on the Sabbath Part. 2. Pag. 176. For further clearing of this point we must consider of the preceptive part of the Moral Law which alone in this place is our business to enquire after 1. As it is epitomized in the Decalogue those ten words as Moses cals them Exod. 34.28 or else us commented upon or more amply delivered in the whole Book of the Law Prophets and Scriptures of the New Testament 2. We must distinguish of the manner how the Law prescribes or commands any thing as duty which is either expresly or Synecdochically either directly or else interpretatively virtually and reductively I very well know that the Law is not in all particulars so explicitely and expresly delivered but that 1. The use and best improvement of Reason is required to know what pro hic nunc is called for at our hands for duty The Law lays down rules in affirmative precepts in an indefinite way which we must bring home by particular application discerning by general Scripture Rules with the help of reason which sometimes is not so easie to be done when it speaks to us in a way of concernment as to present practicall observation 2. That hints of providence are to be observed to know what in present is duty as to the affirmative part of the commandments of God If that man that fell among theeves between Jerusalem and Jericho had sate by the way on the green grass without an appearance of harm or present need of help the Samaritane that passed that way had not offended in case he had taken no more notice then the Priest Levite did But discerning him in that case as he then was the sixt commandment called for that which he then did as a present office of love to his neighbour according to the interpretation of this commandment given by our Saviour Mark 3.4 When the Pharisees watched him whether he would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath day He demands of them Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day or to do evill To save life or to destroy It was not their mind that Christ should kill the man onely they would not have had him then to have cur'd him but not to cure when it is in our power according to Christ's interpretation is to kill If diligent observation be not then made the commandment may be soon transgress'd 3. Skill in Sciences and professions is to be improved by men of skill that the commandment may be kept The Samaritane powred Wine and Oyl into the Samaritans wounds knowing that to be of use to supple and refresh them Had he known any other thing more soveraign which might have been had at hand he was to have used it As skill in Medicines is to be used for preservation of mens lives so also skill in the Laws by those that are vers'd in them for the help of their neighbour in exigents concerning his estate and livelihood 4. We must listen to Gods mouth to learn when he shall be pleased at any time further to manifest his mind for the clearing of our way in any of his precepts There was a command concerning the place of publique and solemn worship Deut. 12.5 Vnto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there even to his habitation shall ye seek and thither shalt thou come Now they must depend on the mouth of God to observe what place in any of the Tribes he would choose for his habitation When God commands that all instituted worship shall be according to his prescript this is a perfect Rule implicite and virtual tying us to heed the Lord at any time more particularly discovering his will and clearing this duty to us Was not the Law of worship perfect to Abraham unless it explicitely told him that he must sacrifice his Son And if you take your self to be so acute as to set up a new Rule as you are pleased to stile it then you antiquate and abolish the old Rule and singularly gratifie the Antinomian party Two Rules will no more stand together then two Covenants In that you say a new Rule you make the first old Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away Heb. 8.13 You adde moreover doth not the Scripture call Christ our Law-giver and say The Law shall go out of Zion c. Is 2.3 And was not I pray you the old Law as you are pleased to call it his Saint Paul I am sure quotes that which belongs to the preceptive part of the Moral Law and calls it the Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 His Laws were delivered in the wilderness whom the people of Israel there tempted and provoked This is plain for they sinn'd against their Law-giver and from his hands they suffered And who they tempted in the wilderness see from the Apostles hand 1 Cor. 10.9 And as to your Scripture the words quoted are exegetically set down in those that follow them The Law shall go out of Zion and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem Which is no more but that the name of the Lord which was then known in Judah shal be great from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof You further demand And is he not the anointed King of the Church and therefore hath legislative power For answer I desire to know what King the Church had when the old Law was before Christ came in the flesh the Kingdome was one the same the King one and the same then and now as I take it Many shall come from the East West shall sit down with Abrah Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven The Gentiles comming in at the Gospel-call are under the same King and in the same Kingdome And if all this were granted you for which you here plead it is no more then a change in some positive circumstantial Rites and what is this to our question That our righteousnesse which is imperfect according to the old Rule can be perfect according to the new when old and new in that which is naturally Moral is ever one and the same When the Law required heart-service and love with the whole heart upon spiritual ends and motives upon which account all fell short in their obedience and performance shall we say that Christ did dispense with any of this so the Rule being lower our obedience now may answer Others that make Moses and Christ two distinct Law-givers and agents for God in holding out distinct precepts give the pre-eminence to Christ and account his Law to be of more eminent perfection You on the contrary seem to make the Laws of Christ to stoop far beneath those of Moses 2. Exception 2. For Justification of your accusation of the Moral Law of imperfection you say I think the Moral Law taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in tables of stone is not a
to the question Saving from the power of Sin Sanctifies and not Justifies Your fourth Of faiths receiving Christ as he Justifies us affirming that he Justifies us as King Judge and Benefactor is the same for ought I can discern with your tenth and there is to be considered Your fifth is If receiving Christ as Satisfier and Meritor be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds we must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification If you put this argument into form the word meritor will be found aequivocall and the Syllogism to consist of four termes We look at Christ for Justification as satisfying Justice and meriting pardon and remission not as meriting Sanctification Sixthly you say Rejecting Christ as a King is the condemning sin therefore receiving him as King is the Justifying faith This is like the old argument Evill works merit condemnation Ergo good works merit salvation An ill meaning damnes Prov. 21.27 Our good meaning therefore saves I further answer Rejecting Christ as a King is a sin against the Morall Law which damnes Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Morall Law is required that a sinner may be saved You give in your reason of your consequent Because unbelief say you condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the Justifying Faith explaining your self that you speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the New Law To this I answer Unbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemne further then as it is a breach of a Morall Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be your judgment as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the New Law as you call it to an Act of Oblivion And an Act of Oblivion saves many but condemnes none If a Traytor or Murtherer be exempted in any such Act of Oblivion it is their crime that condemnes them only the Act provides no remedy for them It harmes them not only it does not help them If one of those which were stung by the fiery serpent Numb 21. had refused to have look'd on the brazâ—n serpent The sting had been his death and such obstinate refusall had kept him from the meanes of cure Your seventh is Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath Answ If you had said A condition you had spoken fairlier The condition implies the sole condition The yeelding up of our selves to him in all his functions as the Lords Christ vers 2. is there understood which is of necessity in all that will escape his wrath Eighthly you say Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of case and of rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our comming to Christ as a teacher and example of meeknesse and lowlinesse and our learning of him a taking on us his yoke and burthen Answ This text shewes the duty of men to be not alone to seek rest and ease from Christ but to learn of Christ and follow him But neither their learning nor their imitation but faith in his blood is their freedome or Justification Ninthly you say That faith which is the condition of salvation is the condition of Justification or remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as a satisfier that is the condition of our salvation Therfore c. Answ Here the Conclusion is safely granted You know that we yeeld that the faith that accepts Christ as a King