perfect union And as for infinite other reasons so for this glory is infinitely desireable In order to a right understanding between us I must acquaint you that your first words after your Christian salute have their mistake though not much material whether upon mistake of my words when I last saw you in Shrewsbury or fayling in memory I cannot determine I told you not that I had then sent to the Press a treatise of the Covenant◠but wished you indeed not to be offended in case I should in such a treatise publish somewhat in the way that you mention In which I do not barely oppose my memory to yours but also the witness of the Reverend Brother whom you know was then present together with the computation of time which speaks it to me to be above contradiction It was May 3. that we spake together as I well know by the errand that I had at that time into those parts and my book saw not the light till towards the end of November following and yet made speedy haste after it went out of my hands I was glad of the opportunity as of a brief discourse of some things as the little scantling of time would bear so also to understand your mind in the thing already mentioned before any further proceeding that there might be no unbrotherly difference which at that time you express'd with all possible candor for my encouragement in that way Yet you now complain that I have given the first onset and so put you upon a necessity of this way of dealing against me which you mention in your Preface Apologetical and in this Prologue and more at large in the Preface of your Confession preferring in your judgement a more private Collation and enquiry into things before this publique way of appearing in the Press And indeed I had it in my thoughts to have written to you before I had any setled resolution at all any more to have appear'd in publique had done some little that way as soon as your Aphorisms came to light which was more than three years and an half before my treatise of the Covenant was published as may be seen comparing the dates of either but after-thoughts took me off And indeed I see no cause of Repentance considering the issue of things between you and others After so much pains of writing on both sides I do not hear that any of those eminently learned men which you say from most parts of the land have taken this way to impart their animadversions have at all prevail'd to change your mind Neither do I hear that any of your replies have wrought any change in them for satisfaction And in the mean space those elaborate writings on both sides are buried in your Study and theirs and no other but your selves have any benefit at all Only we have their complaints such is humane frailty that their names suffer in your publick writings As to the Charge against me for making the first onset I had not appear'd at all had I not upon other occasions which may be seen in my Preface been put upon it to come out in open view And how far I stand guilty of that in which I
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
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
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
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-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
and the condition as such And you proceed ex non concessis to charge me with this confusion taking it for granted in the words that follow that a Covenant which is also a Law as well as a Covenant may by the preceptive part constitute much more duty then shall be made the condition of the promises In which I conceive there is a double mistake 1. That a Covenant properly so called of which we speak can be a Law in the proper acceptation For a covenant is of 2. parties either of both concurring to the constitutioÌ„ of it if it be a Law both parties are as well Law-givers as Covenant-makers A Superiour may impose a condition as by a Law but that is but one part of a Covenant 2. That there is any duty in a Covenant that is not also of the Condition of it I am sure in the Covenant of Grace there is nothing duty which is not a condition Faith and Repentance are conditions and if you can tell me of any thing else which is matter of duty taking Repentance in its due latitude viz. to cease to do evill and learne to do well it will be a piece of a new Catechisme with me These you grant are conditions and this the all of a Christians duty Whereas you say If you will speak so largely as to say All who break the preceptive part of the Covenant are Covenant-breakers then no doubt God accepteth of many such and none but such for Whether we say say you that the New Law commandeth perfect obedience or not yet except you take it exceeding restrainedly it must be acknowledged that the precept is of larger extent then the condition having appointed some duties which it hath not made sine qua non to salvation Answ I think God accepts of none that break the preceptive part of the Covenant in the sense as the preceptive part of it qua Covenant is to bâ— understood as interpreters usually give as the meaning of it God accepts that I know none to speak de adultis but those that walk before him and are sincere He neither accepts of profanenesse nor men of hypocriticall dissimulation I know sincerity hath its latitude as perfection strictly taken hath not An upright heart in temptations hath many a great shock but if you can say that the duty of the Covenant is so laid aside that the heart is not right in the sight of God as Peter of Simon Magus which must be said if the precept of sincerity and uprighthnesse be broke then I do not know that there is any acceptance Simon Magus must be in another frame before the thoughts of his heart be forgiven him And this I am confident is the thoughts of my learned friend whom you mention if I do not as I think I do not mistake the man And I have my reason for this confident opinion And as I wonder at your distinction betwixt the duty and condition of a Covenant so I no lesse marvail at your Simile You tell me If I send my Child a mile of an errand and say I charge you play not by the way but make hast and do not go in the dirt c. and if you come back by such an houre I will give you such a reward if not you shall be whipt He that plaies by the way dirties himself yet comes back by the houre appointed doth break the preceptive part but not the condition Your distinction is between the preceptive part and the condition in a Covenant and here you talke of a precept that is no part of the Covenant but if I put all within the Covenant and say Come again within an houre not playing or dirtying your self if he either out stay his houre or play or run in the dirt he forfeites his reward and is at mercy for a whipping according to Covenant You speak afterward of a mans breach of some particular Covenant which a man may do in a temptation and yet as to the Covenant of grace be sincere 3. I said Then it will follow that as none can say They have so answered the command of the Law that they have never failed So neither can they with the Church make appeale to God that they have not dealt fasly in the Covenant Psal 44 17. Every sin according to this opinion being a breach of it and a dealing fasly in it You reply This charge is as unjust as the former I confesse it and you giving no further reason I shall sit down with the former answer 4. I said Then the great promise of mercy from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his righteousnesse unto Childrens Children to such as keep his Covenant and to those that remember his Commands to do them Psal 103.17 18. only appertaines to those that keep the Law that they sin not at all against it You answer It follows not If they sincerely keep the Law they fulfill the conditions of the Covenant though not the precept And I say the precept of the Covenant goes no higher then sincerity And I had thought you had fully concurred with me That Christ say you as the Mediator of the new Covenant should command us not only sincere but perfect obedience to the moral law so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel not only as a directory and instruction but also as a command I am not yet convinced Adding My reason is because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to performe Aphor. 157 158. How these can be reconciled I know not I think none is inabled through grace to be more then sincere and then the precept of the Covenant according to you requires no more You further say They keep the precept in an improper but usuall sense as keeping is taken for such a lesse degree of breaking as on Gospel grounds is accepted Answ They keep it if they be sincere in the sense as Christ the Mediator of the Covenant gave it in as proper a sense as they keep the conditions 5. I said Then our Baptism-vow is never to sin against God and as often as we renew our Covenant we do not only humble our selves that we have sinned but we afresh bind our selves never more to commit the least infirmity To this you answer We do not promise in Baptism to do all that the precept of the Covenant requireth but all that is made the condition of life and to endeavour the rest I desire to know where you find this distinction as applied to our Baptism-vow You say pag. 79. of this Apology that Baptized ones are to renounce the Flesh the World and the Devill and that this abrenunciation hath been in the Church ever since the Apostles daies qâ—oting Tertullian Cyprian and all antiquity for it I would know whether Tertullian Cyprian or any other eminent in ancient times help'd it out
