known There have been transubstantiations but those were never hidden Moses his rod was turned into a Serpent and it was seen to be a Serpent so that Moses on sight fled from it Exod. 4.3 It was turned again into a rod and known to be a rod vers 4. Christ turnes water into wine Joh. 2.9 that was not judged to be still water or called by that name but by the taste known to be of the most precious wine vers 10. But our senses having thus deceived us and made us believe that there is still bread and wine when by miracle bread and wine is gone where shall we find any Word to ground our faith to believe this delusion The words of the institution or nothing must carry it This is my body this Cup is my blood in the New Testament But such an interpretation 1. Destroyes the outward sign and makes it no Sacrament 2. Makes the speech wholly not Sacramental No Sacramental speech can be proper and we have enough from out adversaries to excuse our faith from the acknowledgement of any such a change If we look no further then three testimonies quoted by learned Mr. Gataker from three Romish Cardinals in his discourse of transubstantiation Pag. 2. 3. Cardinal Bellarmine saith he granteth that these words This is my body may imply either such a real change of the bread as the Catholiques hold or such a figurative change as the Calvinists hold but will not bear that sense that the Lutherans give it And Cardinal Cajetan acknowledgeth and freely confesseth that there appeareth not any thing out of the Gospel that may enforce us to understand those words This is my body properly And he addeth that nothing in the text hindreth but that those words may as well be taken in a metaphorical sense as those words of the Apostle the Rock was Christ and that the words of either proposition may well be true though the thing there spoken be not understood in a proper sense but in a metaphorical sense onely And he further q saith he finds alleadged out of Bishop Fisher whom Bellar. lib. de Scriptor Ecclesiast Pag. 209. makes both a Cardinal and a Martyr that there is not one word in St. Matthewes Gospel from which the true presence of Christs flesh and blood in our Masse may be proved out of Scripture it cannot be proved And being traduced for this quotation by an adversary as taking king it out of a nameless Author ignorant and unsincere in his assertions In his defence of the said discourse Pag. 44. he tells his adversary that his Author whom he thus brands as ignorant and unsincere is Bishop Andrewes in his answer to the Apology of Card. Bellar. against King James his admonitory preface Chap. 1. and I find Musculus in his common places de Coena Domin Pag. 365. quoting the same words out of the same Author and much more to the same purpose He that would be further furnished against this monster of transubstantiation in our own language let him read the fore-mentioned discourse of Mr. Gatakers together with the defence as also Bishop Mortons his Treatise divided into eight parts of the institution of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ Gods goodnesse seen in his condescension to our weaknesse Thirdly We may see the goodness of God in this way of condescension by earthly things carnal sensible and suitable to our natures to help our understandings and strengthen our faith in things heavenly If we were meer incorporeal substances and had spirits not shut up and imprisoned in bodies then saith Chrysostome we should have had spirituall things in an answerable way nakedly in themselves held out unto us then Parables had not been used nor similitudes borrowed nor Sacramental signs instituted But having souls affixt to bodies that which our spirits should learn these things of earth are imployed of God to teach God looked not at himself when he chose this method It is farre below him to fill up his sacred Oracles with these things but at our imbecillity In case he should speak as God that is in a language answering the Majestie of God we must be as gods to comprehend his words and understand his speech but dealing with us that have bodies made up of earth and minds over eagerly addicted to earth he is pleased in his transactions not to deal if I may so say as God but as with man seeking glory onely in manifestation of his goodness and tender regard of our weakness Christ saw a necessity of this way of dealing not onely as God by his omniscience but as man by his practical experience He taught Nicodemus the nature of regeneration by similitudes borrowed from water and from the wind Except a man be borne of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth So is every one that is born of the Spirit Joh. 3.5 8. Notwithstanding all this endeavour of Christ to cleare this truth Nicodemus still remaines ignorant he answers and saies to Christ How can these things be Christ after a sharp reproof ver 10. Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things not onely a Scholar but a Teacher and that not in any place of darknesse but in Israel that valley of vision addes ver 12. If I have told you earthly things and ye beleeve not how shall ye beleeve if I tell you of heavenly things Christ had not read a Lecture to Nicodemus of the water or of the wind neither had Nicodemus questioned either of those assertions The wind bloweth where it listeth thou knowest not whence it comes nor whither it goes that he should on this account charge Nicedemus with not beleeving doctrine of this kind But the meaning is If I speak of regeneration by earthly similitudes and expressions obvious to the senses and you are not able to apprehend and understand them how then if I speak to you of heavenly things in an heavenly manner without any such sensible representation at all would you then understand This interpretation of these words Maldonate doth give notwithstanding Bullinger Decad. 5 Ser. 6. had gone before him in it Ravanellus in his Thesaurus and Mr. Burges in his Ser. 35. pag. 211. give the same In which we see our need of help this way and the singular condescension of Christ Jesus in dealing this way for our help which place in my thoughts serves to cleere that speech of the Evangelist Mar. 4.33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them as they were able to beare it many are there reckoned up and more by Matthew Matth. 13. many more perhaps were uttered then either Matthew or Mark relate as they were able to bear saith the text according to their capacities say the larger Annotations And so Jansenius upon the words
may be infallible and yet not known to be such to the person but I suppose that by the word demonstration you intend that the party discerns it to be an infallible demonstration which sure intimates a very high kind of certainty You may well know that I intend so when you see that I say so and I do not make that to be assurance cui potest subesse falsum If it prove in the event otherwise it was not assurance It followes 11. Yet even in that case I deny that the general Premise in the Major is equivalent to the conclusion I am justified and shall be saved though I should acknowledg that the conclusion may be said to be de fide in that the Major hath the predominant interest in the conclusion if so be that the man have better evidence of his sincerity then of the truth of the promise Neither do I say that that Proposition He that believes and repents shall be saved is of it self equivalent with that conclusion without the assumpion with Scripture-warrant and help of the Spirit that I believe and repent and I know not what to make of such strange supposals of a better evidence of a mans own sincerity in any man then of the truth of the promise which Mr. Baxter presently affirms to be a contradiction There is no man comes up to sincerity but he that is assured by faith that the promise is true Though he may be sometimes staggered yet he rises out of it and holds fast to the truth of the promise and when the soul hath evidence of both and is assured of both I say the conclusion is de fide see Mr. Ball of faith pag. 80. Mr. Baxter sayes Appen pag. 71. When the Papists alleadge that it is no where written that such or such a man is justified we answer them that it being written that he that believeth is justified this is equivalent A grosse mistake saith he as if the Major Proposition alone were equivalent to the conclusion or as if the conclusion must or can be meerly credenda a proper object of faith when but one of the premises is matter of faith and the other of sense and knowledge In my Treatise of the Covenant I opposed against him Dr. Goades speech in a conference expressing himself in these words I will maintain the contrary against you viz. Fisher the Jesuite that a conclusion may be de fide although both Propositions be not de fide but one of them otherwise and infallibly true by the light of reason or experience giving instance in such a syllogism Mr. Baxters answers Sect. 75. Dr. Goad saith but the same that I say onely I distinguish c. And I am well content then to say what both of them say and leave it to the Reader to take the benefit of his large and elaborate discourse on this occcasion He is pleased to put into his Index the difference between Mr. Bl. and me contracted and a plain cogent argument added to prove that the conclusion forementioned is not sealed which is the work of Sect. 76. pag. 139. In which much by him is granted and much affirmed to which I assent His cogent argument that the conclusion I shall be saved is not sealed is thus framed Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem vel deteriorem At propositio non obsignata est pars debilior vel deterior Ergo conclusio sequitur propositionem non obsignatam I shall give it in English that if possible all may understand us The Conclusion followes the weaker or worser part But the Proposition unsealed is the weaker or worser part Therefore the conclusion followes the Proposition unsealed And after many words he sayes For my part I know not what objection can be made against either part of the forecited argument the Major being a common Canon or Rule that holds in all figures and the Minor being yeeled by your self else I would answer to it To this I might have many things to say First That Mr. Baxter knowed that I did not allow of any such Syllogism as this which he thus frames in order to find out the sealing of the Sacraments and therefore what is here sealed or not sealed with me is little to the purpose Secondly I marvel that he makes debilior and deterior weaker and worser here to be both one when before he made a scripture Proposition to be debilior the weaker and a Proposition of reason fortior the stronger when I should be loath to make or conceive as necessarily he does a Scripture-Proposition to be deterior the worser Thirdly As to the Syllogism I shall call for proof of both his premises For the Major in his sense if I understand it I either deny or much question it and therefore distinguish of that which is said to be worser or weaker which may be either respective to the truth of the premises and then I yeeld that the conclusion ever followes the worser If either Proposition be false the Conclusion is not true But this so far as I understand is not his meaning Or they may be taken respective to the nature of them and then I know not that the denomination of the Conclusion must follow upon account either of strength or weaknesse in either of the premises For the Minor Proposition That an unsealed Proposion is the weaker or worser part I shall desire to know the quantity of it if it be universal then it is false Every unsealed Proposition is not weaker or worser then that which is sealed And whereas Mr. Baxter sayes I have yeelded it I know not that ever I was put upon it but how I shall speak my whole sense of it I yeeld that a seal adds to the strength as does an oath and therefore an unsealed Proposition is weaker then that which is sealed caeteris paribus all things being otherwise alike in both yet there may be those differences in Propositions that a Proposition may be of that strength in it self that it needs no seal and be every way equal for truth and evidence to those that are sealed and thousands of such might be named that without any seal are of equal strength to those to which a seal is added That there are lands or tenements in the County of Salop is a Proposition without a seal that R. B. hath lands or tenements in that County is a Proposition under seal yet the latter hath no more strength or evidence of truth then the former He that hath hands lineally descending upon him from his Ancestors hath a true right to inherit is a Proposition without a seal R. B. hath such an inheritance is a Proposition under seal and I desire to know whether here be not as much truth and evidence in the Major as the Minor Let us look into that Syllogism which I put to find out that which the Sacrament seals and that in the person of God himself pronounced To whom I give Christ I give all
Moses Baptisme into him what Page 526 N. Names GIven by God not empty titles Page 12 Nature What meant by the times of the Law of nature Page 24 Necessity Of Sacraments asserted Page 285 c. Argumeats evincing it Page 288 c. The kind of degree of the necessity of Sacraments enquired into Page 289 Not absolutely necessary to Salvation Page 289 Objections answered Page 290 Explicatory Rules delivered in it Page 294 c. A greater degree of necessity in the initiatory leading Sacrament then in that which follows Page 298 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. O. Obedience MAns sin disobligeth him not from obedience Page 195 196 197 Obligation Mans Obligation of himself unto God implies Gods mutuall obligation Page 130 Oblige Mans inability for duty doth not disoblige from duty Page 197 Orders Their number in the Church of Rome and their divisions Page 538 Most of this number doubted by themselves whether they be Sacraments ibid. The Matter Page 539 Form Page 539 Effect Page 539 Minister Page 539 Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. Ordinances All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto Page 189 Sacraments must have the Honour of divine Ordinances Page 68 Originall sin Asserted Page 363 Distinguished into peccatum originans orinatum Page 365 Originall sin not a meer want of primitive integrity but attended with unversall defilement ibid. c. Oyle Anointing with Oyle Jam. 14 15. What it means Page 536 537 Queres put to those that would revive this practice Page 537 P. Parables CHrist speaking in Parables what it meaneth Page â—4 Pardon Closing with God for pardon is not to pardon a mans self Page 452 Passive Neither believing nor receiving are to be judged meerly passive Page 442 In what sense faith passive in justification Page 476 c. Pemble Not sole and singular in asserting the word to be a passive instrument Page 476 He is large in reasons of it Page 475 Penance The parts of it Contrition Page 531 532 Confession Page 531 532 Satisfaction Page 531 532 Papists agree not what that is in Penance that makes up a Sacrament Page 533 Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament ib. People Allegations for their power examined Page 252 264 Perfection Of the subject and perfection of parts respective to the universality of the object distinguished Page 586 Pighius A learned Papist with divers others joynes with us in the doctrine of justification Page 440 Pope He hath his visible pardoner as well as others Page 464 Prayer A necessary means of faiths nourishment Page 509 Priest The several functions of Christ as Priest King Prophet are to be distinguished but not divided Page 562 Priestly Levitical types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 Privileges A faith short of justifying entitles to visible privileges Page 161 Profession Men of a visible profession truly and really in Covenant with God Page 128 Profession of faith engages to a lively working faith Page 172 c. Promise That which is the condition of the thing promised is not the condition of the Seal Page 173 Exceptions against it examined ibid. Gospell promises are a savour of death unto many Page 469 Protestants Vindicated from four supposed great errors Page 452 The author is confest to appear in the common cause of Protestants ibid. R. Rainbow DEfined Page 516 It had respect to a Covenant improperly so called Page 517 It was an instituted sign ibid. Correspondencies between it and the promise Page 518 How far it was Sacramentall ibid. How far it fals short ibid 519 Reall Covenants may be broke by men in Covenant Page 138 Common grace is reall Page 132 Men of a visible profession really in Covenant with God Page 128 Regenerate Duties of positive institution do not onely bind the regenerate Page 195 Repentance How prerequired in Baptisme Page 108 Repentance and Faith Are mans conditions not Gods in the proper conditionall Covenant Page 626 Right Fundamentall and actuall distinguished Page 88 The distinction cleered In civill immunities Page 88 Ecclesiasticall privileges Page 89 They must be both written Page 90 Right unto a bar to detain from Sacraments not alwayes express Page 91 Righteous Men are so denominated really and not equivocally that imperfectly obey the Law Page 614 Righteousness Non reaâ—us is not righteousness Page 588 Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction Page 589 Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted ib. Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used Page 592 Righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law asserted Page 595 There is a partiall reparation of in herent righteousness in regeneration Page 611 That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal Page 413 Righteousness Christ The naturall righteousness of Christ is not our justification Page 439 Whether the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous be given to us Page 453 Queries put concerning this gift of righteousness Page 454 Faith being terminated on Christ is terminated on his righteousness Page 455 To receive his righteousness for justification no fancy or delusion Page 456 Righteousness Faith The Righteousness of Faith is the great promise of the Covenant of grace Page 414 This righteousness is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace Page 415 Proved by Scriptures Page 417 Confirmed by reasons Page 418 Explained by rules Page 419 420 Bellarmines five objections answered Page 421 c. Propositions explaining the meaning of the righteousness of Faith Page 415 So called in opposition to the righteousness of works required in the Covenant ibid. It is the Synechdochically put for the whole of the Covenant that interests us in this righteousness ibid. c. All blessings and privileges flowing from and following upon this Covenant unto true blessedness are comprized under the righteousness of faith Page 416 Christ the Mediatour of the Covenant is the fountain from whence the blessedness of this righteousness comes ibid. Faith considered as an instrument receiving this righteousness ib. All must see that they be right principled in the doctrine of the righteousness of faith Page 429 Ignorance here was the Jews undoing ib. Papists mistake in this point Page 429 c. Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness Page 432 Rock How it was said to follow Israel Page 524 The Rock it self was not intended as a sign but the water flowing out of it Page 525 Of the nature of a Sacrament ib. No standing Sacrament Page 526 Rule See Law S. Sacrament THe word vindicated Page 2 3 The reason of the word enquired after Page 4 5 The various acceptations of it Page 6 7 8 Whether man enjoyed or was capable of a Sacrament in the state of integrity Page 9 No Sacrament instituted of God during the time called the Law of nature Page 24 c. A Sacrament may be defined Page 32 c. The definition of a Sacrament in generall Page