Justifies But that is not the Justifying act The hand hath more officers then one It works as well as receives and so hath faith And that there is more reqâ—ired as a condition to Salvation then to Justification speaking of it in Scripture phrase you yeeld sufficiently where you distinguish of Justification begun the condition whereof is faith only and Justification consummate there you bring in Repentance and Obedience That which you call Justification begun is Justification properly so called Faith only is serviceable to reconcile us unto God but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications to hold us up in communion with God Of this I have spoke Chap. 1.2 13 14. of my treatise of the Covenant Your tenth and last reason is If accepting Christ a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Justificat i. e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is meerly strictly and properly the Justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs righteousnesse is But the Antecedent you say is granted by all Divines that you have to do with Therefore c. Answ If they grant your Antecedent simply as in this phrase you deliver it I much marvell This seemes to imply that Christ acted quà Lord in paying the price of our Redemption and that this work of his is to be referred to his exaltation and not to his state of humiliation And I am sure the Scripture speaks otherwise That which I yeeld is That the faith which accepts Christ who is our Lord and Redeemer is the faith which Justifies and the condition of our Justification But as it lookes upon Redemption a sacrificing act of Priest-hood The distinctias fides quae and fides quà asserted done by him who is indeed a Lord and King sit only Justifies But this distinction of Fides quae Justificat and Fides quà Justificat is as you are pleas'd to say the generall cheat so that your Antecedent it seemes is granted you by all those Divines with whom you deal under this limit And as it seems you have met with a pack of impostors that of the most learned in the Land that out of their great condescension have written for your satisfaction This word you think sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon as indeed it doth and is no small blemish to his great paines you may then judge how it will take from your self in the ears of others And I much marvell that this distinction that every where else would passe and be confessed to be of necessity to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities in which men usually act should here not alone be questioned but thus branded Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variously act according to them And do not men that make addresse addresse themselves in like variety He that is at once a Husband a Parent a Master a School-master a Physician acts variously according to all of these capacities Some come to him as a father some as a Master some as a Teacher all of them come unto him as a Physician But only they that come to him as a Physician are cur'd by him Believers through faith go to Christ that bears all the relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding which is an act of his Priest-hood they are justified Learned Amesius may
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
as the immunities which the highest power grants to civil incorporations in order to bring them to a further honour and lustre are their just inheritance When Moses commanded the congregation of Jacob a law this is called their inheritance Deut. 33.4 By vertue of the grand charter from God himselfe who herein differenced them from all other nations It is true that the grosse abuse of civil immunities granted to incorporate bodies may justly move the highest power to disfranchize them but whilest the grant remaines the priviledge is theirs and the like abuses of Church-priviledges may justly move Christ Jesus and hath moved him to dischurch a people and take his Kingdome from among them removing his Candlestick from them but whilest his Kingdome remaines and their light by his long suffering-holds their right continues The Regenerate make a more blessed use but the unregenerate have an equal right There was no difference in the right of Apostleship between Peter and Judas how great soever the difference was in their respective improvement of it The barren tree whilest it hath a place in the Vineyard is within the verge of the servants care and hath right to be digged and dung'd as well as the fruitful To draw towards an end and not to hold thee longer from the work it self as to the whole that thou shalt finde here delivered the great thing that I crave at thy hands is that those two great enemies to a right apprehension of truth Prejudice and Respect of Persons may be laid aside that so my reasons may gaine which otherwise they will be denyed an indiffent hearing and that nothing may be charged as mine upon any supppsed want of distinct explication which I do not clearly own and which men may have reason to believe that I shall disclaime For prevention of which so far as may be in me I have given in a list of Erratas which I pray thee to correct before or as thou readest if it be not already done to thy hand as in most CoppieS I hope care will be taken of those that are more foule many of which do not only destroy the sense which were more tolerable but lead to a contrary sense Other smaller faults meerly literal or mispointings or such mistakes in a word where that which was intended is clearly obvious I hope I need not entreat thy candour As for any that shall please to appear against me as in almost every part of the work I know that I have some of one interest or other that are adversaries I only desire that they deale with me as I have made it my businesse to deale with others Personal invectives Sarcasmes and Jeers though upon the fairest supposed advantage falsifications wrestings of sentences industrious concealment of the strength of arguments may possibly cloud an adversary but shall never advance the glory of truth which stands not in need either of mens passion or fraudulency which will be found no better then his folly And what name soever may be gained where truth gaines nothing let those enjoy that look after it I desire not to be any share in it So far as I yet see and I think I see much reason for it I intend here to set down my staffe and to travel no further in this troublesome way resolving not to change my purpose unlesse I shall either be convinced by truth and so shall manifest the change of my minde or else see the truth in danger to suffer which I do not yet see in any thing which is published against me and not answered by me And in such case I shall endeavour to take that way that truth may be best cleared and the Reader least troubled which will be as much as is possible to examine adversaries arguments and decline personal concernments The Lord grant that all that is here spoke for truth may be succesful for thy Spiritual good And if any thing through mistake be let fall against it that it may speedily be discovered that nothing here may be thy Spiritual detriment Thomas Blake Errata The Title of Chap. 5. Sect. 3. is by mistake put on the head of the leaf to the following Section and the title of Chap. 7. Section 16. is by like mistake put to the two following Sections likewise Page 300. It is said by inadvertancy that Circumcision was taken up again in the Wildernesse Josh 5.2 when indeed it was when they had passed Jordan and were in Canaan I desire that the Reader may look upon this as expunged Words to be blotted out Page 94. line 14 dele to be p. 313 l. 6. a fine del it p. 385. l. 13. a fine dele done p. 443. l. penult dele and. p. 461 l. 10 dele There followes p 613 l. 5 dele know p. 617 l. 18 dele the. Words to be added Page 37. line 4. adde is not mentioned p. 121 l. 9 are obliged p. 164 l. 10 the minor Proposition in a syllogisme is left out and must be thus supplyed But men short of faith which justifieth are Christians p. 167 l. 11. to be p. 240 l. 30 speaks so p. 242 l 2 are apt p. 305 l. 26 Let us so do it as p. 314 l. 15 These may p. 345 l. 11 a fine any thing p. 376 l. 9 a fine where no barre is put p. 465 l 7. they little thought that p. 481 l. ult or Justification P. 485 l. 20 and thus argue p. 540 l. 9 he p. 574 l. 8 a fine speaks of p. 634 l 12 have not Words to be changed Page 16 line 24 r. last p. 26 l. 13 14 r. 6. p. 40 l. 15. r. Noah p. 29. l. 24 r. of p. 35 l. ult uncircumcision p. 37 l. 6 a fine Divinity p. 41 l. 14 unavoidably irresistibly l. ult wonders p. 56 l. penult nor p. 69 l. 33 though he p. 105 l. 4 a fine which as p. 136 l. 6 a fine lost p 142 l. 3 meer p. 175 l. 12 accept p 184 l. 16 Few p. 193 l. 13 to p. 195 l. 8 a fine taking oft p. 196 l. 6 load p. 229 l. 7 a fine bereft p. 236 l. 18 years p. 238 l. 11 lest p. 240 l. 26 commonly p. 244 l. 14 were p. 247. l. 3 a fine strangely p. 284 l. 14 that all p 280 l 16 or produce a p. 307 l. 10 persistest p 341 l. 12 a fine the soul p. 357 l. 19 led p. 359 l 8 read ver 15 p. 360 l. 6 Those p. 396 l. 6 a regenerate p. 400 l. 10 a fine deviations p. 416 l. 3 flowing p 429 l. 10 a fine the p. 430 l. 15 a fine Pharisees p 445 l. 12 a fine speak p. 448 l. 19 is most p. 449 l. 18 sayes p. 445 l. 21 Ilart p. 463 l. 7 or p. 468 l. 6 a fine dealâ—ng p. 472 l. 8 justification p. 525 l 3 4. In order to our enquiry into it this l. 17 never l. 23 scope p. 550 l. 15 You p. 567 l. 22 His