with your distinction that we engage to renounce them not as duty but as a condition to obtaine Salvation This privative part of duty holding out the terminus à quo in our Christian motion implyes a positive work which also was expressed in our English Leiturgie constantly to believe Gods holy word and obediently keep his commands and confirmed by the Apostle to be our duty Ro. 6.4 Buried with him by Baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newnesse of liâ—e This we vow and I desire to know what more in any Gospel-precept is required 6. I said then the distinction between those that enter Covenant and break it as Jer. 31.32 33. and those that have the Law written in their hearts and put into their inward parts to observe it fallâ— all standing equally guilty of the breach of it no help of grace being of power to enable to keep Covenant To this you answer When sincere obedience The precept and the condition in the Covenant of Grace are one and perfect obedience are all one and when the precept and the condition of the Covenant are proved to be of equall extent then there will be ground for the charging of this consequence I marvail how the first part of the answer came into your thoughts That Text of Jeremiah speaks to sincerity and not to perfection For the second sincerity is the precept and sinceâ—ity is the condition sincerity is one and the same and therefore precept and condision are one and the same That which we are to renounce and that to which we engage is our condition But that which we renounce and that to which we engage is thâ— Gospel or Covenant-precept The precept and condition are therefore the same Faith and new obedience are the precept Faith and new obedience are the condition The precept and condition are therefore one and the same So that your distinction falling as I doubt not but it do's all my arguments after the first to the last eo nomine stand You go about to evade them all with this one distinction which I leave to the judicious Reader to determine whether it be not without a difference But before I undertake your next I have to thank you for that which you have transcribed out of Robert Baronius pag. 401. of your Confession Treating in an Appendix of the possibility of fulfilling the Law of God considered according to Gospel lenity you tell us what his second assertion is pag. 122. which I desire the Reader to peruse either in your book or in the Author himself Where he may see 1. That the Gospel is below the Law as to the degree that it requireth As to the one there is a possibility of fulfilling according to him and not so to the other 2. That the obligation of the Law yet remains so that all failings are transgressions 3. That it stands as a Rule for us to affect and with our best strength to endeavour after 4. That the Gospel requires a certain measure of obedience on pain of eternal damnation This doubtless is that which is the condition of it 5. That this obedience thus required is necessarily to be as high as grace enables to reach In which we see in the first place their distinction opposed that say That the Gospel requires perfection and accepts sincerity The Gospel according to him requires no more then it accepts and for which grace enables And in the next place your distinction of duty and condition is by him utterly overthrown according to him all comes within the condition which is matter of duty My last argument was Then it follows that sincerity is never called for as a duty or required as a grace but only dispens'd with as a failing and indulged as a want It is not so much a Christian's honour or Character as his blemish rather his defect then praise But we find the contrary in Noah Job c. To this you reply I will not say it is past the wit of man to find the ground of this charge i. e. to see how this should follow but I dare say it is past my wit If it had been said The Covenant commandeth perfection and not sincerity or the Covenant accepteth sincerity but not commandeth it there would have been some reason for this charge But do you think that sincerity is no part of perfection c Answ My wit is so low that I know not where the cloud lies I do not take sincerity to be properly a part of perfection but a degree towards it as Calor ad unum is a degree towards rather then a part of Calor ad octo So the lower degâ—ee of heat would remain when a higher is introduc'd and not be swallowed up in it And if the command looks no lower then perfection in degree the imperfect degree is not directly commanded though according to these it is in dulged It is said Matth. 12.20 that Christ will not break the bruised Reed nor quench the smoaking Flax. Is that feeble strength and remiss heat there look'd upon as a duty or rather is it not look'd upon as a defect or want Is it not Christ's indulgence rather then the obedience of his command that is there noted or pointed out My answer to the single argument so far as I have read or heard against that which I here delivered follows But seeing that your reply so far as I can judge is rather with me then against me as to the Position it self and your endeavour rather to excuse then defend those of the contrary opinion which very well pleaseth me for I wish that more were said for their honour so that the truth do not suffer I am well content to pass it by having a greater desire to defend you where you speak for truth then my self where not truth but my reputation is impugned And shall make it my business to look into that which Mr. Crandon hath against you in it Concerning the second that the Gospel doth require but sincere Mr. Crandons arguments answered not perfect obedience which is both your assertion and mine he saith What shall we think of those Texts in the new Testament which require us to be perfect 2 Cor. 13.11 Jam. 1.4 Yea perfect as God is perfect Matt. 5.48 reproving weakness and infirmity and commanding a going on to perfection Answ We are to think of them as Protestant Divines ordinarily do in their commenting upon them We deny saith Rivet that the perfection of which Scripture speaks either when it commands us to be perfect or gives testimony of perfection or integrity to some consists in a freedome from sin Exercit. 52. in Genes pag. 267. The Text quoted out of James serves well to explain the rest Let patience have her perfect work that ye may be perfect and entire wanting nothing whence we may argue 1. That perfection