their ruine Then he parallells Baptisme with it The like figure whereunto even Baptisme doth also now save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ which according to Interpreters implyes no more then a resemblance or as Calvin speaks a correspondence though Heb. 9.24 the Apostle useth the same word otherwise The Ark then saved a few when the rest were destroyed Baptisme now saves a few by the resurrection of Christ It will alwaies be saith Calvin on the words as it was in Noahs daies when mankind runnes on their own ruine God wonderfully saves some from the common destruction But here an objection lies that Noahs Ark and New Testament Baptisme are nothing parallell few entred that but now numerous or rather innumerable multitudes are baptized The Apostle answers that the parallell lyes not between the outward Baptisme that is the outward act as man administers it which he calls putting away the filth of the flesh which we know is the work of Baptisme but the answer of a good conscience or the restipulation of a good conscience I desire now to know how the Apostle can be salved from a contradiction He saies Baptisme saves and yet saies the outward putting away the filth of the flesh doth not save but the answer of a good conscience towards God Now this putting away the filth of the flesh done in the Name of Christ or in the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost is Baptisme so is not the answer of a good conscience that is no Baptisme The Apostle then should rather have said that the answer of a good conscience saves and not Baptisme But he saies Baptisme saves I see no other way of reconciliation or to make sense of his words then to understand him that Baptisme saves as it hath its work on the conscience as it works upon our understanding and our faith as a sign and seal and is no immediate conveyance of happinesse not any other way of conveyance then as it hath its work on the conscience of the receivers Reasons con ∣ firming Reasons First The Word and Sacraments work after one and the same manner on the soul for salvation respective to any mediate or immediate way of conveyance of any graces or priviledges This is evident in regard of that relation that the Sacraments have to the Word as appendants to it But the force of the Word on the soul to salvation is not inherent not by any immediate conveyance of inward graces or priviledges but as it hath its work on the understanding and faith of him that receiveth it they that understand not are as the highway-ground that gaines nothing It is the power of God for salvation to them that believe Rom. 1.16 It profits not where it is not mixtwith faith Heb. 4.2 It is effectual onely in those that believe 1 Thes 2.13 The bare work done in hearing saves none and so also it is with Sacraments Secondly Signes and pledges added to promises are efficacious no other ways then as they work upon the understanding and faith of those that receive them as signes This may be made good in particular instances in a large induction of signes of all sorts The double sign vouchsafed of God to Gideon for his confirmation in the deliverance of Israel Judg. 6. did not work at all towards such a deliverance further then as it had its work upon the understanding and faith of Gideon to whom it was given The Scarlet thred in Rahabs window had no power for her safety further then it was a sign between her and Joshua minding Joshua of his engagement to her The rainbowe is of no power to save the world from an universal deluge of water further then it minds and assures us of Gods promise The same we may say of all signes and pledges both humane and divine But Sacraments are signes and pledges added to promises as we see here in the text Sacraments then have no others efficacy then as they work on the understanding and faith of the receivers Thirdly There is nothing that is material sensible corporeal that hath any immediate influence or operation upon any object that is spiritual This is plain There must be proportion between the agent and the patient the instrument working and the object wrought upon But the Sacramental signes that we receive as seales are material corporeal sensible and therefore have no such immediate influence upon the soul for the work of grace or conveyance of it Fourthly If this Scripture hold out the work of Sacraments onely by way of sign and seal and no other Scripture holds out any other work to be wrought by them in the soul then this is the whole of their work This is clear Scripture must somewhere hold out the whole that Sacraments effect But this is the whole that the Apostle in this Scripture gives to them where he gives an account of the fruit of Abrahams Circumcision neither is there any other Scripture in which any more is attributed to the working of Sacraments The assumption is of two parts The first none can question that the Apostle ascribes no more here to Sacraments then as hath been said For the second that no other Scripture ascribes any thing further to them shall God willing be made good when we come to examine those Scriptures which are brought in by way of objection for a further work If any would see authorities quoted of men of eminent name that have appeared in defence of this position I shall referre him to reverend Mr. Gatakers learned dispute held with reverend Dr. Ward where he may see multitudes voting for it And when Dr. Ward a Quod quosdam theologos ait hic haerere baptismi effectum hunc ad electos restringere Imo non quâ—dam dunxtaxat sed multo maxima nostrorum pars non tam hic haerent quam ex adverso se diserte opponunt quod ex testimoniis supâ—a adductis luculentissime demonstratum est saith that some Divines do stick at his tenent and do restrain the effect of Baptisme infallibly taking away the guilt of original sin onely to the effect Mr. Gataker replyes not alone some but the greater part of our Divines do not so much stick or hesitate here as professedly oppose which is evidently demonstrated in the testimonies saith he before cited pag. 134. And my reverend friend Mr. Bedford unhappily engaged in this controversy to carry the Sacraments higher then Scripture hath raised them misled with the over esteem of some that have gone that way tells us of hir discouragement by reason of the multitude of those of an opposite opinion that held otherwise then he did about the Sacraments And Mr. Baxter rightly doth observe that at the first broaching of this doctrine among us it was so much disrelished not by Dr. Taylour onely but by most Divines and godly people as
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
I desire Mr. Baxter to take into consideration that Text of the Apostle Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weakned through the flesh c. And whether he understand it respective to sanctification which is not agreed upon among Interpreters to give his Reader satisfaction Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione Quid patitur ut fi at impotens et inefficax Quomodo haec impotentia inefficacia fuit in carne utrum eminenter an formaliter Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem And I doubt not but I may as easily answer his Queries in order to the vindication of my assertion as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apostle delivers Answering the last all is indeed answered Caro agit injiciendo obices remoras Quo minus Lex operatur in corde hominis Spiritus agit per fidem ut causa removens impedimentum E medio tollens obices remoras istas Incitando potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promissionis divinae I desire also his full Comment on the Apostles words 2 Cor. 3.6 Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life with a satisfying answer to all like Quaeries that thence may be made I suppose he will grant that they are able Ministers of the New Testament no otherwise then in preaching the Gospel and when the bare Scripture as Tremelius reads it is of power onely to kill we may demand how the Gospel suffers in receiving any such quickening power from the Spirit And indeed the Gospel suffers not but the soul in receiving power to answer the Gospels call whether to Justification oâ— sanctification And that the Spirit makes use of faith in this quickening power I think will not be denyed seeing the Apostle tells us The life that I live in the flesh is by faith in the Son of God Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work and he addes Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof adding What though onely believers are justified by the Covenant doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie then either there are no conditions or causae sine quibus non or else they are all efficients and give efficacy and power to other efficients I confesse those words taken by themselves in that sense as he may fancy and the words in themselves may bear will not come up to a full proof Justification may be restrained onely to believers and yet faith have no hand in it but seeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work some of them speaking of it as Gods instrument Rom. 3.30 most of them as mans we may well then know that Scripture holds it not out as any such naked condition To others the Gospel-grant lyes dead to these through faith it is effectuall There is added Your terms of faiths giving power through the Spirit tell me that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel not at its moral act of conveyance or donation but at its reall operation on mans heart I do look at the act of the Gospel as its real operation on mans heart and yet I look at the right act of it The Gospel is an instrument to justifie by the intervening act of faith according to Protestants and by the intervening work of sanctification according to Papists and according to both there is a real work on the soul necessary to put into a posture for Justification All know that Divines distinguish between redemption wrought by Christ and the application of it Redemption is the proper work of the Son but Application they ascribe to the Spirit a Hinc Pater Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem istam perficiendam The Father and the Son are said saith Amesius to send the Spirit to perfect this application Medull Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture nor Divines use to say that the Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by inditing the Gospel c. Though I own not this phrase that is here put upon me and I might expect so much priviledge as to be Master of my own words yet I would have it taken into further consideration whether Divines use his language or mine or whether they judge not that tâ—â—e the right act of the Gospel for pardon of sin which I mention The Leyden Divines having spoke of the application of the righteousnesse of Christ Disp 33. Sect. 21. have these words Sect 24. b Haec applicatio in nobis fit à Spiritu sancto 1 Cor. 6.11 dono scilicet fidei Ipse enim eam per Ministerium Evangelii Quod Ministerium Spiritûs dicitur 2 Cor. 3.8 ingenerat ac verbo suo ac Sacramentis confirmat auget Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5.5 Unde Spiritus fidei dicitur 2 Cor. 4.13 quâ Deum ut gratiosum Christum ut redemptorem ejusque justitiam ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus Joan. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 This application in us is made by the holy Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 viz. by the gift of faith For he works it by the Ministery of the Gospel which is called the Ministery of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.8 and encreases it by his Word and Sacraments Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith 2 Cor. 4.13 whereby we apprehend God as gracious Christ as Redeemer and his righteousnesse and from it everlasting life Joh. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith Rom. 5.1 Acts 26.18 A parte nostrâ fide Rom. 5.2 Actor 26.18 ex fide per fidem Ro. 3.30 Justistficamur justificat nos Deus By faith and through faith Rom. 3.30 We are justified and God justified us with much more to that purpose And Ravanellus in verbum justificatio speaking of the instrument of justification saith it is either outward or inward c Causa instrumentalis externa verbum Dei Sâ—cramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11 ubi circumcisio appellatur s gillum justitiae fidei nam verbum Dei Sacramenta sunt organa per quae Deus nos vocat per quae operatur conservat ac auget in nobis fidem obsignatque in cordibus nostris gratiam justificationis atque adeo Ministri Ecclesiae alii qui docent nos viam salutis Dan. 12.3 The outward instrumental cause he saith is the Word of God and the Sacraments as appears from Rom. 4.11 where circumcision is called the seal of the righteousnesse of faith for saith he the Word of God and Sacraments are instruments by which God doth call and by which he works preserves and encreases faith in us and seals in
put in their lives about their health their estates the nature of their grounds or how to carry on their Trades besides those multiplyed ones of meer vanity and inconsiderable concernment they never had it in their thoughts to move a question of any concernment to their soules The young mans question the Jaylours question Peters hearers question never came into their heads I have seen little evidence of good in these and I see little ground to believe any thing of faith in their soules You may speak of some of these as of men of good dispositions of a fair nature and harmlesse life and course these may grow up in nature moralized and regulated when yet faith is far from them they may grow up high in profession but growing in the blade or leaf onely and not in the root they may justly be suspected Every tree that bears a fair leaf doth not bear good fruit and every apple of a fair colour is not to be desired for food Such fruit as this may take where faith will not grow The Prophets words then should be heeded Break up your fallow ground and sowe not amongst thornes this way must be taken for soul-humbling that men may be brought to believing The nature of faith wherein it consists A necessary prerequisite in faith 2. The next way of discovery is to take notice of the proper and true kind the genuine nature of this grace And here I hope the Christian Reader may reape a double advantage First to understand what faith is and the requisites in it Secondly helps for proof of themselves whether they be in the faith And here we may observe First a necessary prerequisite of faith Secondly the essential parts of it The prerequisite to it is knowledge which some indeed make a part of faith but faith I suppose rather presupposeth it then is made up of it The essential parts are either in the understanding or in the will or affections for faith is an act of the soul and the whole soul is implyed in it First then of that which I make a prerequisite Knowledge is in that way required to the making up of faith that is often put for faith as Isai 53.11 And when God works to faith he is said to open the eyes or to work to knowledge or light Heb. 10.32 Act. 26.18 We come to faith by hearing we must therefore hear and know before we can believe Knowledge is the first act or work of the soul that conducerh towards faith in the heart Now knowledge is threefold First of sense we know what we see Thomas knew Christ that is the person of Christ when he had seen his wounds and put his finger into them This knowledg is not necessarily required in faith Christ there saith Blessed is he that seeth not and believeth John 20.23 And the Apostle saith that faith is the evidence of things not seen Secondly of reason we know those things which our reason is able to reach This knowledge runs through all sciences in which we attain knowledge by discourse and the clearer head the better Artist and the more of knowledge This we do not require to the being of faith though faith be not alwaies against yet it is oft above all our reasonings yea our reasonings and hammering out conclusions are oftentimes against faith The word of faith beats down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledg of God and brings into captivity every thought 2. Cor. 10.5 Our Notionalists are indeed men of sublimated understandings in case they can alwaies reach unto that which according to the Gospell they are to believe Thirdly of authority we judge our selves to know a thing which men worthy of credit do make known and if we receive the witnesse of men saith the Apostle the witnesse of God is greater 1. John 5.9 The testimony of man gives a morall certainty and such that we will not question The multiplication of witnesses renders our knowledge grounded on such authority more firm and therefore the proverb in a well qualified sense is at least near to truth Vox populi vox Dei The voice of the peopâ—â— unanimously witnessing is as the voice of God We do no mâ—re doubt that there was a massacre of Protestants in Ireland about the year 41. then we do that there was one resolved upon at Shushan in the reign of Ahashuerus Esth 3. The testimony of God is alwaies of infallible truth as to the substance so to every circumstance of it many passages about that massacre we may justly question so we must not any thing which divine verity hath made known This knowledge we require in faith and know it to be necessary to the being of faith we must know that God hath revealed in his Word a Trinity of Persons or else we shall believe no such thing as three distinct subsistences in God that the holy Ghost is God that Christ is God and man in one person or else we shall believe no such doctrine We must know the creation from the Scriptures or else we shall not believe a creation but run into that opinion that all things have ever been as they are We must know the offices of Christ or else we shall not believe that any such office was undertaken by him The same we may say of every doctrine of faith perhaps without Scripture we might have known somewhat confusedly of some of them as that there is a God and that the world had a beginning but we should have known nothing at all of many of them and nothing distinctly of any of them These we must know and from the Scriptures of God know or else we cannot believe we may as easily see where nothing is to be seen as believe where that is not known which is to be believed Ignorant persons therefore that know not the right hand from the left in religion and are to seek in the very first principles of the Oracles of God in the very beginnings of the doctrine of Christ that either come not to hear that they may learn or that learn nothing at all by hearing ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth are in an incapacity of faith Men weak in knowledg can hardly make proof of their faith they do not well know the nature or lively workings of it so want the comfort but not the thing Men without knowledge are without faith have not gone the first step towards it The essential parts of faith The essentiall parts of it are as we have said in the understanding will and affections In the understanding there is an assent to that which is revealed upon the authority of him that doth reveal it 1. In the understanding An assent When we believe any thing upon that account that we suppose we see a reason of it as that the middle region of the ayr is coldest or that the Sun is in many degrees
bigger then the Earth that â—e may call an opinion That which by reason we can certainly conclude we may call knowlege but that which we believe upon the credit of him that speaks it that is faith or belief This is so of the being of faith that without it there is no faith neither humane nor divine The Nobleman of Israel 2 Kings 7.1 Zachary the father of John Baptist Luk 1.18 Martha John 11.39 40. were all of them herein faulty This Truth of God was above their reason and therefore they suspended their faith in it We believe not what man saith when we do not assent to the truth of that which he speaks and we believe not what God speaks further then we assent to the truth of his Word Thus far the devills go having sufficient experience of the Truth of God and thus far and further we must go if we be in the faith Now this assent hath these two properties first It is Firm secondly Vnlimitted absolute 1. Firm. and full First firm Not alwaies free from assaults and doubtings Satan and our own hearts will muster up objections but such that yeilds not but withstands and overcomes doubtings holds firm to truth when all means are used to wrest from it Herein Eve failed God had said The day that ye eat ye shall surely die Satan brought such objections that upon his word she believed that she should procure good to her self 2. Absolute and unlimited and not incur evil by eating and so yielded to unbelief upon Satans reasonings As our assent must be firm so also absolute and unlimitted to the whole of all that God speaks such was the faith of Paul Acts 24.14 Believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets and Christ blames the two Disciples that their faith was not such Luk 24.25 How little honour do we give to man when sometimes we give credit and belief to that which he saies because we see reason and probability of truth in his words and at other times call all to question that he speaks such is the honour that many give to God when they pick and choose in believing as they do in obeying Promises must be believed in the way of Gods tender of them with limit to the conditions annexed to them Threatnings must be believed upon those grounds that they are menaced commands must be believed that is Gods soveraignty in them the justice and equity of them and a necessity of our yielding to them As it must be an assent to the whole Word of God So it must be an assent to it in that sense as God propounds it The Word in that sense that it gives of it self is the Word of God and not otherwise when we put our sense upon it we make it our word not Gods Where we must not condemn all for unbelief that are any waies subject to mistakes or that through weaknesse of judgment do not apprehend every thing as it is Willing and wilfull wrestings of the Word are here spoke against when carnall reasonings out of singularity vain-glory carnall contentment hope of gain and admiration of men are set up against the Truth of God if we should go no further in our scrutiny how many would be found unsound in the faith Have we not those that are so far from any close adherence to truth tendred that every wind tosseth them to and fro and drives them up and down that hold no longer in an opinion then a mimick gallant keeps in a fashion and change their faith as these do their dresse Have we not those that believe where they list and that is where it may serve for their advantage or repute but where they list not they can deny all faith to any truth that God speaks deny it they wil where they see it tends to their danger No swearer no drunkard no adulterer no extorting oppressor c. can believe the truth of God in his Word but he must with it believe his own condemnation 2. In the will with the affections But faith is a work of the whole soul and implyes the will with the affections as well as the understanding Faith is exprest in Scripture by our coming to Christ Joh. 6.35 And that is a work of the will and not of the mind of the judgement and not of the affections It is called a receiving of Christ Joh. 1.12 this is also done by the will and affections Consideration and deliberation are works of the understanding but choise and imbracing are works of the will when the woman of Samaria Joh. 4.29 saith Is not this the Messiah There was matter of consideration and deliberation there was work for the understanding to be imployed in whether he were to be acknowledged indeed the Messiah But now to leave all and follow Christ to forsake all and cleave to him This is matter of choise and work for the will and affections whose work it is to take or refuse Therefore as faith is set out in Scripture by words implying knowledge and assent so likewise by words implying affiance trust rolling casting a mans self on the Lord. Faith then takes Christ and cleaves to him in all of those relations in which a Christian stands to Christ takes Christ and lookes for no other delight or comfort takes Christ and will not indure any other Lord or commander takes Christ and lookes for no other helper takes Christ and lookes for no other Saviour takes Christ as a Saviour and trusts in him takes Christ as an husband and delights in him takes Christ as a Lord and obeyes him Thus according to the several offices that Christ does there are several actings of faith for to answer The great work of Christ was to give his soul an offering for sin to shed his blood to take away our guilt there faith answers and it is not alone said that they that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses which might imply no more then a qualification of the person to be justified but it is further said that Christ is set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 which plainly denotes the instrument whereby we have our interest When there are many acts of faith that which respects his blood alone doth justifie Christ is set up as a King and hath all things put in subjection under him Here faith yields up all to him and consents as to be saved so to be ruled by him Christ in his Kingly power protects as well as commands as he holds out a Scepter so he is a shield Faith flyes unto him for shelter and so receives and quenches all Satans darts Christ is given as an head to his body the Chuch not onely for command but for quickning and enlivening power to supply with vitall energies every part and member Here faith answers and takes in from Christ the Spirit by the promises