So that in case any will contend still that it is an inward Covenant that Scripture usually mentions and honours with that title yet being here in as for a great part we seem agreed that priviledges of Sacraments are annext to the outward Covenant or outward administration we have what we desire When this was almost ready for the Presse Mr. Baxters Apologie came forth in which pag 103. I am challenged for this distinction of an outward and inward Covenant as though I had been the Author of it when all know that it is a distinction that of a long time among Divines hath been in common use and in case it had not been commonly received I should have forborn the use of it As I heard Mr. Ball once in discourse say that he denyed any such distinction of an outward and an inward call to the Ministery all calling being external unlesse the man called were a Prophet That which men terme an inward call being onely qualifications fitting for the work so I deny in exact propriety of speech that the inward Covenant is any Covenant but the answer of the soul unto that which the Covenant requires And whereas Mr. Baxter saith It is apparent that Mr. Blake distinguisheth ex parte Dei between the outward and the inward Covenant It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised whereof some are inward and some outward for though he explain not himself fully yet I know no other sense that it will bear I thus distinguish them to apply my self to the Readers understanding that hath been accustomed so to call them and I say indeed that men that barely Covenant and keep not Covenant have onely privlledges that are outward they are visible Church-members and they have visible Church-priviledges And those who answer to Covenant engagements which usually is called the inward Covenant have priviledges both outward and inward A Jew outwardly had outward priviledges A Jew inwardly that is he that answered to his outward profession that worshipped God in his spirit hath both those that were outward and inward It is there said It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no seal for it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis If therefore it have a seal it is either the same which is promised or some other What he meanes when he saies it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis I am to learn If he mean that the seal followes the Covenant and is put to after the Covenant so it is in all Covenants whatsoever He saies they no where tell us what is the seal of their outward Covenant me thinkes we had no need to tell what the seal of that Covenant was that the Jew entred was it not Circumcision and did there not another follow viz. the Passeover Now I tell him that Circumcision and the Passeover were and Baptisme and the Lords Supper are seales of this Covenant The Nation of the Jewes were in Covenant as Mr. Baxter though he would yet must not deny they were in no inward Covenant and yet they had these seales Mr. Baxter sayes we are bound to give the seales to such Apolo 88. Vocation which is effectual onely to bring men to an outward profession of saving faith is larger then election and makes men such whom we are bound to baptize And such we say have right to Baptisme And to help Mr. Baxter those men that he saies the Church must baptize though without right we say are truely in Covenant and have right when he knowes what child he is to baptize he knowes who we say are in Covenant and have Covenant right to Baptisme so that a second Covenant of which he speakes to give right to a first is a strange fancy But of this I shall have further occasion SECT IV. Proposition 3. Fundamental rihgt and priviledge of actual admission to be distinguished VVE must yet distinguish between a fundamentall right and title to the Sacraments and the priviledg of actual admission between a first and second right in them between jus ad rem jus in re In civil titles this distinction holds A child in non-nage upon his Fathers death is entitled to his inheritance A post thumus child whose Parents death prevents his birth which was the case of Asher the son of Ezron 1. Chron. 2.24 upon the first instant that he sees the light stands thus entitled yet the law suffers not his admission to an actual personall managing of it till he be able to improve and employ it to his own and the publique benefit The leper whom the Priest had pronounced unclean so that he must dwell alone without the Camp in a several house severed from all company which was the case of Vzziah King of Judah 2 Chron. 21.26 according to the law in that case provided Levit. 13.46 had in the mean space title to his house and his whole inheritance and upon his cleansing was to be actually received unto it There is a Sequestration and there is a confiscation and proscription Men that are held from their estates upon just reasons are not yet totally and finally outed This distinction also holds in Ecclesiasticall immunities in that Passeover held in the Wildernesse by Gods appointment the fourteenth day of the first moneth there were certain men that were defiled by the dead body of a man that they could not keep the Passeover on that day and they came before Moses and Aaron and said unto them We are defiled by the dead body of a man wherefore are we kept back that we may not offer an offering to the Lord in his appointed season Numb 9.6 7. They stood equally entitled with the rest of the children of Israel to that Ordinance yet there was a barre in the way that they saw to keep them back They therefore plead their priviledg and hold it as a matter of grievance that there was any obstacle in their way This puts Moses to a stand he cannot deny their right yet by reason of the barre in the way dares not give them admission therefore he saies Stand still and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you ver 8. And the Lords order upon it was If any man among you or your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or be in a journey a farre off yet shall he keep the Passeover unto the Lord the fourteenth day of the second moneth at even shall he keep it ver 10 11. Their right is there confessed by the Lord himself and the present barre also acknowledged A physicall barre is confest when being distant in place they cannot come A legal barre is also confest when in their present condition they are not fitted for it And when some that were under this law of suspension in Hezekiahs time came to the Passeover otherwise then was written having not cleansed themselves even many of Ephraim Manasseh Issachar and Zebulon Hezekiah prayed for them 2
men of his interest should be received then Christ would not at any hand have knowingly gone against it and given him admission to it And what he did according to the mind of God as a Minister by a Minister may be done And to pronounce him at that time that he received it such that had no right for admission yet to admit him were such a precedent as Christ would not have given Christ would not trust himself with some upon that account that the knew what was in them Joh. 2.23 24. and he would not have trusted the Sacrament with such a one in case he had not known that it had been the mind of God that men of that standing should partake of it If it be objected that Christ knew that Judas was not in a capacity to improve the Sacrament for sanctification and salvation being a reprobate I answer respective to his gifts wherewith he was endowed he was in capacity of improvement The Sacrament is of use to those that were his inferiours and an eye is had to the tendency of the work according to Gods revealed will and not to that which is in Gods secret purpose Let us summe up the argument briefly into this form Ministers must give the Sacrament so as it may be to edification and not certainly to destruction But they must give it to some not yet throughly sanctified Therefore some not throughly sanctified may receive it to edification and not to destruction Thirdly the Law and Gospel in their joynt strength applyed in power to the understanding may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms conditions and propositions of the Covenant may work men of profession of faith to faith saving and justifying may work a man that is onely in name the Lords to be truely and savingly his This none can deny if Law and Gospel cannot do it in the way of instruments and ordinances appointed of God there is no way on earth in which it can be done But in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel the epitome and summe the strength and vigour of Law and Gospel applyed in power to the understanding Therefore the conclusion followes that the Lords Supper may work men of Covenant interest up to the terms of the Covenant men of profession of Faith to Faith saving and justified The Assumption is clear that in the Lords Supper there is Law and Gospel the epitome and summe the strength and vigour both of Law and Gospell There we have the curse of the Law in the highest degree held out Christ made a curse and bearing all that the Law denounces against sin even all that which sinne according to the Law did demerit There are sins bruises transgressions wounds There we have the summe and substance of the Gospel held out Christs death for remission of sinne laid open There we have Christ a curse which is that which the law inflicts upon transgression There we have Christ a sacrifice which is that which the Gospel doth promise all brought home and applyed to the understanding of the communicant Fourthly That which is high in the aggravating of sinne to the conscience and clear in holding out the pardon of sinne may work a man of Covenant interest up to the terms and conditions of the Covenant may work men of profession of Faith to a Faith saving and justifying This is clear which way else are men brought up to faith and sanctification but upon the sight of sinne in its aggravations and Gospel tenders for the removal of it The Assumption that sin is in this ordinance in the highest way aggravated and the removal of it held out is also clear and may easily per partes be proved 1. The highest aggravation of sin to the breaking of the heart