Levit. 25.42 they are born unto God Ezek. 16.20 they are the children of God Ezek. 16.21 they are holy Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Either then we must carry it out to all the infants of the visible Church or else we cannot assure it to the infants of invisible members And therefore the Schoolemen afore mentioned justly ascribe as much to a faith informed as to that which is formed respective to the good of the issue of such believers 5. All that is spoken in Scripture of the blessedness of the seed of the righteous may as fairly be extended to them through the whole course of their lives as to the times of their infancy promises being not put with any such restraint as to have an end when their infancy is expired The most ample of promises which we find is in Esay 59.21 There it is promised that the Spirit shall not depart out of the mouth of thy seed or thy seeds seed but this rather belongs to them of years then of an infant-infant-condition If it be said that many infants of the righteous persevere not but cast off the seed of grace received I answer the grace of perseverance is necessarily required to make blessed and blessedness is promised we know temporal blessings are made over by promise to the seed of such His seed shall be mighty upon earth wealth and riches shall be in his house Psal 112.2 3. Psal 37.25 26. I have been young and now am old yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread He is ever merciful and lendeth and his seed is blessed The opposition that is found between the letter of promises of this nature and the event which the experience of every age observes hath wrought a great conflict in mens spirits how to reconcile them And this hath been the result of all that they are not to be understood without their due limits and several have been put I shall not stand to enter into the dispute onely I say experience doth as much oppose the literal meaning of true blessedness to all the seed of the righteous as of temporal prosperity one must therefore have its due limits as well as the other To wind up this whole discourse concerning Sacraments in that juncture of time God then had his Church in which there was salvation Henoch walked with God and yet without faith it was impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Noah was an heir of the righteousness of faith Heb. 11.7 a righteousness in which the Apostle desired to be found for salvation Phil. 3.8 yet in all that juncture of time there was no written Word in which the succeeding ages have everlasting life Joh. 5.39 God had other wayes of discovery of himself to his people for life So the Church might answerably be without Sacraments howsoever we judge salvation to be thereby either conveyed or sealed God that tyes us to Ordinances is himself free and in what way he pleases may communicate blisse and give assurance of it The likest conjecture that we can make of Gods ordering by providence that in this juncture of time from the fall to the time of Abrahams call there should be no Sacrament nor any such supposed remedy known to acquit infants from Orinal sin is â—o declare the freedom of God that as he pleases to ordaine Sacramental signes so he is not tyed to them or his hands bound up by them but as he saved without Sacraments before the floud and after to the time of Abraham and infants under the Law dying before the eighth day so he still saves in the want though not in the sinful neglect much lesse in the contempt of these Ordinances CHAP. IV. Of the definition of a Sacrament THe next consideration of Sacraments in mans fallen condition is from Abraham unto Christ in the time of the dispensation of the Old Covenant In which those known Sacraments Circumcision and the Passeover were of force and given in charge of God to his people and together with those Sacraments extraordinary or such as come near up to the nature of Sacraments The Cloud the Red-Sea Manna and the Rock Sacraments under the old new Covenant of one and the same nature 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. But intending to speak of Sacraments in general and there being no essential difference between the Sacraments under the Old and New Covenant One and the same definition containing whatsoever is essential to a Sacrament in any of them as many wayes might be made manifest Their names are promiscuously used the cloud that Israel was under and the sea that they passed through is called by the name of Baptisme 1 Cor. 10.2 and so also is Circumcision Collos 2.11 12. The thing signified and benefit received is in every one the same The Apostle comparing those that did eat of Manna and drank of the Rock in the Wilderness with believers in Gospel-times that partake of the Lords Supper saith They all ate the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ 1 Corrinthians 10.3 4. And we may say the same of those that did eat of the Passeover As Christ was that bread that Manna did typifie Joh. 6.49.50 so it was he that was held out and his death shewed forth in the Passeover 1 Cor. 5.7 I shall therefore wave this different consideration of them and make it my businesse to enquire what a Sacramen is and to make discovery of the generall nature of it which in case out of Scripture I can reach that will serve for a bottome on which all that I intend to speak may be grounded Bellarmine spends a whole Chap. in enquiry whether a Sacrament can properly be defined quoting severall Schoolmen for the negative That it cannot be defined because a Sacrament is not one of it self but an aggregatum one by accident or at least not ens reale no real being and those things that are but one accidentally or not really are below a definition He quotes others in the affirmative Some that it may be defined imperfectly others that it admits of a perfect definition After a distinction laid down very little to the purpose one member of the distinction being by his own confession not considerable by Divines he concludes that a Sacrament morally considered as it ought to be considered by Divines may be defined having a reall being and according to its own way of being it is one Morall Philosophers define saith he a Kingdome a City a Family though they be not one physically but by aggregation so do Divines define a Church a Councell or Sacrament which are one in being no other way Suarez agrees with him Disput 1a. de Sacramentis Sect. 4 ta which Whitaker praelect de Sacr. pag. 4. acknowledges to be true A Sacrament may be defined So that he observes it is agreed that they may be defined and I
and the bruised reed broke There have not been a few hungry sad souls that I have known that have born the terror of the Lord separate themselves for this reason But it will be replyed by those that give this warning that they mean not these they are not at all intended in their speech these they would tender and with all endeared affection of love encourage as those that have most need and are most fit to receive food for their strength But all of this helps not when this Proposition is laid down That no man in whom justifying faith and a new life by the Spirit is not wrought may dare otherwise then on the peril of his soul to draw nigh hither will not such a soul necessarily assume A new life through the Spirit is not wrought in my soul I am conscious to my self that I am carnal whatsoever endeavours I have used to believe yet how far am I from faith in strength and truth I find my self all over doubts and fears and plunged in unbelief And though I have made it my businesse to keep off from sin yet how far am I from a true change by repentance I find my heart hard obdurate even as an adamant yea the poor deserted soul will take to it self the state of Cain the condition of Judas If there be any other high in wickednesse they have matched yea they have exceeded them They are to put it to the question whether they are in grace or no whether they have a new life wrought or as yet are short of it This they must either determine in the affirmative that they are in grace at least there are those hopeful signs in present that they cannot but conclude it and then they safely may come upon sight of this they may with cheerfulnesse make their addresse or else they must carrie it in the negative all that is yet wrought is not life is not grace is not faith in its power is not repentance in truth as they can do no other that walk in darknesse and see no light that say God hath forgotten to be gracious and so they must keep off from the Ordinance and debar themselves from those cordials those apples those flagons that are there tendered and sick of love yet dare not intermeddle with the Lords tokens that are tendered to them or in the third place suspend and so sit down in doubtful fears whether they have grace or no and then that of the Apostle Rom. 14.23 He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin will soon come into their thoughts and so all that are short of fulnesse of assurance must in dreadful horror separate themselves Secondly This Sacrament in that it is a Sacrament hath the name and nature of a seal as we see in the text and God willing shall be shewn a visible seal intrusted in the hands of man and therefore must needs be of a more different latitude and large extent then that seal which God reserves in his own keeping the seal of the Spirit The Lord knowes them that are his 2 Tim. 2.19 But man is to seek who are the Lords God knowes how to put to his seal to his own man who hath not this knowledg must needs be here allowed a greater latitude either men entrusted with it must have the knowledge of God as to this particular who they are in whom a new life is and grace wrought or else they must