the actually regenerate Page 189 192 Arguments evincing it ibid. c. It must be administred for the communicants edification Page 199 With the word as an appendant to it it may be serviceable towards conversion Page 200 Arguments evincing it Page 200 c. Objections answered Page 209 c. Generall charges Page 209. to 216 Particular arguments Page 216 Whether the Lords Supper may be stiled a converting ordinance Page 211 Explicatory propositions ibid. c. The Lords Supper supposeth not thorough conversion and faith justifying Page 217 Not instituted onely for justified persons Page 218 All of present incapacity to receive benefit by the Lords Supper are to be denied access to it Page 225 Scandalous persons of a vicious and profligate course of life are in an incapacity of profit by the Lords Supper Page 238 Arguments evincing it Page 239 Objections answered Page 240 Who are to judge of mens present aptitude for the Lords Supper Page 249 The judgement of the Church of England formerly concerning it ib. The judgement of the School-men ibid. The judgement of the antient Fathes Page 250 The judgement of a great party of the reformed Churches ibid. The Lords supper may be occasionally delayed Page 299 The argument borrowed from delay of the passeover vindicated ibid. Just occasions of delay instanced in Page 302 No prescript for the time frequency of observation of the Lords Supper Page 303 Directions for our guidance about it Page 304 When dispensed it may not without weighty reasons be omitted Page 306 Excuses for absence from it removed ib. The excuse of unfitness examined Page 307 The excuse of the want of a wonted Leiturgy examined Page 308 The excuse from the variation of a gesture or posture examined Page 310 The excuse from a call to give an account of knowledge examined Page 311 The excuse from mixture of such that are supposed unworthy examined ibid. See Sacraments T. Tree OF life in Paradise a Sacrament Page 9. 14 Tree of knowledge a Sacrament ibid. These Trees had somewhat that answered their name Page 12 Not by any naturall power ib. Reasons and experience making it good Page 13 Why the Tree of knowledge bears that name Page 15 16 Transubstantiation There is no such thing Page 51 Titles A communication of them between Christ and his Church Page 448 449 Titles given by the Apostle to Baptized ones do not alwayes argue that in their thoughts they were answered by inherent grace Page 149 Type Variously used Page 428 Leviticall types lead unto Christ in his Priestly office Page 566 U. Visible BAptisme and the Lords Supper privileges of the Church visible Page 187 Visibility Of interest the Churches rule in administring Sacraments Page 118.187 Extreme Unction The Matter Page 534 Form Page 534 Minister Page 534 Effects Page 534 Qualifications of the subject ib. Arguments evincing it so be no Sacrament Page 585 Unfitness For the Lords Supper no excuse for a continued neglect of it Page 307 Unregenerate Man may assent to the whole truth Page 178 W. Doctor Ward VIndicated Page 116 117 Water In Baptisme implies uncleaness with a possibility of cleansing not by our own but by anothers power Page 368 It holds out the Spirit for sanctification ib. With the bloud for pardon Page 369 Word One and the same word often repeated in the same verse or neer to it in a different sense Page 573 Word of God A necessary meanes of faiths nourishment Page 509 Works Paul excludes not onely works of merit but all works from justification Page 574 He excludes all works that we have done ib. He excludes all those works or righteousness which is inherent ib. He excludes all those works which the Law commands Page 575 He excludes all those works which any in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto ibid. FINIS A Table of those Scriptures which are occasionally cleared briefly illustrated or largely vindicated in this Treatise Genesis Chap. Verse Pag. 2 9 10 3 22 33 13 14 5 9 598 8 21 363 9 8 c. 516 Exodus Chap. Vers Pag. 12 25 301  43 44 45. 75. 78  48 49 75 13 4 5 399  21 22 521  45 301 14 19 20 521  21 22 523 16 14 15 ibid. 17 6 524 Numbers Chap. Vers Pag. 9 1. 300  15 521 11 7 523 14 14 521 20 9 524 21 17 18 525 Deuteronomie Chap. Vers Pag. 8 3 523 10 16 380 12 5 6 7 300  10 11 301 16 usque ad 8 299 300 30 6 376. 379 4 25 523  2 Chronicles  16 8 9 638 34 3 301  3 4 ibid. 35 19 ibid. Ezra Chap. Vers Pag. 6 19 301 Nehemiah Chap. Vers Pag. 9 19 521  20 523  25 524 Psalms Chap. Vers Pag. 32 7 8 352 37 25 26 30 51 5 363  7 373 54 3 363 78 13 523  15 524  23 ib.  24 523 98 14 521 105 41 524 112 2 3 30 114 7 8 524 Jeremiah Chap. Vers Pag. 9 25 379 10 25 299 11 3 4 281 23 6 449 31 32 33 84 85 33 16 449 Ezekiel Chap. Vers Pag. 12 10 204 Matthew Chap. Vers Pag. 5 48 645 6 30 590 7 6 230 9 22 486 11 28 460 13 11 12 54  39 40 49 269 15 26 260 20 29 166 24 32 269. 295 Mark Chap. Vers Pag. 4 33 54 5 34 486 6 13 534 10 14 227 16 16 170 Luke Chap. Vers Pag. 1 6 598  75 596 7 59 486 14 15 219 15 33 188 15 22 225 17 6 590 John Chap. Vers Pag. 1 4 645 2 23 220 3 5 290  5 8 10 12. 53 54 6 53 227  53 54 373  31 49 58 523 8 31 188 12 42 177 Acts. Chap. Vers Pag. 2 38 367  37 38 108  39 174  41 217  47 299 8 13 160  17 530  37 176 10 47 165 217 15 9 449 450 22 16 376. 380 Romanes Chap. Vers Pag. 2 28 128 3 25 432. 567  28 587  30 451 4 1. usque aed 12 352  3 177  11 33 35  17 218 5 9 587  8 9 567  19 365 9 4 151 7 22 594 1 Corinthians Chap. Vers Pag. 4 4 431. 575 5 11 261 6 12 372 7 14 150. 176 10 1 2 3 424  1 2 525  4 524  5 6 7 11 428  16 17 c. 48  17 358 11 28 227 12 12 4â—9  13 358 14 14 15 16 c. 199 15 34 100  56 604 2 Corinthians Chap. Vers Pag. 1 12 431  21 67 7 1 452 13 5 492  11 645 Galatians Chap. Vers Pag. 2 19 599 3 14 444  18 451 Ephesians Chap. Vers Pag. 2 12 299 3 17 444 448 4 24 592 5 26 372  32. 2. 541 c. 1 Thessalonians Chap. Vers Pag. 5 23 586 2 Thessalonians Chap. Vers Pag. 3 14 261 Titus chap. vers pag. 3 5 374. 380 Hebrews chap. vers pag. 4 2 471. 481 8 7 364 9 26 269 11 29 523 11 throughout 569 James chap. vers pag. 2 25 572. 577 5 14 15 535 536 1 Peter chap. vers pag. 1 4 17  22 452 3 20 21 353. 387  21 170 1 John chap. vers pag. 4 7 596 Revelation chap. vers pag. 22 2 10  11 592 2 7 10 FINIS
Annotat Bellar. de Scriptor and though Pamelius and Bellarmine suppose that the Author was ancient and of the same time with Cyprian because the title speaks it as if it had been directed to Cornelius who was Bishop of Rome in Cyprian's time yet B. Usher observes that in old Manuscripts B. Vsher in the Catalogue of Authours cited in his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge Arnoldus Carnotensis Abbas Bonevallis who was many hundred years after Cyprian viz. in the year 1160. is mentioned as the Authour Hilarie about 100 years after Cyprian Quà m autem in eo per Sacramentum communicate carnis sanguinis simus c. Hilar. de Trin. lib. 8. speaks of the Sacrament of Christs body and blood Ambrose about the same time with Hilary or but a little after hath written six Books De Sacramentis and which is observable he treateth therein onely of Baptisme Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbum Aug. in Joh. Tract 80. and the Lords Supper Austine writing not much after Ambrose by whom he came to the knowledge of the truth often useth the word and that in the most strict acception The Word saith he being added to the Element there is made a Sacrament which is also it self as it were a visible Word And again Quid sunt aliud quaeque corporalia Sacramenta nisi quaedam quasi verba visibâ—lia Contra Faust l. 19. c. 16. What else are all corporal Sacraments but as it were certain visible words And having said that Christ did institute Sacraments in number very few for observation very easie Christus Sacramentis numero paucissimis observatione facillimis significatione praestantissimis societatem novi populi colligavit sicut est Baptâ—smus et Communicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius etsi quid aliud in Scripturis Canonicis commendatur Epist ad Jan. 118. cap. 1. and for signification most excellent he expresly saith that these Sacraments are Baptisme and the Lords Supper adding indeed and if there be any other commended in the Canonical Scriptures But that there is any other Sacrament besides Baptisme and the Lords Supper commended in the Scripture Hoc tempore posteaquam resurrectione Domini nostri Jesu Christi manifestissimum indicâ—um libertatis nostrae illuxit nec corum quidem signorum quae jam intelligimus operatione gravi onerati sumus sed quaedam pauca pro multis eadamque factu facillima et intellectu augustissima et observatione castissima ipse Dominus et Apostolica tradidit discipl na sicuti est Baptismi Sacramentum et Celebratio corporis et sanguinis Domini De doct Christ. l. 3. c. 9. he doth not affirm Yea in another place having used the like words concerning the Sacraments of the New Testaments he mentioneth these two onely leaving no suspition at all as if there were any other Besides when he affirmeth the Sacraments to be as it were visible words as in the places before cited he plainly enough excludeth those Popish Sacraments Penance and Matrimony Satis est ad Sacramenti naturam quatenus signum est sensibile ut alâ—quo sensu percipiatur nec debet excludi sensus audiendi c. Bellar. de Sacr. in gen l. 1. c. 14. Bellarmine would have it suffice if the outward sign be any way sensible though it be perceived onely by the sense of Hearing But as Chamier well observes Austine needed not to have mollified his speeches with as it were if he had not taken the word visible properly and as distinct from that which is perceived by any other sense then that of Seeing Si de Sacramentis secundum aliquas conditiones quas haeretici requirunt loqueremur neque nos diceremus esse tam multa quam ponimus Greg. de Valent. apud Cham. tom 4. lib. 4. cap. 6. Gregorius de Valentia as Chamier cites him granteth That Sacraments being considered in respect of some conditions which Protestants whom he as their manner is termeth Hereticks require so there are not so many as otherwise they hold there are So though Bellarmine in the place above cited will not admit Sacraments to be seals Fatemur Sacramenta novae Legis esse signa seu sigilla quodammodo promissionis divinae And again Sacramenta vetera fuerunt velut sigilla quaedam quibus est obsignata et firmata apud homines Divina promissio Greg. de Valent. apud Cham. tom 4. lib. 2. cap. 9. yet this other Jesuite Valentia is not so strait-lac'd but doth acknowledge that they are after a sort seales of Gods promise whereby it is confirmed unto us So the Councel of Trents Catechisme doth make this one reason why Sacraments were ordained Altera verò causa est quod animus noster haud facilè commovetur ad ea quae nobis promittuntur credenda Quemadmodum igitur in Veteri Testamento Deus fecerat ut magni alicujus promissi constantiam sâ—gnis testificaretur Ita etiam in novâ lege Christus Salvator noster cum nobis peccatorum veniam coelestem gratiam Spiritus Sancti communicationem pollicitus est quaedam signa oculis et sensibus subjecta instituit quibus quasi pignoribus obligatum haberemus atque ita fidelem in promissis futurum dubitare nunquam possemus Catech. Trid. de Sacram. viz. because we are slow to believe and therefore Sacraments are not onely signes but as pledges to assure us of those things which are promised unto us And as the Apostle calls Circumcision a seal Rom. 4.11 So Abrabaneel a famous late Rabbine among the Jews in his Commentary on Esay 52.13 c. speaking of Circumcision doth call it chotham berith that is the seal of the Covenant It is true he speaks of it onely as a seal whereby Abraham did assure himself unto God to be his whereas the Apostle speakes of it as a seal whereby God did confirm his Covenant unto Abraham But the Covenant being mutual wherein God doth engage himself unto man and man doth ingage himself unto God the Sacraments as seales of the Covenant serve to confirm both the one and the other ingagement Now the Sacraments thus having respect unto the Covenant and standing in a subserviency unto it this reverend Author Mr. Blake having by Divine assistance composed and published a Treatise of the Covenant which deservedly hath found good acceptance by the good hand of his God still upon him doth now offer to publick view a Treatise of the Sacraments which I presume will be no lesse accepted The Authours former Works do sufficiently speak his worth he needs not my Elogie neither can it adde any thing unto him Yet having been more then ordinarily acquainted with him above 20 years though more then half of this time the great distance whereat Providence hath set us hath much hindered the improvement of our acquaintance this I cannot but say that I alwaies held him one whose judgment in any matter of
thus driven on they could not but see that Christs presence with or in the Elements can be no more then Sacramental in which the sign is still put for the thing signified The bead is the body and the cup the blood of Christ no otherwise then the rock in the wildernesse was Christ In the explication of Sacramental signs there can be expected no other then Sacramentall speeches And therefore that great Lutheran Logician was much mistaken in charging the transgression of his maxim upon Calvinists that the proper sense of Scripture is ever to be held unlesse the contrary can be evidently proved in their leaving of the letter in the words of the Supper sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he speaks Taking it for granted that no such necessity can be shewen When it is enough to evince the necessity of a trope that the words are an explanation of a Sacramental sign We must not put this Sacrament at such a distance from all others as to make the whole here rigidly proper and all others Sacramental Words must be fitted to the nature of the subject But to help himself out he wisely borrowes from Bellarmine an assertion that Reasons are not to be demanded of any that hold the proper sense why they keep to it Both of them it seems despairing of giving any reason that is satisfying But methinks he might blush in the use of the Simile that he hath also borrowed to make his assertion good This were say they as if any should ask of those that are in a journey why they hold the old beaten way and why they go in at the door and not at the window When they or either of them can make it appear that the old way of interpretation of Sacramental speeches is to understand them properly without any Metonymie then I shall say that the letter here is not to be left but in the strictest rigour to be followed But till then I shall believe them to be both out of the way And all Sacraments being appendants to promises it will likewise follow that Christs presence with him that in faith takes these Elements is no other then a presence in Spirit Where these things are happily accorded and all scruple laid aside a new quarrel is raised about the subject of Sacraments That they are institutions of Christ and gifts vouchsafed by him to his Church is acknowledged But to whom they belong and who of right can make his claim to them is not determined when yet the visibility of the Ordinances and trust reposed in man for dispensation of them whose sight is more weak then to discern that which is invisible necessarily concludes that they belong to visible Church-members not in a select way pickt out of other Churches which is a way that no Scripture-Saint ever trod but in as great a latitude as the profession of the Christian faith In this Scripture is so plain that it is wonder that ever it was made a controversie Either the Jew outwardly was mis-nam'd when the title of Circumcision was given him and a foul misprision run upon when a proselyte was circumcised or a new convert in Scripture-way baptized or else this must necessarily be granted So that as to title and right of claim if Scriptures may judge the Covenant-grant is clear Yet as there are many that have their just right in Legacies and inheritances who are not judged meet for present fruition It would be many a man's losse even to ruine to have that presently put into his hands which justly might be claimed as his own So it fares in this great Ordinance of the Lords Supper which all that partake of are to look upon and improve as a memorial of Christs death for which all are not in any possible capacity as they are not for some other duties And here in all reason they that are to dispense this Ordinance are most concerned to distinguish And if Regeneration be the mark by which they are to be steered it is not like a Sea-boy appointed for the Pilot's guide floting on the top of the water but rather as one hid in the bottome which necessarily involves both dispenser and receiver in inextricable difficulties and perplexities And when most confesse that men free from ignorance errour and scandal though unregenerate must have admission and all acknowledge that such will we nill we will enter If it be concluded that unregeneration is an undeniable and invincible barre to all possible benefit and blank paper is alwayes sealed whensoever such take it it is not yet made known how it may be dispensed by those in whose hands it is entrusted with any possible comfort A great part of this work is to render the way here more comfortably passable in giving the doubting soul hopes that yet sees not concluding evidence in his own thoughts of a new birth many of which upon principles that they have taken in sadly reason against themselves in participation of this Ordinance and withal to put courage into the hands of the Ministers of Christ to presse the power of this soul-humbling Ordinance of God on the hearts of intelligent hearers competently instructed in Gospel principles whom yet they may justly have in jealousie not yet to have come up to this great and blessed work of a thorough change wrought in the mean space differing little or nothing from the common received opinion as to the qualifications of those that are to be or are not to be denyed admittance Yet I thought not meet that they should go alone but to send out upon this occasion into publick view a just Tractate of Sacraments which occasionally is grown into a bigger bulk then I ever intended That which appeares clear to my sight I doubt not but will seem otherwise in the eyes of some others And therefore I put it upon my account to meet not onely with dislike as every one does that deals in works of this nature but also with opposition I heare indeed that as of old it hath been said that unregenerate men have no true right in the sight of God to any of his creatures and that all such possessors are usurpers so also it is now maintained that all such notwithstanding their visible Church-interest are without all right to any Church-priviledges Though they make use of them as unregenerate men do of the creatures and by command from God must make use of them so that their neglect of them is justly charged as their sin yet they are still without any true right to them or title in them This I confesse with me is a strange assertion I should thinke that those immunities which Jesus Christ to whom all power is given in heaven and in earth of his good pleasure doth vouchsafe to men of meer visible Church-interest in order to bring them to an invisible right and title and which unregenerate men enjoy in order to work them to a Regenerate state are their true ana proper right
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