and the melting of the soul is the looking upon him whom our sins have pierced Zach. 12.10 They shall look upon him whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his onely sonne and shall be in bitternesse for him as one that is in bitternesse for his first-born and that we thus look upon him in the Sacrament I shall choose to set it out in the words of the Ministers and Elders met in the Provinciall Assembly of London in their Vindication where speaking to those that joyn with them at the Lords Table pag. 104. You must so remember Christ as to find power coming out of Christ Sacramental to break your hearts for all the sins you have committed against him Christ is presented in the Sacrament as a broken Christ his body broken and his blood poured out And the very breaking of the bread understandingly looked upon is a forcible Argument to break your hearts Was Jesus Christ rent and torn in pieces for you and shall it not break your hearts that you should sin against him Was he crucified for you and will you crucify him by your sins And besides the breaking of the bread is not onely ordained to be a motive unto brokennesse of heart for sin but also in the right use to effect that which it doth move unto And pag. 105. You must so remember Christ Sacramentall as to find power comming out of Christ to subdue all your sins and iniquities as the diseased woman felt vertue coming out of Christ to cure her bloody issue so there is power in an applicative and fiducial remembrance of Christ at the Sacrament to heal all the sinful issues of our soules there is no sin so strong but it is conquerable by a power derived from Christ crucified And pag. 106. You must continue in remembring Christ in the Sacrament till your hearts be wrought up to a through contempt of the world and all worldly things Christ instituted the Sacrament when he was going out of the world and when he was crucifying the whole world was in darknesse and obscurity and he is propounded in the Sacrament as a persecuted broken crucified Christ despising and being despised of the World And if you do practically remember the Sacrament of his death you will find vertue coming out thereof to make you dead to the world and all worldly things And pag. 107. Cease not remembring Christ till you be made partakers of the rare grace of humility Of all the graces that were in Christ in which he would have Christians to imitate him in humility is one of the chiefest Matth. 11.29 Learn of me for I am humble And Christ in the Sacrament is presented as humbling himself to the death of the crosse for our sakes And what a shame is it to remember an humble Christ with a proud heart The practical remembrance of the humility of Christ Sacramental when sanctified is mighty in operation to tame the pride of our hearts And pag. 110. To endeavour that your eyes may affect your hearts when you are at the Sacrament For as Christ in the Ministery of his Word preacheth to the ear and by the ear conveyeth himself into the
is evident To say nothing of Johns Baptisme instance might be given in the baptisme administred by Christs Disciples we find the Eunuch the Jayler and others baptized and no Eldership consulted Christ delivered the Lords Supper where no Eldership was set up and in case Act. 2.42 be understood of the Lords Supper as is generally conceived there can be no contradiction seeing that it is not imaginable that as yet that order was established with them If any shall object Object that a command lay upon them to administer the Sacraments which must in this case of necessity be obeyed and the duty not neglected though an Eldership for a more orderly and regular carriage be wanting To this I answer Sol. Omissions seem better to me then a prohibited or a disorderly proceeding expressely against a Command or Ordinance of Jesus Christ The Arke had better stayed where it was then a new Cart should have carried it in that disorder to the place appointed for it Better that Saul and Vzziah had let sacrifice alone then any to whom it did not appertain should have undertaken it This therefore with me is not cogent unlesse it be confest that there is no precept respective to such jurisdiction when there is a command for administration I never saw sufficient reason given that a man should break an expresse rule given in Command from God rather then omit a duty of meer positive institution Jeroboam must rather have no sacrifice then that Dan or Bethel should be the place for it And in case such necessity may dspense with irregularities why may we not on the other hand be irregular and in such necessary want of a full and compleat order the Minister who is one and the first in the number of such an Eldership to take upon him the whole work rather then on the one hand the administration should wholly cease or on the other hand promiscuously dispensed where there can be no possible benefit received To this I confesse I was for some time much inclined till that upon further examination and debate reason enforced me to conclude that the Minister by Divine appointment is authoritatively himself vested in power for admission or denyal And if I be driven out of this and all these arguments here laid down fully satisfied I shall rather believe that the Minister who is one party in the power pleaded for as before may rather act alone in such necessity then either the authority it self be wholly laid aside or Sacraments totally discontinued Object If any shall further object That Christ and his Apostles had virtually all offices in them so that if that order could not so soon be established among them the defect in this impossible case was sufficiently supplyed by the Apostolical Office Sol. I answer What power soever was vested in them yet it appears not that at once they exercised the power of all of them but acted orderly in an association when it was required Paul Ordained Timothy by laying on of hands but not alone but as associated in a Presbytery his hands were laid upon him 2 Tim. 1.6 and the hands of the Presbytery were laid upon him 1 Tim. 4.4 He ordered the incestuous Corinthians excommunication but this he did not alone but with the Church-Officers 1 Cor. 5. And if the Apostles Office had virtually all in it yet it may be questioned whether it were so with Philip unlesse we can make it good which is by few believed that he was Philip the Apostle Sixthly That which hath neither any law in Scripture for it Reason 6 nor any set up for execution of it is no Church-censure to be proceeded in by vertue of jurisdiction This is plain But in Scripture there is no Law enacted for proceeding in such a censure nor men set up for to proceed in such a juridick way Therefore it followes that this is no Church-Censure If any say The Keys imply this power and those that receive the keys are set up in power I answer That Sacraments are within the power of order which is distinct from jurisdiction and contains no censure and Keys in jurisdiction imply a letting in and shutting out now this is a Censure of those that remain within and neither serves for letting in nor exclusion 7thly If those must be kept back from the Sacrament in a prudential Reason 7 way on whom no sentence in way of jurisdiction ought to pass then this rather belongs to prudence then to jurisdiction This is plain But those are to be kept back on whom no sentence in a way of jurisdiction ought to pass This is also plain Jurisdiction for censure is not but in case of crime many are detained upon defect in judgment no criminal charge being laid against them Ergo. Eighthly The detaining of that from or denyal of it to any Reason 8 which they cannot improve for their benefit but visibly tends to their danger is no juridick act of penalty but a prudential care for his advantage from whom it is thus detained and to whom it is thus denyed This is clear To deny drink to an Hydropick person or flesh-meats to one in a Feaver garlick or onions to a wounded person or full of ulcerous sores is not to inflict a penalty but to exercise a prudential care But this denyal of the Sacrament to or detaining it from the ignorant c. is onely to withhold that which visibly tends to danger and cannot be improved for any advantage Therefore it is no juridick penalty but a businesse of prudential care And here an Objection which carries most colour of all that can be said is prevented and already answered To debar a man upon the grounds of ignorance error or scandal from that which otherwise were his right and proper interest belongs to the power of jurisdiction and is a censure But in this a man for ignorance error or scandal is debarred of that which otherwise is his right and therefore it belongs to the power of jurisdiction and is a Church-Censure To this upon the grounds before laid down is answered To debar a man of his right to his sensible prejudice and to hold from him that which would be his present livelihood and comfort is indeed a penalty or juridick censure as to sequester a man from his house and Lands to disfranchise a man of his Trade c. But for a Parent a Nurse or Physician to order dyet as most for health and to withdraw some food when digestion will not bear it and it evidently appears to be of danger is an act of prudence and no censure and so a Minister is considered in the administration of Word and Sacraments Reason 9 Ninthly If admission to or exclusion from other Ordinances of eminent height and excellency to which all are not promiscuously admitted be left to prudence and not to the exercise of any Juridick power then there is no reason to take this out of the Ministers hand and put it