be allowed a greater latitude to take in men that make profession of God and as members in Church-Communion may be edified by it I know this argument is carried another way and that we conclude the contrary upon a double account 1. These seales of God outward and inward should answer each to other Those that have the outward seal they are to have the inward those that take into their hand the seal of the Sacrament should have the impresse of the Spirit on their soules To which I answer That the writing of the Word with Inke and Paper in the Bible and the writing in the heart by the Spirit should answer each the other that is every Christian should make it his businesse to hide that Word in his heart that by the Ministery sounds in his ears and yet Christians are not warned not to take a Bible into their hands till the impresse of that which is there is put on their hearts The Word is delivered in a greater latitude and so also must the Sacrament 2. Some say this Sacrament seales Gospel-promises onely they therefore that can claime the promise and have their interest in it can claime the seal otherwise the seal is put to a blank there is a seal where there is no Covenant-promise 1. I answer this argument thus carried speaks sadly to the hearts of all dispensers of the Sacraments they must see there is a Covenant-promise or else they must not dare to put to a seal To put any mans seal to a blank paper where nothing is written is a vain use of that seal It stands there as a cypher Now to put Gods seal to a blank where nothing is written doubtlesse is as vain and an high taking of Gods Name in vain according to these the Covenant is written in non-legible and invisible characters This inward work is that white stone with a new name written which no man knoweth save he that receives it Revel 2.17 and so the dispensers too often against convictions of conscience allwayes at hap-hazard must deliver them any thing written or not written whether a blank or filled up they cannot tells but are all at uncertainties 2. I answer as is the seal so is the Covenant both of them external and one must answer to the other Now these in question as hath been demonstrated at large are in Covenant An outward Covenant is by few questioned and so the seal is put to no blank but given to one interested in Covenant It seals the grace of the Covenant and mercy tendred in the promise on Gods termes and propositions So that the different latitude of the seal of the Spirit and of the seal of the Sacrament do conclude that men of no more then visible Church-interest may partake of it 3. The Church de facto hath injoyed it in this latitude not to instance in some ages following the times of the Apostles in which the Pastors called all their people to daily Sacraments and the use of it in Austins time when wicked ones in the Church were so numerous that they durst not deal with Church-censures but look into the Scripture though we are kept much in the dark concerning their practice little mention being made of the administration after the institution yet we know that this Sacrament was the priviledge of visible members then in being and it is clear enough how far many even then were short of sincerity If that of 1 Cor. 11. be
his businesse to take off Christians from their resort to the Idols temples to eat there of that which had been offered in sacrifice which they judged to be within the verge of their liberty An Idol being nothing in the world tells them that as joyning with Jewes in their sacrifice offered on the Altar did declare them to be one body with the Jewes and eating of the Sacramental bread did make them one body Christian so also going to the Heathens sacrifices did evidence them to be one body Heathen The Apostle as we see Rom. 1.5 thought no understanding man would question it we must therefore readily yeeld it which holds true of the Passeover seeing onely the circumcised who were in saith Jewes were to be admitted do it Exod. 12.48 And this I suppose is that which Reverend Gataker means opposing that tenent that the Sacraments conferre grace by the work done where there is no barre put and having quoted testimonies of Bishop Abbot Calvin and Whitaker sharpely enough declaring themselves against it adds That for the axiome it self I will not contend about it if that effect of the Sacraments be understood for which they were instituted of God and the Word be taken in a more large sense for all that whatsoever it be that may be any impediment that the Sacraments cannot have their effect Though perhaps in these words of his he had some other intentions It were an endlesse labour to lanch out into the controversie and to gather up the various opinions of those of a contrary judgment and their different thoughts to make good their tenents whether of those that deny Sacraments to be Seales as generally the Papists whom Anabaptists in this follow at the heels as in most other things both about the Covenant and Sacraments Or Lutherans who yeelding them to be seales as well as signes yet affirim that these are lesse principal offices and uses of Sacraments the chief end is to be instruments of conveyance of grace to the soul Or dissenting brethren among Protestants some of them falling in with Popish Schoolmen wholly closing with their tenent that Sacraments conferre grace where no bar is put to hinder their working or others that hold it with limit onely to Baptisme and that to elect children not daring to put reprobates into a state of regeneration or remission of sin nor yet to assert that the elect are alwayes thus regenerate in Baptisme But that it holds so in ordinary Or of some that I have met with in discourse that suppose that Baptisme hath his work in those elect infants where God foresees that death will prevent their regeneration by the Word or others that say that God works by Baptisme to regeneration and forgivenesse of sin but according to pleasure they dare not assign to whom Some of these I judge to be more evidently opposite to the Scripture then others yet I confesse I see not foundation in the Word for any of them These that are thus agreed that the Sacraments as instruments conferre grace without respect had to the receivers faith yet are at odds among themselves what manner of instruments they are He that pleases may read in Suarez disput 9. quaest 62. art 4. Sect. 2. six several opinions about it some will have them to be no efficient but material causes onely as a dish conveying a medicine is no cause of health but a material instrument onely of conveyance Others hold that they conferre grace per modum impetrationis because the Minister and the Church obtaines of God by prayer grace by them Others say that they are conditions without which God gives not grace Others yet say that the Sacraments are causes of grace because when they are applyed they move God to conferre it As we say they work by way of sign on our understanding so they say they work by way of sign with God moving him to remember his promise Others say they conferre grace because God in a more special manner appears in them as a principal agent or efficient which my Authour complaines is very obscure But he that will consult the Authour of this opinion which is Henricus à Gandavo Quod. quart quaest 37. may find much against any power in the Sacraments to conferre or to speak in his language to create grace in the soul creation being solely the prerogative of God and above the power of any creature to be assistent in it yet lest he should run upon an heresy against the determination of the Catholick Church in making them no more then signs and seals he is put upon it to come off thus blewly that Suarez with all his high wit cannot find out his meaning Suarez himself concludes that they are Physical instruments in the conveyance of grace and that they are causes of grace because by a true Physical action they concur to the sanctification of men Having with much adoe endeavoured to prove a possibility of their working of grace in a Physicall way he concludes that this is their way of working and that not barely in working some disposition towards grace not reaching grace it self nor yet in working an union only of grace with the soul But in the most proper and rigorous sense Sacraments Physically work grace the very Physicall action by which Grace is wrought and drawn out of the obediential power of the soul truly really and Physically depending on the Sacraments which he judges to be most agreeable to the dignity of the Sacraments the phrases of Scripture and Councels and