a may to life as though we must get Salvation by our fulfilling of its conditions nor must we look upon its curse as lying upon as remedilessely This is as much as I assert or rather imply in that which I say that the Covenant of works is of no use to the attainment of Salvation upon which the Sacraments of that Covenant the see are laid aside with it we hear no more of a tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Rivet Exer. 40. on those words Lest he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life and live for ever Observes a resemblance between that proceeding of God and the Churches proceeding in keeping unworthy men from the Sacrament The l Quemadmodum nunc ex Dei instituto à Sacramentis arcentur indigni ne sibi Symbola sumant ad judicium condemnationem ita hac prohibitione usus est Deus tanquam ex communicatione minori quam abstensionem vocant ad hominem magis magis humiliandum ut se indignum agnosceret vita qui à vitae Symbolo arcebatur unworthy saith he are kept from the Sacrament lest they should eat of those signes to their judgement And so God made use of this prohibition as a lesser excommunication called suspension for the further humiliation of man that he might see himself to be unworthy of life being kept from the outward symbole or Sacrament of it But me thinks this is so far from resemblance of that kind of Excommunication which is called the lesser that it is a sentence in terrour farre above that which is highest and greatest And this it seemes my Author saw and therefore addes m Praeterea tale Sacramentum homini lapso non erat amplius aptum quia arbor vitae non data erat ut vitam restitueret mortuo sed ut viventem in statu vitae commodo conservaret Ergo Adamo per peccatum mortuo mutanda fuerunt Sacramenta Furthermore such a Sacrament was unmeet or unsuitable to fallen man because the tree of life was not given to restore a man dead to life but to preserve life in a living man therefore Adam being dead by sin and his condition changed the Sacraments were to be changed likewise Two sorts of men then are here fitly to be parallelled with Adam in this proceeding of God against him 1. Those that God casts out of Covenant taking away their Candlestick and his Kingdom refusing to be their God or to own them as his people God denying them his Covenant all must deny them the sign and seal of it 2. Those that cast themselves out of Covenant and apostatize from the faith of Christ Jesus Where there is no Covenant in which men may expect happiness where there is no profession of such expectation there is to be no Sacrament there the seal is put to a blank and these Sacred Mysteries are prophaned Therefore I cannot but marvel at those that deny the Church of Rome all being of a Church and affirm that they are in no Covenant-relation to God yet yeeld that they have Baptisme in truth among them explaining themselves that it is as a true mans purse in the hand of a theefe But the purse and the man stand not in that relation as Covenant and Sacrament the Covenant being gone the Sacrament hath no truth of being remaining Satans imitation of God in his precepts of worship to his followers Fourthly Let us yet see how forward Satan is to imitate God in prescribing a way of worship to his servants and how ready the world is to follow Satan in these things by him prescribed God appointed a tree of life as a sign and pledge of immortality in the due use of which man might have lived for ever and been preserved from the evils and infirmities of age and Satan among those in the world that are his for worship hath of old found out a fiction of certain meats called by them Ambrosia and certain drinks named Nectar and Nepenthe which the gods using to take were preserved from age and death It cannot be imagined how they should reach such a fancy but that the posterity of Noah had scattered some Divine light of this tradition among them Their gods who were but men and some of them the worst of men bringing all wickedness to renown by their example being supposed to have an immortal being must have some way or means to come up to immortality As they had their meats and drinks that made immortal so also their fountains found out by Cadmus to whom they ascribe the first invention of letters Aganippe Hippocrene Castalius near to Parnassus at which their Muses drunk which raised them in eloquence These they have borrowed from these symboles of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil dreaming of a Physical operation and not understanding any Sacramental efficacy God also instructed his people in the use of sacrifices which we know was with his people from the beginning and I cannot believe with some Jesuits that this was of the dictates of nature which as they say led them without any revelation to the use of sacrifices For in what sense soever we take sacrifices Nature could never teach man to give it unto God If we take it more largely for a gift tendred reason would tell that the Divine Majestie stands in no need of it And in case we understand it more strictly and make the destruction of that which is offered essentiall to a sacrifice how could this in reason enter into any mans thoughts that when a man had sinned a beast must dye And that of the Apostle Heb. 11. doth fully contradict it Abell offered by faith and faith is not of nature but above it This then was a worship of God by institution not commanded in the first but second Commandment and this Satan is ready to follow As there was scarce a Nation as the Orator observed but worshipped a god so there is scarce a Nation that did not sacrifice to those gods and the Apostle gives us to understand what those gods were The things that the Gentiles offer in sacrifice they offer to Devils and not to God 1 Cor. 10. It is his worship and he teacheth his the way of it As in duties of worship there is this imitation seen so in wonders and prodigies in like manner there is an emulation God had his miracles in Egypt and Satan his We know the general Deluge in the sacred Histories in which none were preserved from death but Noah and his family by an Arke prescribed of God Heathens must have a fable in imitation and tell us of drowning of the World onely Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha in an Arke preserved likewise And as Noahs Arke rested on the Moutains of Ararat upon the asswaging of the waters so theirs rested on the Mountain of Parnassus We have a narrative of Jonah cast into the Sea
that we receive as Sacraments whether extraordinary as the Cloud the Red-Sea Manna and the Rock which the Apostle parallells with Baptisme and the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 10.1 2. But also in the ordinary stated Sacraments by a standing law to be observed In Circumcision there was a foreskin to be cut off in the Passeover a Lambe to be eaten In Baptisme there is water to be applyed and in the Lords Supper bread and wine to be taken eaten and drunk God condescending in mercy to our weakness by earthly things to informe our judgments and strengthen our faith in that which is heavenly Though Papists are much put to it to find an outward sign in some of their Sacraments as indeed in some of them there is none at all yet they yeeld to this truth that Sacraments have their signs knowing that to be a true though not a full definition tnat a Sacrament is an outward visibie sign of an inward spiritual grace That we may come to a right understanding of Sacramental signs we must First know what a sign in general is Secondly the several sorts and kinds of signs so farre at least as will conduce to a right understanding of the point in hand and Lastly enquire what Sacramental signs are and their properties What is meant by a sign A sign Austin hath long since defined to be that which shewes it self to the senses and somewhat more besides it self to the understanding and in other words a Signum estres praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex sefaciens in cogitationem venire A sign is a thing which brings to mens thoughts another thing besides that which it offers to the senses As the Rain-bowe offers it self to the eyes we see the shape of it and the colours in it and brings the promise of God into our minds that the Floud shall no more return to destroy the earth It were an endless labour to undertake to lay down the several kinds of signes with all their sub-divisions I never saw such a Scheme of them but I have thought many more might be added to them Neque enim hujus generis quisquam enmeravit omnia nascuntur enim nova pro homi num arbitrio Pulling Deca 5. Ser. 6. A distribution of signs Natural signs yet those at least that are notable may be reduced to certayn heads Some are naturall some are prodigious and some are signs by institution Natural signs are those that of themselves and of their own nature are apt to signifie somewhat beyond themselves As smoke signifies fire a Rain-bowe showres palenese sickness Teares trouble and grief of mind of these Christ speaks Matth. 16.2 3. When it is evening ye say It will be fair weather for the skie is red and in the morning It will be foul weather to day for the skie is red and lowring Now these signes are sometimes as signes so also causes of the thing signified As the Sun beames in the dawning are a sign and also a cause of the day approaching The interposition of the Moon between us and the Sun and of the earth between the Sun and Moon foreseen in their motions are signs and causes of Eclipses Sometimes they are effects of the thing that they signifie As smoke is the effect of fire and paleness of diseases Some are barely signs and neither causes nor effects as the colour of the skie is no cause of rain but barely an indication that there are those watry vapours in the air that will dissolve themselves on the earth They may be effects of that which is the cause of the thing signified but not the effects of that which is a sign The Rain-bowe is an effect of that which is a cause of rain Rules for the right understanding of natural signs Remote causes are not signs Here we might lay down some rules or observations First Remote causes which have their effects at a great distance so that many things may interpose themselves as remoraes cannot be looked upon by any as signs When that book of common-prayer was imposed by authority upon Scotland upon counsel then over-much heeded it might have been easily concluded upon as a sign of troubles and dissensions in present there But no rational man could then have made it a prognostick of all those tragical stirs which in three Nations have already happened and we yet know not upon the flame kindled what may follow The spark then kindled might in probability have been quenched The Stars say our Stargazers have their influence upon mens bodies and by consequence indirectly upon the operations of their soules Hereupon by the posture of the Stars at mens birth they will conclude the trade of life in which men shall be employed the Arts that they shall profess the fortunes as the world calls them to which they shall be advanced and the very last period of their dayes But here so many things may interpose that the childs Genius supposedly thus disposed cannot sway all these things Parents friends wayes of Education thousands of obstacles and diversifications so intervene that no judgement can be given If more were granted then ever will be proved of the heavens influence on mens minds and bodies to incline or dispose them yet that of the Wise man would utterly spoyle all Predictions Eccles 9.11 The race is not to the swift nor the battel to the strong neither yet bread to the wise nor yet riches to men of understanding nor yet favour to men of skill but time and chance happeneth to them all Seeondly Partial causes in nature cannot be looked upon as signs Patrial causes are no signs but all must concurre that have any influence This if I do not mis-remember good Mr. Perkins doth set down in a similitude to this purpose The heat of an Hen sitting upon Eggs is the cause of a brood of young ones but suppose an Hen should sit on Eggs of divers kinds some of a Dove some of a Partridge some of a Phesant some of a Hawk some of a Kite who could now from the heat of the Hen give his judgement of what kind the birds should be that this heat would hatch would they not be different in kind according to the variety of subjects that this heat works upon If we see flint before us this is no sign of fire to be kindled unless we see steele with it nor yet flint and steele without tinder nor yet flint steele and tinder without a hand employed to strike fire all put together make up a sign and not otherwise To apply this to our purpose First Let it be granted that the heavens have their operations on mens bodies on earth no otherwise then the heat of the Hen hath for procreation of such a kind or the flint to the working of fire yet the heavens have their influence upon divers and diversified objects not diversified by their influence only but done to their hands
we derive our being from Parents not onely in our essentials and integrals but in a great measure in our temperature of body and mind Who sees not vertues and defects of body and mind to be hereditary and that from either sex Children do patrizare follow their Parents inclination without any imitation now the heavens were not in the same posture Mars Jupiter c. were not in the same ascendent in their birth as in ours A begger is delivered under the same posture of the heavens with a Noble-woman shall the children of both be of the same trade and way Secondly If the Stars and their influences were universal causes of what is done in and shall befall our persons yet these men profess acquaintance onely with some few and those almost onely the Planets The Stars of an unfixt motion Those innumerable Stars which we call fixt and have been said to be in the eighth which we call the starry sphere are not observed nor known in their various postures what some may incline to others will thwart and destroy For a third rule Natural signs when causes unlesse an extraordiâ—a y power inteâ—vâ—ne wâ—rk unâ—voydably those signs which fairly may be looked upon as causes in nature have their effects and produce the thing signified unavoydable irresistible so that is a labour in vain to use any wayes a tempting of God to make any addresses to him for prevention who ever prayed that the day and night should not be of an equal length at such a day in the Spring and Autumne which are known to us by the name of the aequinoctial or that the Sun shall not be eclipsed at such a time when it is known that the body of the Moon will interpose it self in that season If the heavens are alike causes of mans vicious wayes of the ruine and bane of Nations endeavours for prevention will be equally vain whether it be by prayer or repentance He that cannot make the Sun to stand still or to return backwards by prayer let him not think to stand in the gap for a land or turn away Gods fiery indignation seeing the course of nature appointed of God brings it about above resistance I have heard of some Rabbins that pray every night that the Sun may rise again and the earth enjoy a new morning as though it were no otherwise in nature by the God of nature ordered and setled but it lay in them to hinder it but Christians have learned better then to think by their prayers to impose a new course on the way of nature And knowing that prayer and repentance are wayes appointed of God and by experience succesfull for reversal of judgements and prevention of National desolations they know that Stars in a way of nature cannot effect it nor yet the sons or disciples of nature foresee or foretell it Secondly There are prodigious signes 2. Prodigious signe such that are either miraculous exceeding all power of nature or else wounds and monsters in nature And I know not the reason why Chamier lib. 1. Cap. 11. de Sacramentis in genere should exclude them from the number of signes certainly the return of the Sun in Hezekiahs time was to him a sign of his recovery from sicknesse and of his deliverance from the Assyrian Isay 3 S. 4 5 6 7 8. Thus saith the Lord the God of David thy father I have heard thy prayer I have seen thy tears behold I will adde unto thy daies fifteen yeares And I will deliver thee and this City out of the hand of the king of Assyria and I will defend this City And this shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord that the Lord will do this thing that he hath spoken Behold I will bring again the shadow of the degrees which is gone down in the sun-dyal of Ahaz ten degrees backward The like may be said of Gideons fleece that had dew on it when all the earth was dry besides and again the fleece dry when upon all the ground else it was dew This was to signifie that the Lord would deliver Israel by his hand Those eclipses of the lights of heaven to the Egyptians when there was light in Goshen to the Israelites Exod. 10.21 22. and at Christs death when from the sixth houre there was darknesse over all the earth unto the ninth houre Matth. 27.45 was no other I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth blood and fire and pillars of smoke the Sun shall be turned into darknesse and the Moon into blood before the great and terrible day of the Lord Joel 2.30 31. There shall be signs in the Sun and in the Moon and in the Stars and upon the earth distresse of Nations and perplexity the sea and the waves roaring mens hearts failing them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming upon the earth for the powers of heaven shall be shaken which Zanchius understands of those Comets which as wonders in nature in severall ages have appeared He that pleases may consult the Author himself treating de Cometarum prognosticis lib. 3. de operibus Dei Cap. 2. Thes 12. Signes by Instition Thirdly There are signes by institution not so in nature or by way of prodigy but as they are designed to signify These are 1. Of man some by imposition man putting at pleasure such a signification upon them words in this sense are signes no other reason of primitive names of things can be given but his pleasure that gave them Some by custome as an Ivy bush is a sign of wine Sometimes by covenant or agreement so the arrowes that Jonathan shot with the words that he agreed to utter were a sign to David that there was peace or that there was harm intended to him 1 Sam. 20.20 c. So the Scarlet thred was a sign between Rahab and the spies Joshua 2.18 A Souldiers Colours or the word that is given on his guard or in fight is such a sign 2. There are signes by institution from God such was the rainebowe It may be a naturall sign of showers but it is by institution that it signifies that there shall not be any more a flood to destroy the earth Gen. 9.11 These instituted signes whether of God or man admit of other distinctions which will be touched upon in the next place in opening the nature and shewing the properties of Sacramentall signes There are signes of a fourth sort which might have been spoken to namely those that are Diabolicall or superstitious But I shall not trouble my self or the Reader with them SECT II. The properties of Sacramental signes FIrst Sacramental signes are externall and sensible Sacramentall signes are 1. Exteâ—nal and sâ—nsible such that do not immediately but by the help of the senses affect the understanding There are indeed such signes that immediately offer themselves to the mind which some call mentall or intellectuall Signes These are either notions framed in
the understanding or actions that are past and called into the thoughts Matth. 12.39 An evill and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the Prophet Jonas Though some Popish Writers have affirmed that this sensibility of the outward signes is not of the essence of the Sacraments seeing God might if he had pleased have instituted Sacraments with signes meerly spirituall yet they are disliked in this by their own party and themselves also confesse that the signes that God hath instituted are external and sensible and we enquire not after such as God might have given had he pleased but such that he hath pleased to give to his people Secondly They are visible signes 2. Visible It is not enough that they are the objects of other senses as such that may be heard felt tasted but Sacramentall signes must be the object of sight This is cleer by the induction of particulars The foreskin in Circumcision the lamb in the Passeover water in Baptisme bread and wine in the Lords Supper with all the actions of each of these are visible And thus a Sacrament by the Ancients hath still been defined An outward and visible sign of an inward and Spirituall grace which hath never been excepted against as unsound but only as insufficient It is too short but in no part erroneous And Austin lib. 19. Contra Faust Cap. 25. as he is quoted by Bellarmine demands what are all corporall Sacraments but certain visible words Other senses may accompany the sight but nothing can be a Sacramentall sign that excludes the sight nothing that is not in nature visible And therefore sounds or words are no Sacramental signes which being no object of sight nor of any other sense but of that of hearing they are not in any such capacity Here a man might think that Bellarmine and we were agreed Seeing he so often gives Sacramentall signes that Epithete of visible and lib. 1. de Sacramen Cap. 18. putting it to the question whether Sacraments consist of things as their matter and words as their forme he determines affirmatively and laies this down for his second proposition that b In Sacramentis omnibus novae legis inveniuntur res ut materia verba ut forma In all Sacraments of the New Testament things are found as the matter and wordes as the forme and none can doubt but things put in opposition to words as the matter of Sacraments are visible But he hath his art to come off by distinction or rather contradiction To the first he saies that c Prima particula vel accipit elementum visibile tractabile pro qualibet re sensibili ut accipiant Catholicic Catholiques take the word visible and tractable element for any thing that is any way sensible that may be perceived by the eare and not for that onely which by the sight and touch onely can be perceived lib. 1. de Sacramentis in genere Cap. 14. And so a sound will make up his visible and tractable sign which is of necessity in Sacraments And he can explain that second proposition with a fourth which is * Ut Sacramenta constare dicantur rebus verbis non est necesse ut res non sint verba verba non sint res sed sat est si aâ—quid fungaâ—ur vice rei aliud vice verbi That Sacraments may be said to consist of things and words but it is not necessary that things be not words nor words be not things But it is enough that somewhat supply the place of thinges or words Cap. 18. And all this wild stuffe which scarce I think can be parallelled in the most unlearned Writer to make it good that their Penance and Marriage are Sacraments in both which we must take words which he saies are the form of those Sacraments for visible signes which also constitute the matter of them or else we have no visible sign at all and consequently no Sacrament Some here question the case of blind people by whom no sign can be seen but it is one thing to be visible and the proper object of sight and another thing to be actually seen visible and visum differre one from another It is in it self visible though through defect in the organ it is not seen of some Such are at a losse in receiving though not equall to the losse of deaf people in the Word which is to be heard seeing when the Word is not heard it affects no other of the senses but when bread and wine are not seen they are touched and tasted and where blindnesse is not from the birth there is some supply from the memory likewise Thirdly they are Analogicall signes 3. Analogicall such as carry Analogy and proportion with the thing signified they have ever an aptnesse in them for resemblance That of Austin is famous If d Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sunt Sacramenta non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent Sacraments carry no resemblance of the things whereof they are Sacraments they are no Sacraments at all Gerrard de Sacramentis Cap. 3. Sect. 3. in the name of the Lutherane party doth confesse e Non negamus signa Sacramentalia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandam cum fructu Sacramenti habere Sed analogia illa significativa est secundarium rei terrenae sive elementi in Sacramentis Novi T. officium primarium officium est ut sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vehiculum medium per quod res coelestis exhibetur that there is such Analogy in Sacraments but he saith that this Analogy in the Sacraments of the New Testament is but the secondary office of it The primary and chief office is to be a medium or vehicalum a means for exhibition of the grace of the Sacrament to the person But gives us no reason And Suarez as Chamier observes denyes this Analogy between sign and thing signified to be necessary yet confesses that in all Sacraments there is such Analogy found But as Chamier demands how shall an universall necessity be concluded but by particular experiments and what is found in every one we conclude to be of necessity in all finding upon observation this Analogy in every Sacrament we conclude it necessary in all Sacraments There are some signs have their signification wholly from their institution and of themselves carry no proportion As the sound of a trumpet which is the sign of a troop of horse the sound of a Bell which is the sign of an Assembly whether for civill or for sacred things An Ivy bush the sign of wine to be fold Distribution of Analogicall signes There are other signes that of themselves declare their own signification as the print of the foot on the ground whether of horse or man is a sign of the foot that made the impression A shadow is a sign of