over to any such powers But exclusion from and admission to other Ordinances of eminent height and excellency to which all are not promiscuously admitted as private Fasts and doubtful disputations Matth. 9. Rom. 14. is left to prudence and not to the exercise of any juridick power Ergo. Reason 10 Lastly If this be an act of jurisdiction to admit to the Sacrament and keep off from it then there must be a Law of Jesus Christ in it a Gospel-Ordinance for it This is plain Jesus Christ hath not left to his Officers an arbitrary Goverment he hath left no Commission to rule at pleasure as they are to speak so they are to act according to his will and pleasure known But no such Law no such Ordinance of Jesus Christ is found in Scriptures A command we have in the Gospel for administration of Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords Supper and Covenant-interest is our Directory as you have heard to lead us to those that have fundamental interest in them But concerning exclusion of any thus enrighted there is nothing by way of Ordinance written Therefore this can be no act of jurisdiction The Assumption is that which many will question It lyes upon them then to quote this Law to make known this Ordinance of Jesus Christ But instead of that I shall shew upon what grounds it yet appears to me that there is none at all If any such be it is either in plain and full words exprest such as the Law given to Israel to put out of the Camp every leper and every one that hath an issue or is defiled by the dead Numb 5.1 2. or else it must be such as is deduced by fair consequence from the nature and use of the Sacrament or preparation to it or benefit received by it That there is no Ordinance in such plain full words needs not to be doubted In all that enquiry into this so much controverted businesse it would have been long since produced In case it be deduced from any such consequence as hath been spoken it will hardly be made good to be an instituted Law or constituted Ordinance Mr. Firmin hath well excepted against the proof of institutions by syllogismes though to his great disadvantage in that dispute of a Church-Covenant Where there is an Ordinance in power as there was for exclusion from the Passeover proof may be made up by consequence for the latitude to discern who those be that are within the verge of it and concerned in it But consequences will hardly prove the enacting and instituting of it I shall be willing to gratifie Mr. Tombs in this that parity of reason will set up no institution A good cause is wronged when Ordinances of this nature are pretended and cannot be produced and on the other hand when a Ministeriall prudence in the Stewards of Christ is undervalued which might supply it Let it be granted that there is no Ordinance to debar an unexcommunicated man from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet a promiscuous admission will not follow when the end and use of the Sacrament is considered it will appear to them that have the care and charge about it that some are not in a present aptitude for it There is command for the preaching of the Word in a way to edification 1 Cor. 143 12. yet the particular way of application suitable to mens capacities so as to give milk to babes and children and strong meat to those of growth that have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil is not done by any vertue of any specifick particular institution but the Ministers prudence VVhich prudence was exercised by Paul 1 Cor. 3.1 2. Heb. 5.12 by Christ himself Joh. 16 12. There is no Ordinance for admission to or exclusion from private Fasts or punctual direction who are to be called and received or who past by yet our Saviour Christ from the high nature of the duty concludes that it is not for novices in the faith And as it is a point of prudence not to put a piece of new cloth in an old garment unwrought cloth some understand there will be a double inconvenience the weaknesse of the one will not bear the strength of the other and so the rent that was before will be made greater and the whole garment become uncomely and unsuitable nor yet to put new wine which is windy and working into old bottles the weaknesse of such a vessel being not able to bear it so neither had it been a point of prudence in our Saviour Christ to have put such an austere discipline upon the necks of his newly entred disciples Matth. 7.6 vindicated If any shall object that Text Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto dogs neither cast ye pearles before swine as I know it is produced as an Ordinance for the withholding of this Sacrament from those that are ignorant and scandalous I shall desire the Reader for answer to take it into consideration whether it be not more agreeable to the Text to make it an exhortation to an holy prudential circumspection in the dispensation of holy things in general whether in a private or a publick way then to make it a distinct peculiar Ordinance about any one piece or part of worship Making it a peculiar Ordinance we shall run our selves upon inextricable difficulties Our Saviour laying it down in an indefinite way All whatsoever that is holy must there be understood and pearles and holy things are the same one being exegetical of the other holy things excelling other things as far as pearles excel acorns And by doggs and swine both which were unclean in the Law we must understand all that Scripture comprehends under those names they are both put for one 2 Pet. 1.21 and so the result of all is that no person in visible uncleannesse must taste of any thing that is holy From which it followes that as Christ thought it not fit at that present to gratifie a Heathen with a miracle when he said It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it unto doggs Matth. 15.26 So it will at no time be meet or lawfull to preach the Gospel to any heathen or impenitent and unclean Christian they being no other then dogs or swine and the Gospel the most precious of holy pearles but understanding it as an exhortation to Christian prudence and observing the reason added lest they trample them under feet and turn again and rent you these absurdities and snares will be avoided and the result of all will be onely this that the holy things of God and rich Gospel-pearles are not to be communicated where there is no possible expectation of doing good But all the issue of it will evidently be danger to him that doth impart them and all scorn and contempt of the holy things themselve which was the Apostles way of dealing when the Jewes were filled with envy contradicting and blaspheming Act. 13. and is
Cyrenius in Syria to Pilate in Judea Luke 2.2 Luke 3.1 is given by the Apostle to these here mentioned A military or politicall word saith one which is spoken of a publick person who is possest of power either in Common Wealth or Army And if those other texts of the Apostle be consulted Hebr. 13.17 1 Tim. 5.17 1 Tim. 5.19 2 Cor. 2.6 and 5.12 13. 1 Thes 5.12 to mention no more so much will easily be found in them that speaks a government within the Church it self not going out of its own limits Whether some texts ordinarily produced hold out so large an enumeration as is by some bottom'd upon them may happily be disputed but that there should not so much as any government at all be spoken to cannot be imagined which thing in reason is also plain 1. The Church is a society a visible Kingdom an incorporation a body and when all of these have their lawes governours censures punishments it cannot be thought that this society should herein so farre differ and be so farre inferiour to all other societies as to be wholly destitute when all others enjoy government governours for their strength defence and more compleat being the Church alone shall be like that City which the Wise man speaks of broken down and without walls Prov. 25.28 2. The Church consists of men as do other societies subject to failings yea to enormities and exorbitances in judgement and practice There hath no age past in which the Church hath not had her schisms errors and scandals No society or body politick is so like to run upon miscarriages seeing the lawes to which Christ ties are so averse to our natures when we can bear others we are apt to say we will break these bonds and cast them away from us Satan envies no other society or bond of men as he doth the society or bond of Christians His kingdome will consist together with all other states and kingdomes they may rule and he rule likewise onely this of Christs Kingdome is wholly averse to Satans and militates against it for the ruine of it 3. The Church from the beginning hath exercised this power within it self when all other powers were adverse and contrary to it How long was it before the Church had a Christian Magistrate and lay under the persecution of heathen states in all which time a discipline vvas yet kept up If the Church had no such povver hovv could it then exercise it 4. The Churches that have been remisse in their improvement of this povver have had their check from Christ himself in glory He manifests his displeasure from heaven against the Church of Pergamos that they had those that held the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans and against the Church of Thyatira because they suffered Jesabel to teach and seduce his servants Rev. 2.14 15 20. The censure that lyes upon the Kings of Judah upon neglect of reformation in their time argues that they vvere in povver for it So the censure of these Churches upon like account argues their povver in like manner Even those that plead most for freedome of conscience and liberty in religion vvith all impunity from the civil povver yet confesse from these and like texts a povver vvithin the Church it self for censure of delinquencies To all this some are ready to subscribe as being not able to gainsay the clear Scripture evidence of a povver Ecclesiastical and confesse that it vvas so in those times but novv they contend that the case is