Fathers about them But it might pitty the Reader to see how miserably he comes off with this assertion of his only telling us that the Scripture sayes we are cleansed sanctified or regenerate of water or the laver of regeneration and washing of water in the Word of life without the least light given us to let us understand that these phrases must be taken in his Physical sense meaning adding some sentences of Fathers who ordinarily give that in their writings to the sign which is proper to the thing signified finding yet opposite sentences in them that much troubles him in which in an orthodox way they explain themselves sufficiently against his position In case in this position of his of the Physicall working of Sacraments he had only understood that they work according to the nature of the office and place assigned unto them there might have been just cause to have subscribed to his judgment It is of the nature of a sign to hold forth to us the thing signified of a relative symbole to ingage to the filling up of such a relation It is of the nature of a seal to confirm every grant past in Covenant but to give a Physicall power to those elementary substances to create Grace in or confer grace upon the soul is a monstrous tenent A little Philosophy will accquaint us with the natural properties of water and as applyed in washing experience will soon discover it The
of it first a piece of a Concession Secondly a Simile The Concession is That the Gospel without the concomitance of faith doth not actually justifie else faith were no condition or causa sine qua non That faith should barely wait effecting nothing and gain no further honour then here is assigned will appear a strange assertion If it had its efficacy where it was in being in miraculous cures so that it was said Thy faith hath made thee whole I think it is much rather efficacious in justification there being so much spoken of justification by faith I desire Mr. Baxter to consider the words of his learned dying friend Mr. Gataker in his letter to him And surely faith as a medium seems to have a more peculiar office in the transaction of that main businesse of Justification then either repentance or any other grace as the love or fear of God and the like Which to me seems the more apparent because I find it so oft said in the Word that men are justified by faith but no where by repentance Albeit that also be as a condition thereunto required as also that form of speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fides or fiducia in sanguine seems to intimate and imply that this grace hath a more special reference then any other to the satisfaction made to Gods Justice for our sins by Christs sufferings which alone we can plead for our discharge of them at Gods Tribunal Much more followes worthy of Mr. Baxters consideration in laying so high a charge as he hath done on our Reformers in this particular There followes a Simile as full of obscurity as the earth is of darknesse and it were aesie so far as it is intelligible to make it appear how much it halteth but that I will not trouble the Reader with such impertinencies and I look for proofs rather then Similes and here is no proof at all I further infer in my Treatise Mr. Pemble therefore affirming the Word to be an instrument of Gods Spirit presently addes Now instruments are either cooperative or passive and the Word must be one of these two Cooperative he saith it is not and gives his reason It is therefore saith he a passive instrument working onely per modum objecti as it containes a declaration of the Divine will and it proposeth to the understanding and will the things to be known believed and practised Here many exceptions are taken Whether the Word be a passive instrument or cooperative with the Spirit First That Mr. Pemble speakes of the Word as the instrument of sanctification we speak of it as conveying right to Christ and as justifying Secondly That Mr. Pembles reason of the passive instrumentality of the Word is but this that it cannot be declared what operative force there should be in the bare declaration of Gods will Thirdly That himself will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration though not punctually how it operates Fourthly That this passive instrumentality of the Word in sanctifying doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture which makes the Word to be mighty powerful pulling down strong-holds c. Fifthly That Mr. Pemble herein is single and singular To speak to these in order To the first I say Though Mr. Pemble gives an instance of the Words work in sanctification yet there is no reason to believe that he limits his whole discourse to it indefinitely affirming that it is a passive instrument and giving instance in one there is no imaginable reason that he can exclude the other For his second He lets his Reader know that he took an hasty view of Mr. Pemble when he said that this was all his reason he may see the thing fully argued by him mihi pag. 97 98 99 c in quarto which is too long to transcribe The work which is done upon the soul is wrought by the Spirit as the principal agent whether it be to regeneration progressive sanctification or in order to justification every previous work in tendency towards these is from the Spirit likewise as illumination conviction the beginning and whole progresse is by the Spirit The Word is no more then an instrument and all that the Word doth is by power from the Spirit and therefore said to be mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.5 Now the Spirit must work by way of power either on the Word or the soul as its object It must infuse power and strength into the one as the principal agent in the work Mr. Pemble denies that it works thus by an infusion of power into the Word and affirmes that the infusion of strength is into the soul and not into the Word which the Apostle confirmes Ephes 3.16 As for his third which he saies he will undertake to declare he brings nothing but bare authorities He faith he hath read many that say one thing and some that say another but himself is of Scotus his mind and we have not one syllable to induce any other to be of the same judgement His fourth Mr. Pemble answers and saith That all those phrases there reckoned up are to be understood by a metonymy which though they properly belong to the invisible power of the Holy Ghost giving effect unto his own Word yet are figuratively attributed unto the Word it self which he useth as his visible instrument explaining himself by several similitudes For his last If Mr. Pemble be thus sole and singular he was much mistaken Having fully spoke his judgement in this thing he addes pag. 99. And this is the sentence of the Orthodox Church touching the nature and distinction of these two callings Inward by the work of the Spirit outward by the voice of the Word The Arminians are of another opinion whose judgement saith he about this matter is thus c. At large laying down their doctrine And it were easy to multiply those testimonies that take all efficacy or energy from the Word to give it to the Spirit usually quoting 1 Cor. 3.6 7. 2 Cor. 3.6 2 Cor. 10.4 5. He tells me I doubt whether you believe him or your self throughly for if you did I think you would preach but coldly I am perswaded you look your preaching should operate actively And does he think Mr. Pemble did believe his own doctrine or was he a cold Preacher he delivers his doctrine with confidence and backes it with reasons and the workes that he hath left behind argue that he spake with some heat and fervour and I wish that I could gain more heat both in prayer and preaching and I do look that my preaching should operate actively but whether of it self or through the power of the Spirit there lyes the question He concludes If it were proved that there were an hundred passive instruments it would never be proved that faith is one as an instrument doth signifie an efficient cause of Gods work of justifying us neither really nor reputatively is
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