the syllables themselves uttered with all the consecrating intention that the Priest can imagine to create a new Sacrament Bellarmine lib. 1. de Sacram. in genere cap. 21. hath a proposition to the contrary k Non solum ses sed etiam verba in Sacramentis novae legis is à Deo determinata sunt ut non liceat quickquam immutate Not only the things themselves saith he in the Sacraments under the New Covenant of which he saith there is little difference between them and us but the words are so determinate that they may not anything be changed yet when he hath done he is put to it to limit his own proposition and shewes there may be a variation six wayes in some of which the essence of a Sacrament is lost the substantiall forme being taken away in others the accidental forme onely so that the essence continues notwithstanding such variation so that he doth not onely approve of the determination of Pope Zachary who in an Epistle to Bonifacius resolves that when some out of ignorance of the Latine tongue did baptize in nomine Patria filia speritua sancta that the substantial forme was not altered But also acknowledges that the Baptisme of the Greeks was valid and the substance not changed when they baptized in this way Let the servant of Christ be baptized in the Name c. yet allowing of it onely upon that account because the Church of Rome did tolerate it so that their toleration or prohibition can give or take away the very substantial forme of Sacraments Arguments evincing the truth of the proposition the essence of them is at their courtesie The truth of this proposition is clear 1. No prescribed forme of words is laid down in the Old Testament as is confest and therefore Bellarmine puts it into his proposition That in the Sacraments of the New Law the words are so determinate that nothing is to be changed And that the Apostles did use any such prescript forme in so precise a way cannot be proved yea the contrary is more then probable considering the multitudes in so short a space baptized Act. 2. Act. 8. Peter exhorts his converts to be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Act. 2.38 And those mentioned Act. 19.5 were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus And Bonaventure as he is quoted by Whitaker sayes that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ And Scotus as the same Author affirms sayes that if any should baptize in that manner he durst not say it were no Baptisme and this with good reason seeing Baptisme in the Name of Christ virtually comprizes the whole Trinity Father Son and holy Ghost His work being to reconcile man unto God essentially and not personally considered 2. Either the very syllables themselves in which the institution is set down is the forme and contains the essence of Baptisme or else the sense and meaning But it is not the very words and syllables themselves This is clear in reason and confest by the adversary First it is clear in reason then the same words and syllables must be used in which they were pronounced when they were first instituted That was the Syriack Tongue as is believed being the language in Judea at that time or at least the Greek in which Tongue the words of the institution were committed to writing But the forme of the Sacraments is never tyed to those Tongues to neither of them Papists officiate in Latine Orthodox Churches in their own language in which the same thing in other syllables is held forth This is confest by the adversary Bellarmine approves as we have heard the ratification of that Baptisme where scarce ever a word was aright uttered and that upon this account that it might be easily understood what he would have said as well by the act of baptizing as by the word In nomine In the name for that was aright pronounced It is not then the words but that which ought to be intended in the words that holds forth the institution which may be further from the Jesuite cleared in that he confesses Scripture to be too short to hold out the forme of Baptisme-institution which l Nos respondemus illud hoc facite referre ad totam actionem Christi ita ut comprehendat etiam verba Id quod ut omittam nunc alia argumenta discimus ex traditione usu Catholicae Ecclesiae quae traditio si non recipiatur in dubium revocabitur etià m forma baptismi nam unde quaeso colligitur dum aqua aspergitur dicenda esse illa verba Baptizo te in nomine Patris filii Spiritus sancti Certe non aliunde quam ex illis verbis Matth. ult Docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus sancti At ex hoc loco id non potest certe colligi nisi recipiatur Ecclesiae traditio Non enim Dominus ait dicite Baptizo te in nomine Patris c. Satis igitur erit si aspergentes aquam dicanus innomine Patris Filii c. can be gathered from no place he saith but that of Matth. 28.19 Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost But there it is not said I baptize as he observes nor doth Christ command to say in the Name of the Father of the Son and holy Ghost but to baptize in the Name of the Father c. If it be done in that Name by that authority it were saith he sufficient had we not tradition to the contrary De Sacramentis in Genere cap. 19. All which makes it appear that an institution is necessary and not a certain number of words of absolute necessity Fifthly A Sermon formally so called A Sermon formally so called is not essential to a Sacâ—ament to be preacht at the same time as the Sacrament is administred is no way of the essence of Sacraments This Chamier worthily rejects as a calumny put upon protestant Writers No protestant Writer ever did affirm it Bellarmine would fain fasten it upon Calvin and Beza but confesses that Calvin speaks doubtfully in it And sometimes seemes to speak of a Sermon as distinct from the Sacrament They that hold this opinion must not onely conclude it to be the greatest of prophanations to administer the elements when no Sermon is preached But whensoever they administer any Sacrament their Sermon must ever be of that subject for to make a Sermon essential to Sacraments which treats nothing about Sacraments is to make the body of a bird essential to a beast That which we say is that every word in the institutions of Sacraments is for instruction of communicants and without such instruction they can make no actuall improvement of them to any spiritual benefit either of justification or sanctification which yet is not of absolute necessity to be prest as oft as ever
That may be easily said but I think hardly proved It is no empty sign if in the right use of it it may prove serviceable to it I am sure the Jew outwardly had right to the Oracles of God and yet no immediate certain right to their end which is to be the power of God to salvation It will be an hard task to prove the certainty of all their salvation that in the right of God stand entitled to any Ordinance of his the reason will hold of all as well as one they are not empty and vain The Jewes had right to Circumcision in the flesh and none that was a Jew outwardly might neglect it and yet were void of Circumcision of the heart or forgiveness of sin The conclusion is That it will be no hard matter to prove that it is some special grace that is the end of Baptisme at least remission of sin And so upon the right use of common grace God should be in Covenant obliged to give them special grace which is taken for Pelagianisme It will far rather follow from that opinion that a common and special grace differ onely gradually not specifically According to that promise of our Saviour Matth. 13.12 To him that hath shall be given which our Divines have still understood of graces of the same and not of a different kind he that hath common graces and improves them shall have a larger measure of those graces and he that hath spiritual graces and improves them shall have a more large measure of spiritual gifts And if they be both of one kind then Christs promise holds from the one to the other It will be an hard matter I think to prove that all that have right in Ordinances though they make no right use shall attain to the end of them Argument 5. vindicated My fifth Argument was An enquiry into Simon Maegus his Baptisme That faith upon which Simon Magus was in the Primitive times baptized is that which admitteth to Baptisme Simon himself believed and was baptized Acts 8.13 But Simons faith fell short of saving and justifying To which a sudden answer is given Concedo totum sed desideratur Conclusic He is certainly much to seek both in Syllogismes and Common reason that could not infer and could not know that I left the Reader to infer that Ergo a faith that is short of justifying entitles to Baptisme And so I have the whole in question yielded and that which was once said would make foul work in the Church if once granted But as soon as it is yielded me a Means is unkindly used to take it away from me And it is further answered That may be said to admit to Baptisme which so qualifieth the person as that we are bound to baptize him as being one that seemeth sound in believing as Simon did If such liberty of interpretation be yielded who may not easily elude the sense of any Scripture-Text the Text saith that Simon believed and was baptized Is it now enough for us to say he seemed to believe and therefore those whom he thus deceived were bound to baptize him Let the whole Text be viewed and the former Verse taken in and then let us see whether such a Glosse be fair When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both men and women Then Simon himself believed also That faith upon which all the other Samaritans were admitted to Baptisme Simon was admitted upon also But it was not a seeming to believe but a believing that admitted the other Samaritans Therefore it was believing not a seeming to believe that admitted Simon When the Holy Ghost saith Simon believed as he saith other Samaritans believed and his faith satisfied Philip full of the Holy Ghost to give him admittance How may we that stand at this distance dare to call it into question If the Seal were put to a meer blank paper why is not all reversed upon discovery of a Misprision in proceeding So any man would do that had put a Seal where no name was written Why was not all ipso facto made null what reason could be given but that Peter had he been of that mind should have said Repent of this thy wickednesse that upon testimony given of thine integrity thou mayest yet be baptized But when the Text sayes he did believe and Philip upon that account thus proceeded and no retractation upon such discovery was made I believe no such Glosse is to be suffered My sixth and last Argument was In case onely justifying faith give admission to Baptisme then none is able to baptize seeing this by none is discerned To which Mr. Baxter sayes very little but onely refers to what he hath said to Mr. Tombs and I having had occasion before and may have occasion hereafter to speak of it shall here make no further defence of it Additional Arguments that a faith short of that which justifies gives title to Baptisme SEeing these Arguments have given Mr. Baxter so little satisfaction I shall endeavour to make some addition onely premising this That Baptisme is our door of Entrance or way of admission into the Church visible which I shall take for granted seeing Mr. T. pag. 54. of his Apology as Mr. Baxter observes hath yielded it and Mr. Baxter to my hand Treatise of Infant-Baptisme pag. 24. by Arguments hath proved it If then I shall prove that such are to be received into the Church I shall take the Conclusion to be the same as if they said they were to be baptized and proving their right to be taken into the Church I prove their right to be baptized 1. They that have right in the sight of God to many and Arg. 1 great Priviledges of his gift have right in his sight to the first and leading priviledge this I think cannot be denyed Having a right to those that follow they have right to those that lead If any had in the time of the Law right to the Passeover they had right to Circumcision and if any now have right to the Lords Supper they have right to Baptisme But those of a faith that is short of that which justifies have right to many and great priviledges in the sight of God This is clear from the Apostle Rom. 3.1 The Jew outwardly where Circumcision of heart was wanting had every way much profit and advantage he had therefore right to Circumcision and those with him that are short of a faith that justifies have right in the sight of God to Baptisme 2. Those that are a people by Gods gracious dispensations Arg. 2 nigh unto God comparative to others have right in the sight of God to visible admittance to this more near relation This I think is clear Men have right to be admitted to their right But those that come short of justifying faith are a people by Gods gracious dispensation nigh unto God comparative to others this is
any man that desired to be a member of the Church though but onely professing to repent and believe so neither did I ever there find that any but convicted Hereticks or scandalous ones and that for the most part after due admonition were to be avoided or debarred our fellowship And whereas it is urged that they are to prove their interest to the priviledges that they lay claim to and not we to desprove it I answer If that were granted yet their meer sober professing to Repent and believe in Christ is a sufficient evidence of their interest to Church-membership and admittance thereto by Baptisme supposing them not admitted before and their being baptized persons if at age or members of the universal visible Church into which it is that they are baptized is sufficient evidence of their interest to the Supper till they do by heresie or scandall blot that evidence which evidence if they do produce yea though they are yet weak in the faith of Christ who is he that dare refuse to receive them And this after much doubting dispute and study of the Scriptures I speak as confidently as almost any truth of equall moment so plain is the Scripture in this point to a man that brings his understanding to the model of Scripture and doth not bring a model in his brain and reduce all he reads to that model What have I spoke more then here is said and did I ever speak with more and higher confidence I say that a faith which is short of justifying gives title to Baptisme and he sayes Such give sufficient evidence of their interest to Church-membership and consequently admittance to Baptisme so that if my doctrine herein be loose as he chargeth it the Reader will hardly find his to be fast and it heares not well to play fast and loose The evasion of equivocal will not here serve that will utterly spoyl the whole strength of his Caution and put men amain on this separation as it will contradict his assertion of their grace as real and true They will say They will have no fellowship with a dead Corps instead of a reall man for that is his expression of the difference between what is real and what is equivocal Neither can he here come off by the help of his distinction of forum Dei and forum Ecclesiae These gifts and graces from God these priviledges vouchsafed of God and purchased by Christ plainly enough speak a right in the sight of God Neither is there as we have heard in this Controversie any such distinction to be admitted I am therefore in this no further to blame then he hath been and if he see cause to recede from yet I see all reason to persist in my opinion SECT X. Proposition 8. FOr the Sacrament of the Lords Supper No such vast difference between baptisme and the Lords Supper that the one should be a priviledge of the Church visible and the other peculiar to the Church invisible there cannot be that vast difference and disproportion between it and baptisme that the one should be a priviledge of the Church visible and the other peculiar and proper to the Church invisible that all in the outward administration of the Covenant as some speak should be interessed in the one and onely those that come up to the termes of the Covenant should have any interest in the other Christ gave order that Disciples should be baptized Matth. 28.19 and he delivered his Supper to Disciples Matth. 26.26 27. and it is more then strange that disciples should be taken in that aequivocall way as to hold out all in outward profession confoederation and visible Church communion in the one as is almost generally agreed upon between Paedobaptists and their adversaries and to be restrayned to those that answer to their profession in the other so that in the administration of the one the dispensers have a firme rule to lead them viz. visibility of interest as Mr. Cobbet hath largely shewn in his Vindication pag. 52. Cou. 4. and in the other can have nothing for their guide but an invisible work left to their charity to conjecture Disciple therefore respective to either of the Sacraments which are outward visible ordinances and visible Church priviledges can be no more then a man of visible interest When Christ sate down to the Passeover it is said he sate down with the twelve onely they had right to eat of it in his company Exod. 12.3 being of his family And as he was eating he gave the Supper but then the phrase is changed he gave it to his Disciples onely the twelve were occasionally there but it was instituted in behalf of all Disciples of which the number could not be small considering how many John had made and baptized and Christ had made and baptized more then he though not in person but by his Disciples Joh. 4.1 2. A reverend brother makes this practice of Christ at the first institution and administration of the Supper to be a directory for future to receive such onely to it as are the Disciples of Christ To which I willingly condescend provided that the word be aright understood I know the word is sometimes taken in a restrayned sense for those that indeed do the duty of disciples Joh. 8.31 If ye continue in my word then are ye my Disciples indeed and Luke 14.33 Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath he cannot be my Disciple As the word Israelite is sometimes taken for those that do the duty of Israelites and are such as Israelites ought to be Joh. 1.47 Behold an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile when respective to fruition of Church ordinances of what nature soever all that were of Israel according to the flesh or visible Church-Members in Israel are expressed by it Disciple or Israelite is a man of outward Covenant interest The latitude of it according to Scripture expressions I have shewen Treatise of the Covenant pag. 208. All that were Christs family Disciples did eat of the Passeover with him Matth. 26.18 even Judas as is acknowledged and scarce to be doubted of but he did eat of the Supper It is more then strange that as a Disciple he should be taken into the Passeover and a few houres after as no Disciple should be put from the Supper The Lords Supper is for the building of those that Baptisme takes in But Baptisme takes into the Church visible Visible Church members have then interest in the Supper When Sacraments are in their use distinguished one for admittance into the Church and the other for growth one as the Sacrament of our birth and the other our nourishment most understand the first of admission into the Church visible well knowing that regeneration is not tyed to baptisme but the growth many will have to be in the Church invisible which inharmonious discord between Ordinances of the same kind cannnot be suffered To give notes of