othervvise Providence hath ordered a change of things and all is swallowed up in the hand of him that is chief in power since the time that the Church hath enjoyed Kings for her nursing fathers and Queens for her nursing mothers not barely accusing them of error that dissent in opinion but charging them to resemble those sons of Belial that upon the Israelites institution of Kingship were ungratefully asking this question How shall this man save us 1 Sam. 10.27 Making good their assertion of a change of this nature by this similitude As in the first Church among the Jewes whilest they were in a wandring condition as their need was greater so Gods personal providence and guidance of them was more expresse and apparent and therefore whilest they were in this Theocraty their government was not to be managed by any setled universal authority besides that of God himself or any one who took not in all weighty things immediate direction from him until such time as being throughly settled in peace and security from their enemies he might make his recesse and permit and appoint to them a King of their own Nation So in the first founding of the Christian Church during the time of their persecution as their weaknesse required were in a Theocraty too guided by the expresse direction of our Saviour himself given to the Apostles during the time of those fourty daies that he was conversant with them upon earth but now after the time that God hath perfected the time of the Churches deliverance and free establishment in peace and rest from all about her and the Prophecy is fulfilled by appointing Kings her nursing fathers and Queens her nursing mothers and having sons to be set as Princes in all Lands so that now under Constantine the uproomes and wandring Tabernacles as formerly under Solomon are converted into stately temples for men now to think of their running into their Wildernesse and persecuted condition by entertaining those temporary forms which unto that condition were most fit doth import both ingratitude and murmur against God and imprudence towards themselves Thus farre this similitude But those of this opinion I doubt would take ill that free dealing toward themselves which they use toward others and that upon their casting off all Ecclesiastical government under the notion of temporary forms we should apply that speech of the Lord himself to Samuel concerning the people of Israel upon their resolution to make a change in government 1 Sam. 8.7 They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them And to make the dissimilitude in this simile further apparent it should I suppose be taken into consideration that when God was pleased first to permit and then appoint a King over Israel that the former fabrick of Government written in the Law was not taken down but the whole Levitical order still stood as to all purposes prescribed of God the change was no more nor further but in him that rul'd in chief Instead of one raised by an immediate hand of God as their exigence required they now had one after the manner of other Nations of constant standing And God forbid that we should murmur that the Church hath her sons for Princes and that those that rule over us serve the Lord Jesus with us But we think that these servants of Christ thus raised in honour should see that what Christ hath set up should
of Christ but also the supererogation of the Saints which as they perswade themselves is satisfactory not onely for the Saints themselves but for others The Church of Rome makes it her care to take in the whole of all these branches of righteousnesse and in all of them they place their justification Here we had need of the clew of Scriptures to lead us That righteousnesse which according to the precept of the Law is to be wrought by our selves as to sanctification or qualification of the soul in the way of salvation we must vigorously pursue and not disclaim As Christ when he was accused by the Pharisees to destroy the law and to be an enemy to righteousnesse to take off this calumny he tells his Disciples Matth. 5.20 I say unto you that except your righteousnesse shall exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdome of Heaven So we may say to these adversaries that charge us to be enemies of good works except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of these superstitious ones ye can by no means enter into the Kingdome of heaven The righteousnesse of a Papist being of the self same stamp with that of the Pharisees for tradition the Trent Councel makes known their zeal Concil Triden Sess quart p. 11. With the same degree of reverence and esteem we receive the Traditions of our Fathers as we do the bookes of the Old and New Testament and how defective both of them were touching the righteousnesse of the law their agreement in the glosse which they put upon the law is a sufficient witnesse The Pharisees glosse on the law we may read in Christs refutation Matth. 5. and the several precepts which Christ there delivers transcending the Pharisees dictates Papists will have to be no branches of the law but Evangelical Counsels added to it So that B. Hall quotes a speech of Serrarius the Jesuite that the Pharisees may not unfitly be compared to Catholiques adding as his own that one egge is not liker to an other then the Tridentine Fathers to these Jesuites Supererogating righteousnesse and that which is bottom'd on tradition we must wholly shun It is enough that we can bring it up to the rule in the parts of it it must not exceed It is hard to determine whether a man that casts off all regard of righteousnesse or a man of such righteousnesse be more hatefull in Gods presence one utterly sleights the soveraignty of God and the other corrects his wisdome one refuses to serve at all the other serves onely according to his own pleasure As to the other branch of righteousnesse wrought by others The supposed satisfaction of the Saints must be left and the Lord Christs alone chosen That speech of Christ in the Prophet Isai 63.3 spoken of the conquest of his enemies I have trod the Wine-presse alone and of the people there were none with me holds true when it is applied as by many it hath been though not according to the letter of the text to his satisfaction By one offering he hath perfected for ever those that are sanctified Heb. 10.14 yea the righteousnesse of Christ in the matter of justification must stand alone in opposition to all righteousnesse in the world whether of others imaginarily to be applyed out of any publique treasury by way of indulgence or wrought by our selves either by the strength of natural abilities without grace which the Papists confesse to be too weak or in grace and these works how great an honour soever of late is put upon them come short of perfection to justification likewise as plainly appears by the Apostles argumentation Rom. 3.20 By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight giving this in for his reason for by the Law is the knowledg of sin The argument runs thus Where the Law discovers sin the works commanded by it cannot justifie This proposition is the Apostles But the law discovers sinne even in those in whom grace here hath its most perfect work This needs not to be proved Therefore works commanded in the law and done by assistance of grace in the regenerate cannot justifie And that the Apostle disclaims all righteousnesse any other way his own then by free imputation from God in the work of justification is clear 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Though he had the witnesse of a good conscience as his rejoycing 2 Cor. 1.12 Yet this is not his justification when the Rhemists on the place and Bellarmine de justificat urge this text against assurance of salvation Mr. Ball Treat of Faith pag. 107. saith This text makes strongly against justification by works but against certainty of salvation it makes nothing And Pareus upon the words saith Hence it is most firmly concluded that by the works of the law no man is justified If so great an Apostle cannot be justified by works then much lesse others His works were certainly done by the power of grace and upon new-Covenant-engagements That of Mr. Baxter Aphor. of justif pag. 307. must stand as an eternal truth who after that he had laid down the Socinians tenent that they acknowledg not that Christ hath satisfied the Law for us and consequently is none of our legal righteousnesse but onely hath set us a coppy to write after and is become our pattern and that we are justified by following him as a captain and guide to heaven and so all our proper righteousnesse is in this obedience And having mark'd it with this just brand Most cursed doctrine he addes So far am I from this that I say The righteousnesse which we must plead against the lawes accusations is not one grain of it in our faith or works but all out of us in Christs satisfaction As this righteousnesse which is no otherwise ours but by imputation being neither inherent in us Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousnesse nor wrought by us must stand entire and sole in our justification so faith must be acknowledged to be the alone grace which interests us in it and attains to our reconciliation to God in Christ otherwise why is it that not onely the denomination is still from faith onely as we see in the text and alwaies when it is named it is called the righteousnesse of faith and not of hope love obedience or repentance But that justification is evermore in Scripture ascribed to this grace The Apostle speaking of Christ who is confessed to be our righteousnesse saith Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood In him God who otherwise through wrath stands at the greatest distance is propitious and this through Faith on which Diodate hath these words All this hath been done by vertue of Gods appointment who of his meer will and full power hath from everlasting appointed Christ to be the onely means of expiation and