tryal is our faith not barely the doctrine of faith as some would have it whereby we may conclude that we are of such a Church in which Christ is visibly resident in Ordinances but the grace of faith whereby he makes his abode in our soules The reason annexed is put by way of interrogation or question Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates which doth not imply that all are Reprobates that know not in present that Christ is in them but this is all that is implyed or can be gathered that Jesus Christ is in all that are not reprobates where reprobate is not yet opposed to the Elect as though all such were everlastingly cast-awayes in whom Christ is not in present But as the word is used Jer. 6.30 reprobate silver that is unfit for use or service so it is here taken such in present are not in a saving but in a lost condition and therefore it much concerns us to put this upon the tryal Motives to perswade to get assurance of this grace 1. Necessity of Faith For Motives to put men upon this work consider First the necessity of this grace and that upon a several account 1. Without Faith as you have heard we are without this righteousnesse None in unbelief can say of Christ Jehovah our righteousnesse All the good that Christ does unbelief loses so much good that Christ can do thee of so much unbelief strips thee The Apostle tells us of unsearchable riches in Christ Ephes 3.8 Such that none can summe up nor he that is highest in skill in Arithmetique calculate Christ is the Fathers Store-house Magazine or rich Exchequer The Father hath not a gift for any of his but he layes it up in Christ and a faith receives it from Christ Noah by faith was heir of this righteousnesse Heb. 11.7 The rest of the world wanting this grace went without this inheritance The rest of Canaan was lost by unbelief Heb. 3.18 The rest of heaven will be thus lost in like manner God hath chosen the poor of this world rich in faith heires of the Kingdome which he hath prepared for those that love him Jam. 2.5 The rich of this world destitute of this Faith make forfeiture of this Kingdome Is Christ a gift Faith receives him and unbelief is wanting Is Christ food Faith feeds upon him and unbelief is hunger-starved Is Christ rayment Faith puts him on and unbelief is naked Is Christ a Medicine Faith applyes him and unbelief languisheth Is Christ a laver Faith drencheth and douzeth it self in him and unbelief is filthy and defiled Is Christ a pardon Faith sues it out and unbelief lyeth under guilt Is Christ satisfaction Faith makes the plea and attains a discharge and unbelief remains indebted 2. Without Faith the soul is under the wrath of God and his ireful displeasure This is a necessary result from the former The man of unbelief wants that which might be interposed as an atonement and might stand as a skreen or shield for his guard And it is also fully laid down in Christ's words Joh. 3.36 He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him What Zophar saith of the wicked man Job 20.29 This is his portion from God and the heritage appointed him of God that Christ sayes of unbelievers so long as they remain in unbelief so long wrath abides on them All by nature are the children of wrath having no other inheritance and the man of unbelief never gets from under wrath to attain any other portion This is an aggregate of all miseries when all is reckoned up that can be named to make miserable wrath comprizeth it all to the uttermost to infinitenesse As is the man so is his strength say Zeba and Zalmunna Judg. 8.21 As is God so is his wrath with this motive the Psalmist presseth to faith Psal 2.12 Thy sin hath merit enough to damne and thou hast not any interest in Christ to save or deliver He that is void of Faith and yet under no such feares it is not because there is no cause of feares but that such a soul is not awakened to see his fearful deplored and desperate condition If the rich glutton had seen Hell gaping for him and the Devil ready to hale and drag him he could not then have had any list to his every-dayes Gorgeous apparrel nor yet any appetite to his delicate fare That is the condition of secure sensual ones till Hell-fire flame about them they think they are sure of heaven 3. Without faith there is no benefit to be had or good to be found in any Ordinances No Ordinance is useful but either as it is improved by Faith already seated in the soul or as it is serviceable to the plantation of it No duty of any kind works to acceptance from an unbelievers hand Abel's sacrifice was accepted when Cain's could not gain acceptance Gen. 4.4 5. The Apostle shews us the reason of this difference Heb. 11.4 By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice then Cain The Parable of the sower tells us how few profitable hearers of the Word there can be found and the Apostle gives the reason Heb. 4.2 The Word is not mixt with faith in those that hear it It is effectual alone in believers 1 Thess 2.13 and no more have audience in prayer then those that profit in hearing and there is one and the same reason of both Jam. 1.6 7. And that man is doubtlesse under an heavy Judgment that never gets good when he hears from God nor obtains his request when he seeks to God At the Lords Table they eat bread but feed not on Christ they take the Cup but have no interest in the blood of the new Covenant 4. Without faith nothing is done that God accepts The man and the work both displease Heb. 11.6 There must be a concurrence of all requisites to render a work good and acceptable But in an unbelievers work the matter of the work excepted all requisites are wanting The rise is from a fountain that is unclean and the unbelieving soul cannot go so high as to make the glory of God the end And the rule is above him in the work to look after 5. Without Faith the whole of man head breast and bowels are all open to Satan Faith is a Christians shield Ephes 6.16 and a shield is the defence not of one part but the guard of the whole A man without faith is a Souldier without armes and destitute of all power to make any manner of resistance Satan leads such an one at pleasure There is nothing of Christ nothing of grace nothing of the Spirit to stand up in opposition Some devils are not resisted without strength of faith Mark 9.29 No devil without faith can be vanquished or overcome Mot. 2 Secondly Consider the benefits of faith the glory that doth accompany it The benefits that
making good a lesser crime with high treason And whilest these add all this of their own they leave out the very whole of that which according to Scripture is essential to repentance which is a thorough change and amendment of our wayes And how they got it into their heads to thrust it among Sacraments a man might think of it even to amazement And they themselves are so confounded about it that they know not how to find any thing of a Sacrament in it Bellarmine sayes Papists agree not what that is in pennance that makes up a Sacrament that they affirm with great consent that Pennance is a Sacrament but confesses that there is difference among them to assign what in Pennance is the Sacrament here then sure is a glorious agreement And it were easie to multiply arguments against it 1. There is no outward visible sign appointed of God in this Pennance of theirs with any promise annext Arguments evincing pennance to be no Sacrament which even adversaries confesse is of necessity to the being of Sacraments Bellarmine who makes every thing to be visible that is any way sensible sayes That both confession and absolution is a visible sign in Pennance so that the words of the Pennance-taker and Pennance-doer concurre together to make a visible sign and this sign in that way visible as he can make it he onely affirms but never proves to have any Divine institution And his brethren Scotus Major Gabriel Dionys Cistersiensis deny that confession is any part of Pennance as Amesius observes and Soto denyes that absolution is any part of it 2. Repentance was in use in the Church and of equal efficacy as now when yet by their own confession it was no Sacrament viz. in the time of the Law in the time of John Baptist and of our Saviour Christ and therefore now it is no more a Sacrament then it was then 3. Baptisme is of the same use and serves for the same purpose as that which they imagine to find in their Pennance and engages to Gospel-Repentance for remission of sins And this is an undoubted confessed Sacrament and there needs not therefore any fiction of a second And the Reader may find this so at large disputed in Chamier Vorstius Amesius that I shall cease to add any more concerning it SECT VIII Extream unction no Sacrament THe third which they obtrude is Extream Vnction A rite which they administer upon mens departure out of this life as a viaticum to carry them hence And Bellarmine undertaking to make it good by reason saith It is meet that men should have support by divine providence in their departure out of the Church as they have in their entrance into it As they are saluted with a Sacrament so he would have one for