the Disciples of Christ for discovery of a Disciple in the former sense by their affections to him and suffering of affliction for him are of singular use Christ himself hath gone before us in it But upon the notation of the word because Christ gave the Bread and Cup to Disciples to make the subject of that Sacrament to be onely those that reach these markes is besides the holy Ghosts intention All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not onely in facto for the bringing of it on to Christ I should desire to know where any outward sensible Ordinance is made or how in reason and according to Scripture it can be made the proper peculiar right of invisible members SECT XI Proposition 9 THe Sacrament of the Supper no more then other Ordinances is not limited to those that have received a new life in Christ by the Spirit that are actually regenerate and in grace The Lords Supper is not limited to those that have received a new life by the Spirit others as they may be admitted without sin so they are in a capacity and possbility to receive benefit from it This I am not ignorant that some will question But let these consider before they censure First That it is an external Ordinance as hath been said Arguments a priviledge of the Church as visible put into the hands of those for edification that are not able to discern men of spiritual life and invisible interest And though there be characteristicall differnces whereby a man in grace and he that is short of it may be distinguished whereby all bad ground at the best may be differenced from that which is good yet they are such whereby a man is to make trial of himself onely they are Spirit-works and none knowes them in any man save the Spirit that is in him and therefore no marks for any others cognizance For a Minister of Christ to dispence by command the Sacrament to many when he knowes that it is of possible use and benefit to some few unto these it is food and nourishment unto life unto the others as Rats-bane Poyson and onely for death is such a snare that may hold him in his administration in all horror and amazement A fad dilemma either to lay aside an Ordinance of Christ and so never come up in his place to the whole of his duty or else to deliver to them that which will inevitably be the ruine and destruction of so many of them I know no possible way that can be supposed or so much as pretended for avoidance but in the Name of Christ to give warning to all in whom this new life by the Spirit is not to abstain every man and woman not actually regenerate on their peril to keep off Let them say some know their danger in the highest terms that can be uttered and then if they come their blood is on their own heads and the Minister of Christ hath by this means delivered his soul But to this I have three things to say 1. That it is as I suppose without all Scripture-precedent to warn men upon account of want of a new life by the Spirit wholly to keep off from this or any other Ordinance of Christ I know we must warn men of their sin and the judgement hanging over their heads for sin in which let it be our prayer that we may be more faithful but that we should warn men upon this account upon this very ground to hold off from all addresse to Ordinances I have not learnt 2. I say this doth presuppose that which is wont to be denyed unregenerate men to be in a capacity to examine themselves respective to this Ordinance How can we warn them upon want of justifying faith and the saving work of repentance to hold back when they are in an incapacity upon trial to find themselves thus wanting 3. Shall we not hereby pluck the thorne out of our own sides and as much as in us lyes thrust it into the sides of many of our hungry thirsty and poor in spirit people How many may we suppose are in grace through a work happily begun on their souls yet for several reasons are not able to see this grace or reach to any discovery of it Sometimes by reason of the infancy of the work upon their hearts being yet babes or rather embryo's in grace The first that appears upon light received is an army of lusts and potent corruptions as we know Paul sets it out This cloudes for present any other weak work that as yet in present is wrought In this time Satan is not wanting he did not shew so much artifice before to lessen their sin but he now makes use of as much to aggravate it and as he was industrious before to seduce now he is as busie to accuse He led the incestuous man to incontinency 1 Cor. 7.4 And we know Paul feares least upon continuance of the Church-censure he would gain advantage to swallow him up in overmuch sorrow 2 Cor. 2.8 11. These perhaps as yet are not able to give an account of the nature of faith and repentance or their genuine fruits much lesse are they able by a reflex act to conclude the truth of them in their souls Sometimes by reason of some sharpe conflict of temptation being under the shock and assault of it and therefore whatsoever they have seen of grace heretofore or the favour of God now it is under a cloud which I believe was Pauls case when a messenger of Satan was sent to buffet him and a thorne in the flesh given him seeing it is put in opposition to the abundance of revelations that he had being taken up into the third heavens 2 Cor. 12. and therefore had need of Ordinances for support Sometimes on a soyle received by temptation of which his own heart and not the Church is witnesse and therefore is at a losse of the joy of his salvation and stands in need of strength for recovery Sometimes by over-much sloath and rust contracted on his graces through negligence which is supposed to be the case of the spouse indulging her self too much in carnal ease Cant. 5.2 I have put off my coat how shall I put it on I have washed my feet how shall I defile them Sometimes God out of prerogative withdrawing the rayes of his Spirit and refusing to testifie with our spirits in which case the soul that is most upright with God and sincere in his feare walks in darknesse and sees no light in which there is need of all communications from God and attendance upon him in Ordinances When these shall hear all in whom the work of grace is not in truth thus warned to keep back and told of the high danger of approaching to this Table in such away aggravated will not they put in their name and say their souls are now spoke to They must therefore absent themselves and so the smoaking flax is quenched
and how great an odium lyes upon that opinion what those be that maintain it and what interest they drive is very well known To this I answer The expression of a Converting Ordinance may be taken two wayes First As having power of it self In what sense and with what limit the Lords Supper may be called a converting Ordinance as a single instrument in the hand of God in his ordinary way to work a change in the heart or life In this sense the converting power of it is to be denyed Secondly As having some influence for that work as seconding and working with the Word so I doubt not but that it may safely be owned and easily justified I shall lay down my whole thoughts of it in some Propositions Explicatory Propositions Affirmat First In the Affirmative First This Sacrament carries the soul on towards conversion in doing the same thing as the Word does for conversion in holding forth Christ crucified in holding him out as our sin and as our Saviour made a curse for us and delivering us from the curse Secondly In further engaging the soul or the soul upon receiving the Sacrament engaging it self to that which the Word requires and calls for If Covenants in Israel entred by reforming Princes were judged to be of that force for obligation of the soul to a change in their wayes putting stronger tyes on their slippery hearts much more may we believe that the Sacraments in a due order received may have this efficacious power They serve saith Mr. Hooker as bonds of obedience to God strict obligations to the mutual exercise of Christian charity provocations to godlinesse preservations from sin memorials of the principal benefits of Christ Thirdly The Sacrament doth this in an ordinary way according to the revealed will of God in his Word as the proper intention of the work and not as any thing extraordinary Fourthly The Sacrament it self doth it in that relation in which it stands to the Word in its being and operation and not the Sacramentals onely as they have been called as the Word preached and prayer which yet have a mighty influence on the Sacraments for this work Fifthly It works as a second to the Word for habitual conversion as well as actual In the way that the Word doth work for the infusion of the first grace and not barely for the exciting and stirring up of grace in the soul Their way of working I shall God willing in due place further enquire into Negat Secondly In the Negative First The Sacrament converts none by the bare work done There is no such power by receiving to change the soul as Papists believe there is by consecration to change the elements There is neither reason for it nor promise of it I cannot believe for I see no proof of it any regenerating power in the water in Infants Baptisme much lesse can I have reason to believe such a converting power of grown persons in the Lords Supper He shall be alone for me that will appear in such Paradoxes Secondly The command given to take and eat of the bread to drink of the cup hath no such power to convert None can see the reason of the change of their wayes in any such injunction Conversion were an easie work in case this could do it Thirdly The Sacrament of the Lords Supper must by no means be parallelled with the Word in the work of conversion but the Word many wayes must have the preeminence 1. The Word may work to conversion without the Lords Supper There are many in saving grace that did never partake of this Ordinance Gods engagement by word and oath holds up the faith and is the ground of strong consolation to those that never enjoyed this seal But the Sacrament cannot convert or do any thing towards it without the Word A Covenant may convey an interest without a seal when a seal can never do it without a Covenant 2. The Sacrament does nothing of its own strength but by vertue from the Word It hath its dependance on the Word for being as a seal on a Covenant and also for the operation The Word may go alone in the work of conversion yet may have assistance from the Sacrament the Sacrament can never work alone without the Word but as an assistant to it 3. The Word must qualifie the soul for the Sacrament in laying open the nature and use of it and the soul must attend what the Sacrament holds out otherwise there can be no improvement of it for any spiritual benefit And these things being premised I wonder how any that seem to appear most on the contrary part can justly be offended that I affirm and as I think with so good reason prove that the Lords Supper may be assistant towards conversion in some and may work with the Word to carry the soul professing Christ up to it especially when it shall appear that I would have the door of admission to stand at least little more wide then they themselves And perhaps not so wide as according to the practice of many of their judgment it stands already Most of these acknowledge that knowing persons free from grosse errors and scandals may be admitted others say none but they that in the judgment of charity appear to be indeed in Christ may be received in which they yet confesse that men may be easily deceived Either of these confesse that many unconverted partake with them even when rules of admission according to their own mind are most tenaciously held And in case it appear that these may receive benefit by the Sacrament and their conversion possibly holpen on especially if well followed on by the Word why should they be troubled I confesse it is to me no small trouble to see godly Ministers of the opposite way so much ensnared in their own principles and necessitated to let in such where most of order is held and discipline exercised that of necessity further their damnation and are in impossibility according to their tenents to improve it towards salvation Thirdly It is yet further objected That in this doctrine we oppose the unanimous judgment of Protestant Divines who generally teach that the Sacraments are appointed of God and delivered to the Church as sealing Ordinances not to give but to testifie what is given not to make but confirm Saints simply denying the instrumentality of Sacraments that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not And that we concur with Papists who hold that the Sacraments are instruments to confer give or work grace ex opere operato But how unjust this charge is in both the parts of it might easily be made manifest In this we Symbolize not with Papists First For that charge of joyning with the Papists let any judge who comes nearest to their doctrine of the efficacy of this Sacrament Not to mention the opus operatum which is alike detested of both
necessity to suffer Though it is a matter of consolation that guilt by suffering is removed and an atonement made in which there is either present assurance or at least a possibility of future actuall interest Twelfthly That Ordiinance unto which Christ calleth none but such that have spiritual gracious qualifications is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual and gracious qualifications Ergo. The Assumption is proved Matth. 11. 28. Joh. 7.37 Isa 55.1 Matth. 22.12 1 Cor. 11.28 Cant. 5.1 Answ Onely one of these speaks of the Lords Supper the rest have immediate relation to Christ not to this Ordinance of the Supper and positive spiritual qualifications as preceding all coming is not required in any of them upon sense of want we may come to Christ for spiritual qualifications as wen may come with them though without positive spiritual qualifications there is no assurance of interest in him 2. As to that worthinesse which is spoken to in that Text of the Corinthians there is an usual distinction of worthinesse of merit and worthinesse suitable to the work in hand It is the latter onely that as is confest is called for There is yet a double suitablenesse to the work One is compleat answering to all that the work can call for which comprises grace not onely in the habit but in the act an actual improvement of our graces for the participation of it and this is alike required in other Ordinances of hearing praying c. as in this Orainance of communicating The other is a worthinesse respecting the person that doth communicate such a worthinesse of suitablenesse and conveniency whereby according to the measure of grace vouchsafed whether common or saving he addresseth himself to it Now though the regenerate man alone receives to the acceptation of his person as he onely hears and prayes with such acceptance yet a man in unregeneration may be so far suitably worthy for this work that he may know himself called untp it and that it would be his sin to hold back from it and he may hopeuMlly expect blessing in it and such a worthinesse was in Christs and John Baptists hearers so many of them as have their commendations in the Gospel for such ready and forward hearing and such a worthinesse as I take it is mentioned Matth. 10 11. Let the Learned Consider whether either the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indigne or the context in that place will necessarily take in every unregenerate man or rather the irreverend prOphanation of that duty and whether arguments drawn from want of saving faith and sincere repentance in performance of this work do not bring unregenerate men under like danger in fasting praying thanksgiving hearing Sabbath-keeping and every other duty of worship whatsoever Thirteently That Ordinance which is instituted for the Communion of Saints is intended onely for such as are Saints and not for unconverted sinners But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints and those that are members of the same body of Christ The assumption proved 1 Cor. 1016 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1.2 Answ Saint is either such that are so by calling and separation for God or else by qualifications and regeneration from God In the former sense unconverted sinners prosessing the Gospel are Saints as of old they were of the people of God and called by his Name Saint is a New testament-Testament-word taking in all of a Christian profession and outward Covenant-interest and then the Proposition is to be denyed Saint being taken in the latter sense the assumption is false This Lords Supper is a priviledge of the Church as visible dispensed by visible officers not as invisible as those very Texts quoted do manifest Fourteenthly If Baptisme it self at least when administred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance far lesse is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance But Baptisme it self at least when ministred to those that are of age is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance Ergo. Answ This Argument seemeth to suppose an opinion of regeneration or conversion by the very work done in Baptisme and the Lords Supper which seeing I do not own but in either of both disclaim I need to give no further answer Fifteenthly If the Baptisme even of those that are at age must necessarily precede the receiving of the Lords Supper then the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance But Baptisme even of those that are of age must necessarily precede the Lords Supper Ergo. Answ I see no necessity of this consequence unlesse I should believe that all that are baptized are ipso facto regenerate and that not with an initial regeneration of which some speak that may be lost but the immortal seed of the Spirit that abides for ever But being not as I am not of that faith I suppose a baptized man may be to use Pareus his phrase Christianus non regeneratus sed regenerandus a Christian not regenerate but to be regenerate and so regeneration may as ordinarily it doth not precede but follow Baptisme Sixteenthly There is an Argument drawn from the Parable of the Prodigal There is a robe ring and shoes put upon him and a fatted calf killed for him but this when he comes to himself and sayes Father I have sinned c. But this is done in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more especially and manifestly then in any other Ordinace Ergo. Answ All Ordinances as I take it are to bring a prodigal unto such a returning posture in the discovery of the hatefulnesse of sin against such a Father and the riches that are in his Fathers family There are some Arguments of this nature follow which may seasonably be spoke to in the close of these Propositions I shall onely here by the way hint so much to the Reader that in case these Arguments had been framed against the power of this Sacrament for conversion the sense as generally the opposers of it understand it that it works as a medicine to heal and hath an opus operatum in it I should not at all have undertaken them how inconcluding soever I had judged them But seeing a tendency in them to interest alone men already in grace in this Ordinance and denying all hope of benefit by it to the majority of those that men of all interests ordinarily admit to it to the necessary ensnaring of all that are concerned in the administration of it I could not be silent let the Reader impartially weigh and determine SECT XV. Proposition 12. THose that are in a present inaptitude All of present incapacity to receive benefits by the Lords Supper are to be denyed accesse to it and incapacity to improve this Sacrament to any spiritual advantage but are under an inevitable necessity either to receive no good or much danger and damage
the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The water there is meant of Baptisme that laver of regeneration without this there is no entrance into heaven When Paul said Except these stay in the ship ye cannot be saved Acts 27.31 all will presently understand that their abode in the ship was of absolute necessity to safety and so also baptisme according to Christs words for eternity Answ Though it be not easy to determine what is the right meaning and genuine interpretation of those words yet it is of no great difficulty to vindicate them from them that would fasten this sense upon them and gather this consequence from them And before I come to a full answer I shall premise two things 1. That it is a wonder that Nicodemus coming to our Saviour in the night and as yet knowing nothing in the Mystery of Christ should hear that from him that others in the open light and farre more knowing in Christianity could never hear from his mouth 2. Bellarmine himself as Amesius doth observe confesses and if I do not much mistake Suarez somewhere that at that time of Christs conference with Nicodemus there was no such absolute necessity of Baptisme He puts the question when baptisme began to be necessary and determines it in four propositions Baptismus Châ—â—sti non fuit necessarius necessitate medii aut praecepti ante Christi mortem Baptismus Christi coepit esse necessarius necessitate medii praecepti a die pentecostes The third is That it was not necessary before the death of Christ neither necessitate praecepti or medii The fourth is that it was not necessary necessitate me dii praecepti before the day of Pentecost And let any judge whether it be probable instructing that novice in the faith Christ would in the first place inform him not what in present but what afterwards would be of necessity especially seeing that after that time by him set down when the absolute necessity should commence we hear of no such necessity of it For more full satisfaction I further answer First That text which names not Baptisme and cannot be concluded by an argument infallibly cogent to speak of Baptisme cannot enforce an absolute necessity of it This is cleare But this text names not Baptisme neither is there any argument to conclude infallibly that it speaks of baptisme probabilities are mentioned but no necessary concluding argument is by any produced Secondly A Scripture-text carrying like colour hath been urged for a like necessity for infants to receive the Lords Supper John 6.53 But this is agreed on all parties not to hold This then how eagerly soever it is prest may fail likewise Thirdly Either water there must be taken for Baptisme of water or else by way of Exegesis to hold out the same thing that was exprest before by the birth of the Spirit If the latter will hold as there are many parallel instances given and multitudes of Divines so interprete it Gerrard in his common places reckons up many more then I have to consult then this text comes to nothing in this particular And that this should be the meaning Chamier with fair probabilities argues seeing in this sense the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation All being of a corrupt birth there is a necessity of a new birth and that by the Spirit there being no more births then that of the flesh which is corrupt and that of the Spirit that comes to heal corruption If the former stand that water must of necessity hold out Baptisme of water as Papists and Lutherans generally contend and many Protestants yield then either the words must be taken in an absolute way without any limit at all or else with their just and due limitations If limits must be put then no absolute unlimitted necessity can be concluded and to understand it without any limit at all our adversaries themselves see to be lyable to dangerous absurdities Some therefore understand it of the Baptisme of water or some other that supplies the place and room of it and it is on all hands granted that Baptismus flaminis sanguinis the Spirit or blood in Martyrdome may supply the room of it for salvation And this Chamier saies is the limit that Arboreus puts Others understand it of Baptisme of water if it can be had and it be not contemned and despised and this Chamier saies is the limit that Lombard Bonaventure Gorran Carthusian and Villagadus put to it Others understand it of that regeneration that is ordinarily by baptisme of water though by other meanes it may be wrought And this limit Alexander of Hales puts to it as Amesius observes either of actual Baptisme or else of the desire of it and this Suarez sayes is the opinion of all Divines and charges it for an heresy to hold that none of years can be saved unlesse actually baptized notwithstanding their earnest desire of it and in his time he saies one a Michael Baius a Divine of Lovain held it But as he saies Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. in their letters published did condemne it And this text being subject to so many limitations our adversaries being judges I hope I may without any just exception adde one that it be understood of men of years such as Nicodemus was to whom it was spoken seeing so many helps are provided for men of yeares in the want of Baptisme it is altogether unreasonable to leave Infants in such exigents as to be irremedilesly under damnation for eternity when it is not in their power to make provision of it and so are holpen by Lombard and those of that party Any man may be their Compurgitor that they are not guilty of contempt of it Besides this Text there are many high speeches alledged out of some of the Ancient for the necessity of Baptisme and heavy doom of those that passe out of this world in the want of it But these are not onely under the dislike of Protestants but of those that these lay claim to be of their own party Bernard Epist 77. is large against them and Vossius hath a full quotation out of Petrus Blessensis who was Bernards contemporary c Sufficit Spiritus aqua Sufficit Spiritus sanguis si aquam non exclusit contemptus Religionis sed articulus necessitatis Sufficiet solus Spiritus quia testimonium ipsius pondus habet The Spirit and water sufficeth The Spirit and blood sufficeth if instant necessity and not contempt of Religion depriveth of Water The Spirit alone may suffice for his testimony hath weight in it And whereas Austin of all other is most frequently quoted for this rigid sentence as being in name most eminent my author sets Austine against Austin having in his 5th Book against Donatists these words d Etiam atque etiam considerans in venio non tantum passionem pro nomine Christi id quod ex Baptismo decrat posse supplere