or the sacrifice to be offered Bellarmine tells us that the Ordination of Presbyters is a Sacrament by the consent of all and he himself determines that the Ordination of Bishops is a Sacrament and according to him there is no other Scripture-Ordination seeing all the Scriptures that speak of it speak as he sayes of the Ordination of Bishops Most of these doubted among themselves whether they be Sacraments though he multiplies Authors denying their Ordination to be any Sacrament Ordination of Deacons he sayes is very probable and to be believed that it is a Sacrament though it be no Article of faith to believe it which he proves because it cannot be evidently deduced out of the Written Word or tradition Neither is there saith he any determination of the Church for it For Sub-Deacons he sayes there is not that certainty as of Deacons yet he sayes it is very probable that it is a Sacrament though he hath such an argument against it as that none but himself will be ever able to answer Imposition of hands he sayes and proves out of the fourth Councel of Cartharge Canon 5. is not used in it and yet his whole nineth Chapter is spent to prove that imposition of hands is essential in this Sacrament It is a Sacrament save onely that it wants the essentials of a Sacrament as do indeed all their five supposititious ones The four last which with them are the lesser Orders have not as he sayes that probability that they are Sacraments as that of subdeaconship yet the opinion that affirmes their Sacramentality The matter of these Sacraments not agreed upon is far more probable then that which denyes it Their learned Councel are not yet agreed what is the matter of this or these Sacraments whether it be the imposition of hands or the holding out of such an instrument as belongs to their function as a Chalice to the Priest c. The words uttered to each respectively The form when such an instrument is delivered are the form The effect The effect of these is 1. A Spiritual and perpetual power for discharge of their function of which the indelible character is a token 2. Saving grace for a right discharge of their function The Minister The Minister of these is a Bishop and the Ceremonies Anointing and Shaving That the Ordination of Ministers for their function is Gospel Ordinance we willingly grant and that no man should take upon him this honour to deal for men in things appertaining to God unlesse he be called as Aaron Tymothy was this way called to the work 1 Tim. 4.14 and he hath a directory given him for the call of others 1 Tim. 5.22 Titus is left in Crete for this purpose Tit. 1.5 and Paul and Barnabas in every City where they come act in it Yet it is far short of the honour of a Sacrament properly so called Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament The outward rite of imposition of hands was used not so much for significancy as decency being an usage in religious acts of solemnity before the Law under the Law and continued in Gospel-times as standing with the simplicity of it yet we dare not with Bellarmine make it essential to Ordination finding no institution of it for a sign much lesse any saving grace annext to it by way of promise so that here both an outward instituted sign and inward grace are wanting â—â—ither is it such in which all the people of God are interested One peculiar order onely can claime to it In the time of the law this was in use and yet by their own confession it was then no Sacrament And it is very strange that not onely power given for administration of Sacraments should be a Sacrament but authority to open the door for these that come for the Sacrament as for other Ordinances should be a Sacrament likewise The greatest thing that adversaries talke of is that Calvin in Instit lib. 4. Calvin vindicated cap. 14. sect 20. saith that he can willingly suffer Ordination to be called a Sacrament but they are unwilling to take notice that he denyes to number or reckon it among Ordinary Sacraments and therefore it is plain that he takes the word in a more large acceptation then ordinary which is further clear in that in his Comment on Jam. 5.14 he makes the oyl which Christs Disciples used Mark 6.13 for the time that the use of it continued to be a Sacrament when yet he restrains the whole effect or fruit of it to the health of the body onely which falls far short of his famously known definition of a Sacrament so that Ordination neither according to Scripture nor Calvin is to be accounted a Sacrament SECT X. Marriage no Sacrament THe last Sacrament which they would obtrude upon us is Marriage which they have determined to be a Sacrament as well as the rest that serve to make up the number whilest the solemnizing of it holds and the parties are upon the work The words or signes expressing consent according to Bellarmine is both matter Matter and form Form of this Sacrament But when the work is over then the married couple in their persons are the matter and the words or signes are the form The married persons expressing their consent in any manner whatsoever are themselves the Minister Minister of this Sacrament Canus seeing how great a dishonour it is to Sacraments to make that which is acted in the most prophane and clandestine manner a Sacrament resolves that the words of the persons thus expressing consent are the form of the contract of Marriage and that upon that account marriage is valid but it is no Sacrament according to him unlesse it be done by a lawful Minister but this Bellarmine opposeth as a singular and new opinion A Sacrament then according to him is wheresoever a marriage is and marriage is where consent of Parties is expressed though in the lewdest way by persons under Parents power and not at their own dispose by divine appointment We willingly yield it to be an Ordinance Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament established by God but very short of the nature or honour of a Sacrament for divers reasons 1. It was the same as it Reas 1 is now from the beginning and yet all that space of time from Adam to Christs coming in the flesh it was no Sacrament by our adversaries confession 2. It is an Ordinance Reas 2 in common for mankind and no Ordinance peculiar to the Church The whole world of mankind have their interest in it and Sacraments are known to be onely Church-priviledges 3. All the people of God are not tyed to it some Reas 3 have their liberty to abstain from it and all Sacraments are under a precept yea according to our adversaries it is a degree of perfection unto merit in all to keep out of it and unto men of some orders a defilement
desired to be found as I think in judgment not having his own righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith I think he could find no other which would be as a Screen or cover to hide sin or keep off the wrath of God He knew nothing by himself He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent Yet he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience they are all within the command of the Law and I dare not rest there for Justification And the Apostle acquaints us with no other way then faith for interest in this righteousnesse You farther say in in the place quoted They that will needs to the great disgrace of their understandings deny that there is any such thing as Justification at Judgment muâ—t either say that there is no Judgment or that all are Condemned or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation as its distinct species but some men shall then be judged who shall neither be Justified nor Condemned All men have not their understandings elevated to one pitch I know no Justification to be expected then specifically distinct from that which did precede I would for the bettering of my understanding learn whether this Justification at the day of Judgment be not a Justification of men already justified yea of men already in possession of their Crown except of those who then are found alive though not compleat in regard of the absence of the body I have fought a good fight says the Apostle I have finished my course henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousnes 2 Tim. 4.7 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown This must needs be unlesse we will be of the Mortalists Judgment to deny any separate existence of the Soul Or of theirs that assert the Souls-sleeping both of them against the Apostle who saith To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5.8 And upon that account had a desire to depart be with Christ Phil. 1.23 which present advantage seem'd to him to over-weigh or at least to ballance all the good that the Church migh reap by his labour surviving Your third distinction is between the Physicall operation of Christ and his benefits on the intellect of the Believer per modum objecti apprehensi as an intelligible species and the morall conveiance of right to Christ and his benefit which is by an act of law or Covenant-donation If you call the first a Justification then very bad men in the Church on earth and the worst of Devils in hell may be justified They may have such operations upon their understanding You seem else where to distinguish between the acceptance of him by faith and this morall conveyance of right Your fourth distinction is between those two question What justifieth ex parte Christi and what justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris Which as it is laid is without exception Your fifth is between the true efficient causes of our Justification and the meer condition sine qua non et cum qua Which I can scarse tell whether to approve or disapprove with your comment upon it I have