their farewel likewise It is then wonder that the Jews had not one to answer Circumcision as they have novv found out one to ansvver Baptisme Providence it seems vvas then vvanting in that vvhich the Jesuite thinks meet should then have been provided The matter The matter of this Sacrament is oyl olive blest by the Bishop The form The form is in these words By this holy oyntment and his most tender mercy God forgive thee whatsoever thou hast offended by sight c. The effect The effects of it is first the healing of the body if it be found good for the soul though they never apply it till this be desperate Secondly the taking away of the remainders of sin but what sin they cannot determine The Minister The Minister of it is a Priest consequently a Bishop if he please For the subject capable of it six qualifications are required Qualifications of the person capable of extream unction 1. He must be a Christian 2. A weak one 3. One dangerously sick and weak 4. One of years with the use of reason 5. One not excommunicated 6. One that hath taken confession and absolution if he be found guilty of sin Ceremonies Ceremonies used in this Sacrament are two 1. The Letany and certain other prayers must be repeated 2. Seven parts of his body must be anointed viz. eyes ears nose mouth hands by reason of the five senses and the reins where is the seat of concupiscence and the feet upon account of the loco-motive faculty But whether all of this be essential they are loath to determine They have two onely Texts which they offer to produce to establish this Sacrament The first is Mark 6.13 And they cast out many devils and anointed with oyl many that were sick and healed them Mar. 6.13 vindicated This Bellarmine denyes to hold out any Sacrament and see also Jansenius upon the words likewise Ruardus Soto as Bellarmine tells us Bellarmine is induced to this opinion as he sayes because Luther Calvin and Chemnitius hold that the ointment Jam. 5. Mark 6. are both the same And he will make an hard adventure towards the losse of a Sacrament rather then he will joyn so far with such hereticks in opinion And this Text also together with that of James 5.13 is rejected by Cajetan as he is quoted by Chamier and Amesius It doth not appear saith he either from the words or from the effect that these words speak of the Sacramental anointing of extream unction but rather of that oyntment which the Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be applyed by his disciples to the sick For the Text doth not say Is any sick to death but absolutely is any sick And the effect is the raising up of the sick And it speaks of forgivenesse of sins no otherwise then conditionally when extream unction is not given but even at the point of death And as the form of it speaks it tends directly to the pardon of sin Besides James commands that many Elders be sent for to one sick person and many for prayer Jam. 5.14 15. vindicated which is not done in extream Vnction So that when there are but two texts pretended for this Sacrament one Cardinal hath robb'd them of one and another of both Against the Sacramentality of this oyl we have these arguments 1. Sacraments are for all the covenant-people of God in general without respect had to this or that condition and this is for the sick onely 2. Sacraments are signs and seals of spiritual grace this is a sign onely of recovery from sicknesse being appointed for the sick to raise them up And whereas it is objected that pardon of sinne is here mentioned it is plain that it is onely mentioned in order to the cure of the bodily infirmity and to be obtained by prayer not wrought by the oyl The pardon of such sinne that may have brought upon the patient any such sicknesse as 2 Chron. 7.14 When the Land is under famine or pestilence there the Lord saies If my people that are called by my Name do humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn
He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.24 not through faith in his command It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin and not the Soverainty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christs Mediatorship and the speciall offices of faith may not be suffered Scripture assignes each it's particular place and work Soveraignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us Faith in his blood not faith yielding to his soveraignty doth justifie us Mr. Brs. reply analized In your reply to this passage of mine you 1. Acquit me of any further error then what is found in my method affirming that I agree with you in substantiâ rei 2. You lay down six several distinctions 3. You lay down nine propositions All of which both distinctions and propositions I believe you intended for illustration of the point in debate but your Readers and those neither of the younger nor duller sort complaine of your obscuring of it 4. You fall upon your charge of me and here you charge 1. My expressions with confounding that which was my business as well as I could to distinguish 2. You charge my implications or implyed sense which it seems you far better know then I with triple injustice 1. Against the truth and word of God 2. Against the souls of men 1. In such nice mincing cutting the conditions of their salvation to their great perplexity if they receive my doctrine That which all complain of in your expressions you are pleased to blame me withall in my implications Upon the comming out of your Apologie I was wrote unto by an eminently-learned hand in these words I wish that it may not divert you from better employment and namely your Treatise about the Sacraments to which if you adjoyn as an appendix something by way of reply to Mr. Br. not so as to trouble your self and others as Mr. Br. doth too much with Logicall niceties but to clear and confirm the main matter I think it will be most convenient 2. I am charged as not affording one word of Scripture or reason when yet in those few words recited I think the reader may see as many as in all your distinctions and propositions Lastly and leastly as you term it my charge is of evident injustice to my friend For it is as is said no hard matter to know who I mean in charging him with confounding the distinct parts of Christs mediatorship I am expresly spoke to and charged without injustice for confounding Christs actions with mans faith How truly let the Reader judge And am yet guilty of injustice in charging my implyed friend in my implyed sense with such a crime 5. You excuse your self for your not much troubling me with arguments Giving your reason that you have done it over and over to others Where I would have the Reader to observe that you have other Adversaries besides me in this point and those of the most learned who as else where you say have vouchsafed that condescension as to give in animadversions 2. That we hear none of these learned mens reasons A few words of mine let fall by the bie are fallen upon and elaborate learned Treatises of others lie dormant industriously written on this subject 6. You come in with your ten arguments which it seemes you take to be a number below trouble It would trouble you If I should say your implyed sense is That they are such to which I may without trouble give in an answer 7. You amplifie your tenth argument with a large discourse and all of this before you can reach my words I should trouble the Reader in his purse and patience if I should follow you in all these particulars and indeed I was scarce ever brought so near to a non-plus To speak to all Time will not suffer and to take to some and leave others will expose me to censure Your distinctions should be look'd into and if they had been either proved or explained you had done your Reader a Favour Your first distinction is between Constitutive Justification His distinctions considered or remission by the Gospel-grant or Covenant and Justification by the sentence of the Judge I hope you do not make these two distinct Justifications that so it should be a distribution of a Genus into its species So I think few Readers will own it But if you mean by the former a Justification wrought and in it self perfect and compleat as your word constitutive would seem to imply And by Justification by the sentence of the Judge Justification manifested and declared then I freely yeeld That is Justification in it self perfect and full that renders a man blessed And this your constitutive Justification which you call remission by the Gospel-grant doth Psal 32.1 Commented upon by the Apostle Rom. 4.7 8. Whether the Elect shall have any other justification or this manifested and more fully held out let Christ himself determine At the day when God by him shall judge the world he will pronounce this sentence Come yee blessed of my Father Matth. 