For my conclusion in that instance of arising again it is said that It is by faith and natural knowledge mixed that I shall rise again and I am further told Thoâ—gh in strict sense it be thus mixed In our ordinary discourse we must denominate it from one of the premises and usually from the more notable alwayes from the more debile Scripture saith that all men shall rise reason saith that you are a man Though the conclusion here partake of both yet it is most fitly said to be de fide both because Scripture intended each particular man in the universal and because it is supposed as known to all that they are men and therefore the other part is it that resolves the doubt and is the more notable and more debile part To which I onely say that of two premises the debilior should be the more notable or that a Proposition which is laid down terminis terminantibus of God himself should be more weak then that which reason concludes I am to learn I am further told that it is an undoubted truth with me that conclusio sequitur debiliorem partem That it followes deteriorem partem I long since learnt so that if one of the premises be false the conclusion cannot be true but that it must have its denomination à debiliori in the sense here spoken to I never yet heard nor could I have once thought that upon the account of the weaknesse of that Proposition of faith All men should rise it should be yeelded to be of faith that I should rise and not otherwise And here I am put to it to answer whether I have a fuller evidence that I am a sincere believer then I have that all sincere believers are justified And am told It seemes by your following words that you have or suppose others to have I wonder what words of mine those are that speak such madnesse Can I be more sure that I see the Sun than I am that there is a Sun to be seen I am yet told If you have as evidently concluded that faith is in your heart saving faith as that reason is in your soul and know your self to be a believer as evidently as you know your self to be a man then your conclusion may be denominated to be de fide as a parte debiliori But what if any man have concluded though not with that evidence and full strength of light how it is hindred but that still it may be a conclusion de fide I confesse I am to seek in this new learning to enquire into premises whether is debilior whether fortior and so to give the conclusion denomination à debiliori what if I cannot tell in which of them most strength lyes as it seems Mr. Baxter himself is sometimes to seek then I shall be at a stand whether the conclusion is to be denominated of faith or of sense or reason I take it to be de fide when I have warrant from the Word of God for it and it leads me to believe it Mr. Baxter had said in his Appendix Otherwise that is as I understand him if this proposition I shall be saved be sealed in the Sacrament every man rightly receiving the seales shall be justified and saved To this I have answered I see no danger in yielding this conclusion Every man rightly receiving and improving the seales must be saved and justified He that rightly receives the seales receives Christ in the seales and receiving Christ receives salvation In his reply he first explains himself and then retorts upon me He saies by rightly I meant having right to it and that onely in foro Ecclesiae and not rectè and confesses he should plainlier have expressed his meaning Let him then bear with others if their words do not alwaies speak their meaning so plainly as he would desire I think my meaning was never so in the cloudes as his is here He then retorts upon me in these words Whether you here contradict not your doctrine of Baptismal faith where you suppose justifying faith to be the thing promised by us in Baptisme and therefore not prerequisite in it I leave you to judge and resolve as by your explication I have busied my head not a little to find out where any colour of contradiction lyes If it be in this that I yield that every man that rightly receives the Sacrament shall be saved and yet affirm that men that are not in a state of salvation have right to Sacraments then it is a contradiction to say that any man may have true right to any thing that doth not rightly use it which indeed is a contradiction much like to some others with which I am charged and might with as good reason have found a place in an Index Having yielded to Mr. Baxter That Papists have great advantage given them by those that mistaking the nature of justifying faith think it consists in a belief of the pardon of my own sinnes Yet to make it good that the conclusion that my sins are pardoned or I shall be saved may be de fide when the soul hath a right proceeded in the premises I say As it is an error to hold that to believe my sinnes are forgiven is of the nature or essence of faith as though none did believe but those that had attained such assurance true faith hath assurance in pursuit onely sometimes and not alwaies in possession so on the other hand it is a mistake to say that it is no work of faith The Apostle calls it the full assurance of faith Heb. 10.22 and describeth faith to be the substance of things hoped for faith realizeth salvation which we have in hope to the soul A description of faith saith Dr. Amesius out of a Schoolman by one of the most eminent acts that it produceth therefore I take that to be a good answer that is here charged with error that when it is written he that believeth is justified it is equivalent as though it were such or such a man is justified in case with assured grounds and infallible demonstrations he can make it good to his own self that he believeth Upon this he comes in not with a few animadversions the two first are to conclude from my own mouth that assurance is not faith in that I say it is not of the nature and essence of faith and hath it sometimes onely in pursuit and not in possession In which he seems to take for granted that I had affirmed that assurance is faith when I can produce witnesses that almost 30. years ago I have opposed it and I still persist in the denyal of it 3. He saies I know none that deny assurance to be a work of faith which Mr. Bl. saith here is a mistake to say love and obedience are works of faith but not faith it self A work I mean as my words import attainable by faith and if faith by Scripture-promises is able to conclude it then the
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
I hear 1 Sam. 15.14 If Gods command had been done a sheep had not been left to bleat or an oxe to low in his hearing Here is a real confutation as ready If Infant-baptisme cleanses from original sin the root being dead what means such abundance of living lively branches How come all those complaints of the timely growth of sin in Christians children Why have not Paedobaptists found a real confutation of their Adversaries in their issue being able to shew them their young ones as averse from sin as a fish is to a life in the ayr when the children of their adversaries wanting that nature-healing medicine are wholly addicted to it Neither Israelites nor Christians were ever able to hold out such an experiment And if this were our received doctrine it would necessarily herein infinitely strengthen Anabaptisme when Anabaptists have ever found the greatest opposition from their pens that never acknowledged any such power in Sacraments And in case it should fall out that our Adversaries were in the truth and we in an errour concerning this power in Sacraments I cannot possibly see what great danger can any way follow to us upon it seeing that if Sacraments confer grace this way so far above our expectation we among others shall yet have our shares in it Our Infants are in no such errour with us and they put no more bar to the working of Baptisme then the Infants of others And therefore all benefits which thus follow upon Baptisme are theirs And we urge all of growth to see that their consciences answer to all Covenant and Sacramental engagements which in case it be done will acquit them from putting any bar to any such supposed work As a man that takes a medicine not understanding the worth of it shall have equal benefit with him that most mightily extols it so we whether in Infancy or Age notwithstanding any such ignorance shall reap this unexpected benefit by either of both of the Sacraments Mr. Hooker who delivers himself in that manner touching the efficacy of Sacraments that a man cannot tell on what part he stands lib. 5. Eccles pol. Sect. 57. saith It greatly offendeth that some when they labour to shew the use of the holy Sacraments assign unto them no end but onely to teach the mind by other senses that which the Word doth teach by hearing Whereupon how easily neglect and carelesse regard of so heavenly mysteries may follow we see in part by some experience had of those men with whom that opinion is most strong For where the Word of God may be heard which teacheth with much more expedition and more full explication any thing we have to learn if all the benefit we reap by Sacraments be instruction they which at all times have opportunity of using the better means to that purpose will surely hold the worse in lesse estimation To this I may well answer 1. I know not who those be that have given offence that way They at whom this learned Authour is apt to take exceptions and most professedly opposeth do not limit the use of Sacraments within so narrow a compasse as barely to teach the mind or help the understanding that is not according to them their whole work As they are signs they have a twofold other use 1. As marks of distinction to separate Gods own from strangers 2. As bonds of obedience to God strict obligations to the mutual exercise of Christian charity provocations to godlinesse preservations from sin The Authour himself layes down both of these and I scarce think that in this he hath ever been excepted against by any As seales they have a further work upon the will for the strengthening of our Faith in assured confidence of the promises as our Authour hath likewise observed In regard of the weaknesse that is in us they are warrants saith he for the more security of our belief 2. I say they read the Scriptures with little heed and it may be feared as little benefit that do not conscienciously make use of all those helps to which Scriptures lead and that they lead to the use of Sacraments is evident 3. If that the Word and Sacrament were two distinct teachers without reference one to the other and it were left to my choyce which to take I should make use of the better and leave the more inferiour If I should be necessitated to take the one and leave the other the Word should be chosen But seeing that the Sacraments are an appendant to the Word given us in charge there and the whole use of them by the Word is taught no man can conscienciously use the one in neglect of the other But let us see whether that which the Authour himself delivereth be not as much offensive as this at which he seems so greatly offended Having laid down 3. several uses of Sacraments he addes But their chiefest force and vertue consisteth not herein so much as that they are heavenly Ceremonies which God hath sanctified and ordained to be administred in his Church first as marks whereby to know when God doth impart the vitall or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof and secondly as meanes conditionall which God requireth in them unto whom he imparteth grace For sith God is in himself invisible cannot by us be discerned working therefore when it seemeth good in the eyes of his heavenly wisdome that men for some speciall intent and purpose should take notice of his glorious presence he giveth them some plain and sensible token whereby to know what they cannot see For Moses to see God and live was impossible yet Moses by fire knew where the glory of God extraordinarily was present The Angel by whom God indued the waters of the pool of Bethesda with supernatural vertue to heal was not seen of any yet the time of the Angels presence known by the troubled motions of the waters themselves The Apostles by fiery tongues which they saw were admonished when the Spirit which they could not behold was upon them In like manner it is with us Christ and his holy Spirit with all their blessed effects though entring into the soul of man we are not able to apprehend or expresse how do notwithstanding give notice of the times when they use to make their accesse because it pleased Almighty God to communicate by sensible means those blessings which are incomprehensible Who would not wish that these elegancies might universally hold and that as sure as Moses knew that God was extraordinarily present in the burning bush and the diseased in Jerusalem knew that the Angel was present when the waters were moved and the Apostles that the Spirit was come down when they saw the fiery cloven tongues so in receiving of the Sacramental signes we might as assuredly know that vital and saving grace is imparted to us and that these sensible meanes do as assuredly communicate these incomprehensible blessings But seeing those marks of distinction between the
These Sacraments theirs and ours are not in that manner Rule 1 one but that there are many circumstantial differences between them 1. They differ in their outward signes appearing to us in several shapes That which was seen in Circumcision differed much from water in Baptisme and a Lamb whether of the herd or flock differs much from bread and wine 2. Ours are of greater ease then theirs There was pain and smart in Circumcision which the new Circumcised Shechemites felt to their cost Gen. 34.25 which happily might occasion the neglect of circumcision of Moses his sonne through the Mothers tendernesse as may be gathered from her words Exod. 4.25 Neither was the Passeover without cost and pains especially to them that lived at a great distance from Jerusalem 3. There is farre more light accompanying our Sacraments then theirs not in themselves for as much might be gathered if not more for significancy from their outward signs then from ours but by reason of the clear discovery of the promises and open full manifestation of their use 4. Ours were without blood theirs were accompanied with blood one of the person receiving the other in the sign received 5. Old Testament-Sacraments had their period and others follow in their place Ours must not cease until all time ceaseth Baptisme must hold to the end of the world Matth. 28.20 And the Lords Supper until Christ come 1 Cor. 11.26 But none of these make any substantial difference nor any more then that which is circumstantial or gradual The outward dresse in which they differently appear can make no difference in substance A seal is one and the same whether the wax be red green or yellow yea whether the impression be in wax or dough whether the signet have the Letters of a mans name or the Arms that he gives Men look at the grant to which the seal is put and not at these circumstances Neither matters it whether they be done with trouble or ease and where their worth is not known they are not therefore in themselves of lesse value And though they do not endure alwaies their efficacy is yet no lesse whilest they last If we eye circumstances of this nature ours may be advanced But if we eye the substantial work theirs will be equal Hereupon so different speeches are quoted from Austins pen Some highly advancing our Sacraments above theirs and others parallelling theirs with ours which with this distinction may be fairly reconciled and as we have heard the author himself thus reconciles them Secondly Those undervaluing phrases of Old Testament-Sacraments Rule 2 which are sometimes found in the Prophets and Apostles and brought by adversaries to put them at a great distance behind ours are either spoken as they were abused and misobserved by Jews in unbelief and impenitence and not according to their institution or lawful use in which case we might say the same of Baptisme or the Lords Supper Or else we must understand them as having an end by Christs coming in the flesh put to them and so in their use dead if not deadly to the observers Rule 3 Thirdly Though Bellarmine makes it one of the particulars wherein we and they agree that the Sacraments of the Jewes are types of ours in the daies of the Gospel Yet in case the word type be taken in that sense as it is ordinarily used we utterly disclaim it There are indeed very many and different acceptations of this word as may appear to any that will consult John 21.25 Act. 23.25 Act. 7.43 Rom. 6.17 Rom. 5.14 with Heb. 9.24 Phil. 3.17 Act. 7.44 1 Cor. 10.6 1 Pet. 3.21 And as it is used in that one place in Peter where Baptisme is said to be the antitype to the Ark which according to Interpreters implyes onely a similitude or correspondence we may well grant that their Sacraments were types that is theirs and ours carry a full resemblance but taking the word as it is ordinarily used for that which shadowes out somewhat that is to come by Divine institution whether person or thing as Adam Rom. 5.14 is said to be a type or figure of him that was to come and the holy places made with hands are types and figures of the true which doubtlesse our adversaries intend so it is to be denied and Protestant Writers unanimously deny them to be any such types wholly disclaiming that doctrine that the Sacraments of the Jews did onely shadow out grace and ours do conferre it And therefore when the contents affixed to the respective Chapters in our last translation seem otherwise singularly exact so that that great Critick Ainsworth who cannot be suspected to do it out of any humor of imitation in his translation of the Pentateuch and the Psalms very rarely differs from them it is wonder how that slip came into the contents affixed to 1 Cor. 10. thus exprest 1. The Sacraments of the Jewes 6. are types of ours 7. and their punishments 11. ensamples for us when it should rather have been 1. The Sacraments of the Jewes are the same with ours 5. their punishments are ensamples for us The four first verses making the Sacraments there mentioned to be of the same use with ours and the seven following verses to v. 12. shew that their sufferings for sin are our examples for admonition that we run not upon like practices See Ravanellus in verbum Typus Whitaker praelect de Sacram. quaest 5. cap. 1. pag. 109. Pareus in 1 Cor. 10.6 SECT V A third Corollary from the doctrine THen it followes by way of necessary Corollary that Christians should see All must see that they be rightly principled in the doctrine of this righteousnesse that they be rightly principled in this doctrine of the righteousnesse of faith as that in which the great mercy of the new Covenant and all that the Sacraments seal is comprized Ignorance of this being the undoing of the zealous Jew A mistake or flaw here must needs be of singular danger And here those of the Church of Rome may be supposed to be most of all secure seeing there is no imaginable righteousnesse but they hedge it in as may appear in a brief view of their doctrine That righteousnesse which must save either must be wrought by our selves and so stiled our righteousnesse or else it must be wrought by an other and made ours There is no righteousnesse of a third sort That which is wrought by our selves is either according to the command of God prescribed in the law or else over above and besides the Law assumed by our selves or received by tradition As Pharisees had an high zeal for both of these whereof Paul in his unconversion is an instance Phil. 3.6 Gal. 1.14 So it is at least pretended by these persons though their zeal for their righteousnesse of the law falls farre short of that for the tradition of the Church And for righteousnesse besides their own wrought by others they take in not onely the righteousnesse