spoken to it Your last distinction is between Christs meriting mans Justification and this actuall justifying him by constitution or sentence which as the fourth is above exception Your propositions offer themselves in the next place to consideration 1. You say Christ did merit our Justification or a power to Justifie not as a King but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant This I imbrace with thanks and do believe that it will draw more with it 2. You say Christ doth justifie constistutivè as King and Lord viz. ut Dominus Redemptor i. e Quoad valorem rei he conferreth it Ut dominus gratis benefaciens But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi Ut Rector et Benefactor For it is Christs enacting the New Law or Covenant by which he doth legally pardon or confer remission and constitute us righteous supposing the condition performed on our part And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Sacrificer but joyntly Ut Benefactor et Rector Hereto me are termini novi and Theologia nova But let the terms alone of Dominus Redemptor Rector Benefactor That which you ascribe to Christ in this place so far as I understand Scripture still gives to the Father Christ gave himself for us indeed according to his Fathers command but the Father gives him to us and he that gave his Son appoints the terms on which Justification and Salvation is to be obtained by him God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish John 3.16 So that this New Law if you will call it so is of the Fathers appointment John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life And in this sense if we will follow Scripture The Father justifies Rom. 8.33 34. It is God that Justifies whche is that condemneth Christs work is to work us into a posture to obtain it The Father judicially acts in it 3. You say Christ doth justifie by sentence as he is Judge and King and not as Priest Answ If he justifie by sentence Then he condemnes by sentence when yet he says J 1.47 He judges that is condemnes none The truth is as the Psalmist speaks God is Judge himself Psal 50.6 and the Apostle tells us he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousnesse by the man whom he hath ordained Act. 17.31 This unquestionably Christ doth as King but in this Kingly power he is no other then the Fathers Agent who hath set him on his holy Hill of Zion Psal 2.6 He is therefore at the Fathers right hand as prime in power for that work Those that are next to him that is chief are so seated and Zebedees Children look'd for it in Christs temporall Kingdome When this is done Christs mediatory power will be finished and he shall give up his Kingdome to the Father 4. You say Sententiall Justification is the most full compleat and eminent Justification That in Law being quoad sententiam but vertuall Justification Answ To this I have spoken upon the first distinction 5. You say Faith justifies not by receiving Christ as an object which is to make a reall impression and mutation on the intellect according to the nature of the species I say to justifie is not to make such a reall change c. Answ To this I have spoke under that head of the instrumentality of faith The works ancedent to this of Justification as Humiliation Regeneration faith imply a reall change Such a change is wrought in the Justified Soul
speaking of agenda and not credenda and that here should be any rule de agendis but the precept determining of duty or that the promise There is a righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law or any act that goes along with the promise which what it means I cannot imagine should be any rule of our actions I never heard but from your mouth And for your inference That all our Actions and Habits comming short of the precept determining of duty no man therefore hath a righteousness consisting in this conformity I should think all but your self would take to be a Non sequitur There is a righteousness in conformity to the precept which yet fals short of a full and perfect conformity Look I pray you upon Zacharie and Elizabeth that have this praise in the Gospel that they were both righteous before God and by what rule this righteousness had its denomination let the Text be consulted If walking in all the ordinances and commandements of God blameless give men the denomination of righteousness then there is a righteousness in conformity to the precept But walking in all the commandments and ordinances of God denominates men righteous Ergo doing righteousness denominates righteous He that doth righteousness is righteous 1 John 4.7 And what should be the rule of doing but the precept I cannot imagine If we break the precept when we sin the precept is our rule but we break the precept when we sin 1 John 5.4 Abel hath often that Testimony to be righteous and that because his works were righteous 1 John 3.12 And so Lot in like manner 2 Pet. 2.8 there is a righteousness then in conformity to the Law of works though not to the covenant of works Zachary saies We are redeemed to serve without fear in holiness and righteousness before God B. concedimus renatos diligere deum proximum sed imperfectè diligere per consequens imperfectè legem implere Luk. 1.74 75. And this righteousness is not without its rule and hath no other rule then that which Zacharies righteousness had in the sixth verse of the same Chapter There is an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and so an imperfect righteousness in conformity to it b We grant saith Davenant that the regenerate love God and their neighbour but they love imperfectly and by consequence they fulfil the Law imperfectly de Justit actuali p. 551. And if you acknowledge an imperfection in Pauls frame as you say you do you then acknowledge an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and an imperfect conformity to the Law It is in reference to the Law that he had his imperfections and gradual inconformity He delights he saies in the Law in the inward man but sees an opposite power drawing him aside and he quotes the precept and not the promise annex'd Thou shalt not covet to which in such imperfection he conformed I added in my Treatise Whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers that commonly understand the word Righteousness and Righteous as it refers to the old Rule I profess my self to have little of their learning but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Here you first complain of want of candor in me in not repeating all that you spoke and if is but this once that I know that I am thus charged And the sense I think is full in those words that I do set down Secondly you go about to clear your self from some aspersions concerning harsh speeches used by you against learned Divines in which you say you speak not to me but to others standing thus charged by them and not by me In which I am well content that you should stand as right in your Readers eyes as you can desire and shall forbear to rake further into that ulcer Thirdly you take me to task and are content to put my name at length As for Mr. Blake's profession that he hath little of their learning but is wholly theirs in this ignorance I did still think otherwise of him and durst not to have describ'd him But yet my acquaintance with him is not so great as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself and I dare not judge but he speaks as he thinks Good Sir say it over again that it may be known from an hand of your eminence that I say my learning is little and that I speak it not more modestly then truly neither do you know how much I suffer that it is no more Yet least the cause in which I appear should suffer with me or rather in me let me assume so much boldnesse as to tell you that I yet think that that little which through grace I have obtained may serve to satisfie those arguments which this piece of yours holds forth against me I have been often confounded with your multitude but never perceived my self shatter'd by your strength not that my learning is equall with yours I know my self better then to enter such comparisons but your cause is unequall to mine Your advantage is not so great against me in the greatnesse of your abilities as mine against you in the goodnesse of the cause It would often go ill with a good cause if the most able Advocates should not sometimes be worsted in the presence of impartiall Judges Should you and I make exchange So that I were to appear in the cause that you maintain and you in that which I defend a weaker then you would easily do that which I think you have not yet done But your willingnesse is observable to take a hint from my mouth to strip me of all the learning of these learned men charged with intolerable ignorance and leave their ignorance only with me as the whole you are willing to allow me Yet in the next place you engage me to you in your endeavours to help me out of my ignorance in this Let me be hold to shew him say you part of that which he sayth he is wholly ignorant of That our personall inherent Righteousnesse is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant as if we were called righteous besides our imputed Righteousness only because our Sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works But I were ignorant indeed if you could surprize me with your confounding of these terms Law and Covenant Those two I take much to differ In your Aphorisms where you think you speak most full and here complain that I omitted somewhat of that which you there said you have the word Law and the word Rule But I hear not of the word Covenant at all But here Law and Covenant are confounded as though every Law were a Covenant and every Covenant a Law And I were yet more in ignorance if I should let your Syllogisms pass
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