25.34 This Justification then by the sentence of the Judge is a manifestation of this blessedness which is in remission and non-imputation of sin Your next distinction is between Constitutive Justification as begun and as continued or consummate And here I doubt not but you may distinguish provided that you donot divide and make one condition to be required for the first as you use to do viz. Faith only and another which is works the condition of the second When David through faith was put into a justified state and after fell into sin there was a necessity of his return in the order established of God You may say if you please that works must now acquit him from this second guilt but this I shall hardly imbrace He sought in his faln condition to have sin by free grace remitted and to be purged with that which Hysopin Ceremoniall purifications did typifie Psal 51.7 A justified state is carried on in a way of obedientiall affiance But faith in Christs blood first and last doth only justifie The Apostle speaks of the falls of the Children of God when he sayes If any man sin 1 John 2.1 and tels us the way to be acquited not any new but the old and first way We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sin And I know no other way of propitiation then through faiths in his blood I know what you say Pref. to your Confes pag. 8. if I number right They are very different questions How we are constituted just or put into a justified state at our conversion How we are sentenced just or justified at Gods Judgment seat You may if you please make them two questions but were I to be Catechized by you I should give you the same answer And I believe Paul was of the same mind when he
you thus challenge never had any such thing in their thoughts Making the Scripture their study and Protestants writers their Comment they find Justification by the blood of Christ Rom. 5.9 and interest in this blood alone by faith Rom. 3.25 28. and works they find again and again excluded I wish you to consult the Homilies of the Church of England especially the Homilies of the Salvation of Man-kind by Christ our Saviour pag. 14. Having touched upon divers passages of Saint Paul This is added In the aforesaid places the Apostle toucheth especially three things which must go together in our Justifycation upon Gods part his great mercy and grace upon Christs part Justice that is the satisfaction of Gods Justice or the price of our Redemtion by the offering of his body shedding of his blood with the fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly and upon our part true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ And therefore Saint Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his Justification but only a true and lively faith And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance hope love dread and the fear of God to be joyned with saith in every man that is Justified but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying With much more to the same purpose Your Readers that are not so much seen in the Language of Bellarmine and Suarez as they are in the Scriptures or at least that do not so much heed them deny all that you take for granted In which also you have phrases more uncouth to your Readers then any that I have uttered can be to you to be righteous signifieth say you quoad legem novam non obligatus ad poenam cui debetur praemium This signification according to this new law I think was never found in any of our old and new Dictionaries Those that are righteous shall be thus acquit and rewarded we believe but not upon account of any righteousnesse inherent in them but the righteousnesse of Christ made theirs by faith and so their faith is accounted to them for righteousnesse You then adde So that you see that your first righteousnesse non reatus poenae vel jus ad impunitatem ad praemium as it requires Christs perfect satisfaction as a medium to it by which all the charge of the Law works must be answered So it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace as an other medium by which Christ and his benefits are made ours I had thought that our righteousnesse had not been non reatus poenae that is not the thing at best were it as perfect as Adams was but reather non reatus culpae If a man be charged with Murther his righteousnesse as to this charge is his not-killing and not his non-obligation to the Gibbet That follows upon it non reatus is not of the essence of righteousnesse nor is reatus of the essence of sin otherwise then consecutive And that Christs righteousnesse should be thus called a medium I do not see I think it is the thing it self and not a medium to it And that our righteousnesse is any medium to Justification as it is inherent I deny and that our inherent righteousnesse required by the Law of Grace stands in any such subordination to the righteousnesse of Christ as a necessary means to make it ours I see your word for it but I think and the reformed Churches are of the same mind that I have the whole current of Scripture against it You close up this discourse thus And thus I have done what at present I thought my duty that it might be not my fault that you are in ignorance all over But I have said the lesse because I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our righteousnesse in answer to the Animadversions of an other learned brother But it is worth inquiry whether this learned Brother have received satisfaction from that more exact paines of yours Perhaps his learning may serve to give as exact an answer And if his greater learning be not satisfyed with that which is more exact and elaborate my less learning may well remain as much unsatisfied with lesse exactnesse And your Reader will think you were not so well advised to publish your self and conceal your most exact opening of this poynt of so great concernement Though you might think that any thing might serve me yet all your exactnesse will I believe be litte enough in this poynt to give satisfaction to many Readers Whereas you had said in your Aphorismes pag. 122. Imperfect righteousnesse is not righteousnesse but unrighteousnesse Imperfect righteousnesse is no contradiction It is a contradiction in adjecto yet there admitting an imperfection in holinesse I answer'd I never took imperfect righteousnesse to imply any such contradiction more then imperfect holinesse To this you reply 1. By a way of concession that holinesse is taken first for the relation of a person or thing dedicated to God So it admits not of magìs and minùs more then righteousnesse 2. That the common use of the word Holinesse is for the qualities or actions of a spiritually-renewed man this is confessed to have its transcendent perfection as wel as righteousness Hitherto we are agreed but here say you is the difference Holinesse thus taken is a quality which though it have the truth of being yet it is intendend and remitted or doth recipere magìs minùs righteousnes is a relation which in suo formali is not intended or remitted And is not Righteousnesse a quality in like manner which is intended and remitted when Zachary saies Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted We are delivered out of the hands of all our enemies to serve in righteousnesse and true holinesse Is not the one a qualification by a new work of the Spirit as well as the other When the Angel said Rev. 22. He that is unjust let him be unjust still and he that is filthy let him be filthy still and he that is righteous let him be righteous still and he that is holy let him be holy still As unjust and filthy hold out vicious qualities from the flesh so Holy and righteous both signifie renewed qualities by the Spirit It follows Nay if you will exactly open it it will appear that the righteousnesse in question is a relation founded in a relation Yea more that the very subjectum proximum hujus relationis nec intenditur nec remittitur this is that I mean by perfection besides the aforesaid transcendentall perfection And how shall we know what the righteousnes in question is either it must be gathered out of your own words or out of their words that you censure as guilty of such ignorance as before Let us look upon your own words Thess 2.2 which you there comment upon In this fore-explained sense it is that men in Scripture say you are said to be
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