a learned Papist joynes with Protestants in the doctrine of Justification and many others This great wit of the Popish party reading Mr. Calvin to confute him in the point of justification was confuted by him and wrote with us against his own party as is not onely affirmed by men of our party as Davenant de just habit cap. 29. pag. 382. Albertus Pighius saith he in his controversies largely explains and confirms our opinion 1. He excludes inherent righteousnesse from any efficacy in justification 2. He manifestly approves the imputation of Christs righteousnesse Lastly He gives his reason why the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to us for justification And then addes Many more things are found in the same author who though in other controversies he maintains a fierce warre with Protestants yet being overcome with the clear light of truth in this of Justification he fell off from the Papists and came over to our party And Capel in his preface to Mr. Pembles tract of justification Pighius saith he though of a peevish spirit enough yet reading Calvin to confute Calvin in the very doctrine of justification was confuted himself and wrote with us but also acknowledged by our adversaries Albertus Pighius is checkt by Bellarmine saith Dr. Prideaux lect 5. Pag. 165. for that in reading our authors himself at last became a Lutheran in this article And that Pighius may not stand alone on our parts among Romanists Davenant in the place quoted produces many others 1. The whole covent of Canons at Cullen in their book which they entituled Antididagma Who acknowledge the imputed righteousnesse of Christ to be the chief cause of our justification Titu de justific 2. The Romish party in the Conference of Ratisbone Who saith he gave their vote the same way pag. 47. 3. Isidore Clacius orat 40. in Luc. 4. Naclantus Episcopus Clodiensis cap. 1. ad Ephes pag. 59 72. The two first of these authorities are quoted by Dr. Prideaux likewise Adding that Cassander Stapulensis Peraldus Ferus Arius Montanus did tread in the same path and therefore miserably suffer by the Index Expurgatorius Cardinal Contarenus is likewise frequently quoted by Amesius as on our party And Dr. Prideaux saith that almost four yeares before the Councel of Trent he had so asserted the orthodox doctrine of Justification that being as is thought taken away by poyson he did not long survive And for the whole space between Gregory and the reformation our author pronounces it that authors generally for the most part were more sound in their commentaries then in their disputations and in their meditations soliloquies and conflict of temptations then in their polemicks Bringing in Chemnitius instancing in Bonaventure and others So that in case they have one of eminence amongst us we have one of theirs as eminent and in case he should prove too light we have many more into the bargain to make up weight There followes Now to the thing it self Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification I will consider when I can find them And his Reader will consider no more of his jeeres when he can look into his books and his eyes miffe of them Some of those of whom he hath made boast as his converts in this controversy have professed themselves satisfied with that which I have written though Mr. Baxter cannot find it I am told that I begin and say more for faiths Instrumentality in receiving Christ than for the instrumentality of it in Justification And the truth is I know not how to distinguish them If it be an instrument to receive Christ that doth justifie it is with me an instrument in Justification If mine eye be an instrument by which I receive in light for sight then mine eye is the organ or instrument of sight If I prove the one I think I cannot be denyed the other The Instrumentality of faith for receiving Christ is thus reasoned against If Faith be the instrument of receiving Christ then it is either the act or the habit of Faith that is the Instrument I am well aware that if I shall affirm either of these that then either some text of Scripture will be called for specifying such habit or act of faith in justification or a needlesse stirre will be made about these Logical notions The safest way then is to say with Scripture that faith is the grace that receives Christ and that interests us in propitiation in his blood and the grace by which upon that account we are justified without limitation of it to either the act or habit Neither can any answer as I suppose be thus given but such as will coincidere If I say the habit justifies it is as it puts forth it self into act Whether the act of faith or the habit doth justifie If I say the act justifies it must be as it comes from the habit and so both habit and act justifie Neither doth a mans justification cease when the habit of Faith in sleep ceaseth acting seeing justification denotes a state which is remaining and abiding It is further said Receiving strictly taken is ever passive A reason then may be seen why Divines have called faith a passive instrument in justification and Mr. Baxter may see a fair answer to the high and indeed scornful censure that he gives to the most learned as himself stiles them in his preface to this apology The most learned saith he in the upshot flie to this that credere is not agere but pati and is but Actio Grammatica or the name of action but Physically or Hyperphysically a suffering Is not here a curious doctrine of faith and Justification If Aristotle had been a Christian he could not have comprehended it But I confesse I see no reason to make receiving Neither receiving not believing are in the Authors thoughts meerly passive and consequently believing to be at least meerly passive There is alwaies an act of the will in rational agents in receiving properly so called and often of the hand The receivers of custome are agents for the States and in their receipt are active Receiving in a civil ethical lesse proper sense as is further said is but the act of accepting what is offered But is not this accepting properly receiving or is not receiving properly so called at least necessarily joyned with it in such civil ethical reception When I give a beggar an almes does not he in as strict a sense receive it as I do give it and this is either his act of acceptance or that which accompanies it If I put water into a vessel the vessel rather contains it then receives it If I give a child a lash he rather suffers then receives â—t So that receiving strictly taken is as well active as passive and rather active then passive There is added When it is onely a relation or a jus ad rem that is offered consent or acceptance is an act so necessary ordinarily to the possession
cause be prejudiced by my weaknesse He asigns me to the party of those that he calls Reformers pag. 16. on what party himself stands it is easie then to determine Having said that these things are to be more accurately considered he expresses himself without any one title of Scripture in eight particulars I shall as briefly as I can take notice of the sum of them Mr Faxters eight heads taken into consideration 1. It must be known that the righteousnesse given to us is not the righteousnesse whereby Christs person was righteous for accidents perish being removed from the subject but it is a righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us Here we have a negation with its reasons and an opposite affirmation without any reason at all The negation is That the righteousnesse given us is not the righteousnesse whereby Christs person was righteous The reason is Accidents perish being removed from the subject and therefore the righteousnesse given us is not the righteousnesse whereby Christs person was righteous impliying that the reformed party take righteousnesse for justification out of Christ and leave him belike without any righteousnesse and put it into themselves and so as Christ was before so now they are inherently righteous He well knowes that they hold that it is still in Christ and of grace reckoned to be ours and therefore that of accidents perishing needed not an opinion which he vehemently opposeth in his Preface to his Confession If Christ onely saith he were righteous Christ onely would be reputed and judged righteous and Christ onely would be happy The Judge of the world will not justifie the unrighteous meerly because another is righteous nor can the holy Ghost take complacency in an unholy sinner because another is holy And yet himself holds That the Judge of the world will not onely take an infant born under the defilement of sin into Covenant as holy but also justifie him though in his opinion uncapable of any real change by the Spirit barely upon the account of the parents state in grace through regeneration We cannot be righteous through Christs righteousnesse notwithstanding we know that in the Gospel of grace it is reckoned ours and by faith have our interest Yet an infant is righteous by the parents rigteousnesse Notwithstanding we read not of any such imputation or any such way of interest by faith or otherwise I must crave leave to hold to the former which he leaves though not with his but Scripture comment upon it God does not justifie us meerly because another is righteous but because Christ is made of God to us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 and is Jehovah our righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 And to leave the latter which he holds I believe neither regeneration nor justification to be from Parent to child ex Traduce In which sense that holds Nemo nascitur sed fit Christianus I choose rather with Walaeus to subscribe to the opinion of Calvin lib. 4. instit cap. 16. Sect. 20. That Infants are baptized into future Repentance and faith which he saies is the opinion of most other Authors I believe Mr. Baxter chiefly took up this opinion of justification of infants tanquam Apendices parentum for Amiraldus his sake who had it from Camero Amiraldus qui nihil Cameronis imitatur preter naevos idem dicit and was his follower as aged and reverend Molinaeus saith in nothing but his blemishes And I would not have so good a friend and eminent ornament to the Church to make either of them in these his precedents The affirmation is that it is a righteousnesse merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience Here is a Proposition delivered with very little accuratenesse 1. The righteousnesse given is here distinguished from his obedience when certainly this obedience is that which is given to us By the obedience of one many shall be made righteous Rom. 5.29 2. Christs satisfaction and obedience are here distinguished when his satisfaction was his obedience Joh. 10.18 Phil. 2. 3. His satisfaction is distinguished from this righteousnesse when I think it is plain that it self is righteousnesse Christs own as a Redeemer Ours as redeemed ones when Christ had taken upon him our sins he had not stood righteous in Gods sight without a discharge and this discharge is our acquittal and deliverance Queries put concerning this righteousnesse 4. We hear not whence this righteousnesse thus merited is where it resides and how made ours Is it a righteousnesse by a new Creation as the light was once made to shine out of darknesse was it put immediately into Christ or given immediately to us which seems to be Mr. Baxters thoughts to avoid perishing of accidents Is it one gift indefinitely at once for all or to all or is it given particularly numerically individually Is it made ours without us or by us If it be made ours whether is it by our acceptation through faith or ability merited for us to work it and so Christ merited that we might merit 2. It must needs be known saith he that the faith which is the justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his righteousnesse which he gives us in remission remission or rigteousnesse may be the end of the sinner in receiving Christ but righteousnesse or remission is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of justification or at least but a secondary more remote object c. In this whole piece we have an affirmation a negation a concession and illustration Our Faith being terminated on Christ it is terminated on righteousnesse For the affirmation that faith is terminated on Christ we grant but that it is not therefore terminated on the righteousnesse which he gives in remission for remission I think was intended we are to learn And when it is granted that remission is the end which is ill confounded with righteousnesse one being the cause the other the effect it must be granted that a righteous Christ is the object and that Christ is received upon account of his righteousnesse were not this an accurate way of distinguishing to say that a man ready to perish with cold goes to the fire and not to heat for warmth The heart ready to perish with thirst goeth to the water and not to moisture If the soul ready to perish in unrighteousnesse goes to Christ for righteousnesse his faith cannot be terminated on Christ but it must be terminated on righteousnesse as the eye cannot be fixed on the sunne but it must be fixed on light We are holpen with a similitude As a woman doth not marry a mans riches but the man Though it may be her end in marrying the man to be enriched by him nor is her receiving his riches the condition of her first Legal right to them but her taking the man for her husband If Christ and righteousnesse were separable as a man and riches are this simile might be to
these words I know you had not leisure to write them in vain and meerly to fill paper 1. I may fear there was a worse end in the reply then barely to fill paper In contentions of this nature it is easie for great wits voluble tongues and nimble pens to be more then vain And here is scarce fair declaring to cut off my words before any full period and so render them to the Reader That my meaning cannot be seen till he have gone over three or four Sections interlaced with needlesse triflings 2. If Mr. Baxter know as he sayes that I will not own such an argumentation as he there frames without so much as colour of sense in it which were vain to repeat what was his end but meerly to fill up paper or somewhat worse in framing of it A Reader of half Mr. Baxters wit if he look on my words as they lye in my Treatise and not as mangled by his divisions may easily see another way of argumentation and such that carries sense and I leave to the Reader whether or no it carries strength And for his satisfaction Tht Authors argument against the sole-sufficiency of Covenant grace as instrument in justification I thus put it into forme That which often failes of obtaining the end for which it is employed and never can attain to it without the concurrence of some other with it is no sole instrument in any work But the Gospel or Covenant-grant often failes of attaining that end of justification when it is to that end published and imployed and never can obtain it without the concurrence of somewhat further to be joyned with it Ergo it is no sole instrument in the work Mr. Br. signifies that it may still be the same thing and have the same aptitude to produce the effect even when it is not applyed I answer then Mr. Kendall hath well told him it is an instrument aptitudinaliter and is no instrument in actual being but when the end is obtained and then it is no sole instrument being not sole in producing the effect Mr. Baxter takes it for granted that it alwayes hath its effect when it is employed and I took it for granted that it is often employed and the effect not produced but I did not then think that Mr. Baxter had meant an application to convey right where right is already in possession I added When the Minister is a Minister of condemnation and the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and death and so comes short of justification To this is replyed 1. So it is if there be no Minister where it is known any way 2. I speak of Gods grant or promise in the Gospel you speak of his commination 3. If the threat be the proper instrument of condemnation à pari the promise or gift is the proper instrument of justification I grant his first and he threapes kindnesse with me in the two last he will have me to speak of the threat onely when I speak as well as he of Gods grant or promise Gospel promises are a savour of death to many This is a savour of death unto death unto many It is as great an evil to sleight a Promise as to disobey a Command or neglect a threatning his third therefore migt well have been spared but that I intend not to trifle away time I could easily shew him if I had spoke of threat a great disparity I added which should not have come in thus dismembred The efficacy that is in the Gospel for justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred To this is replyed Darkly but dangerously spoken and reasons given For it is possible you may mean that it receives it by faith as by a condition sine qua homo non est subjuctum proxime capax and so I grant the sense There is no possiblity that I should mean so having sufficiently as he after observes declared my self to the contrary if I understand his sine qua non frequently found in his writings which men eminently learned professe they do not It followes Dangerously for the words would seem to any impartial Reader to import more viz. That the Gospel receives its efficacy from faith or by faith as the instrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gospel It is my meaning that the word is inefficacious without faith and that faith renders it efficacious not by infusion of any new power into it but raising up the soul with strength to answer it which is not barely said but proved But my bare speech must first be censured and then my proof in a disjunct way at pleasure as we shall see dealt with A reason is rendred why for the truths sake and my own these words have never been seen For if faith give the Gospel its efficacy 1. It cannot be as a concause instrumental coordinate but as a superiour more principal cause to the subordinate By Mr. Baxters leave I do believe that concauses instrumental may receive efficacy one from another The thred hath efficacy from a needle and is a concause instrumental to sow up a rent or to make a seam or hem The line gives efficacy to the anglers hook to take a fish I believe he hath seen a knife touched with a Loadstone fetch up a needle from the bottome of a vessel of water Here the hand is the principall agent or the man using his hand The knife is the instrument yet such an instrument as receives efficacy from the spirits of the Loadstone as a concause instrumental The Gospel works no more without faith then a knife in this thing can work without a Loadstone It followes 2. If it were the former that is meant yet it were intolerable For which reasons are given but how these hang together I know not His former now spoken to was brought in as the first in order to disprove what I had said taking my words in the second sense which he gives of them and this which is in order the second is to shew by three reasons that in case they be taken in the first sense which he himself professedly grants yet it were intolerable seeing therefore that I take it not in that sense and if I did he grants the sense there is no cause that I should trouble my self with his Reasons I added in way of proof Heb. 4.2 Unto us was the Gospel preached c. 1 Thess 2.12 13. To which is replyed But where 's your conclusion or any shew of advantage to your cause I must speak nothing it seems but syllogismes in form and he that cannot here make up a syllogisme and find out a formall conclusion is a very Infant in Logick In the first Text the Apostle as he sayes speaks of the Words profiting in the reall change of the soul and our question is of the relative Heb. 4.2 Vindicated And what shew of proof is there that it is
there are many who scarce ever questioned but that they do believe yet when they come to the test are nothing TEKEL may be written upon them Thou art weighed in the balance and art found wanting Dan. 5.27 What the Wiseman saith of riches is true being applyed to faith Prov. 13.7 Some boast themselves of the strength of their faith that they thank God they have ever believed when as their faith is a meer fancy These boasters are but a crack like a banquerupts vapour Others complain of their unbelief yet ready to renounce all for Christ their complaint is not out of want of faith no more then the covetous worldlings is out of want of wealth but because they cannot give themselves satisfaction in believing Fifthly In case upon a due search and tryal thou find but a Mot. 5 shadow of faith and no substance Howsoever the case is not forlorn and remedilesse a meer resemblance of justifying faith and not the faith that doth justifie yet it is not so remedilessely gone but that it may be holpen not so deplored but that a cure may be had The most barren ground may be made fruitfull and the heart that is most obdurate may be made fleshy God out of the number of unbelieving ones and out of the number of meer pretenders to the faith chooseth to himself those that are truly faithful When the evidences of a mans lands are faulty and the fault past help men are willing to shuffle all over and rub out as well as they can but go with many sick thoughts about it but if there may be any way found they will not be wanting in their endeavours neither will they spare any cost to settle and establish it Deal so with thy faith bring thy evidences to Councel and what is amisse let be amended SECT VII Helps for the discovery of the truth of our Faith FOr our help in this discovery we must consider First The soyl where faith growes Every ground will not bear all grain and every heart is not capable of true faith Secondly The proper and true kind and nature of it Every plant that doth grow up like it is not it Thirdly The means that is to be used for preservation of it It will not live and grow without nourishment Fourthly The fruit that it bears or effect that it produceth True faith is not idle dead or barren Some of these or all of these will lay open thy faith to thee The humbled soul the proper soyl for faith 1. The soyl where it growes is the humble or rather the humbled soul The heart rent torn broken and nothing in its own eyes is the proper seat of it You may as soon find a fair rich garden or a fruitful corn-field upon an hard rock or in ground where no plough hath toucht as you can find faith in an heart not cast down but lift up in it self This we may see in the opposition put by the Prophet Hab. 2.4 His soul which is lifted up is not upright in him but the just shall live by his faith The heart is sometimes said to be lift up for God high in resolutions and actings in his obedience 2 Chron. 17.6 This is not done but by the strength of faith The unbelieving soul in the wayes of heaven is low and dastardly but the lift-up heart in this place of the Prophet is an heart high in it self never yet brought down to the sight of its own defiled and deplored condition and this is put in opposition to the believing heart This soul little heeds a threat as little regards a promise sees no necessity of reliance upon Christ and hath no strength for obedience The opposite to this is the believing soul and that is the humbled soul brought down in sense and sight of its own condition Humiliation as the word bears is a bringing down laying low and rendring base and contemptible and this is the most proper acceptation and in Scripture variously used 1. As the act of God upon man or any society of men as Deut. 8.2 3. 1 Sam. 2.7 2 Cor. 12.21 2. The act of man upon man one man upon another and this either to make sinfully vile filthily low so the defiling of a woman is called humbling her Levit. 21.14 Ezek. 22.10 11. or to make outwardly low and mean so Nebuchadnezzar took an oath of Zedekiah and brought him under homage to make the Kingdome base Ezek. 17.14 3. As the act of man upon himself and this also either to make sinfully vile as the sons of Eli made themselves vile 1 Sam. 3.13 or outwardly vile and so the Lord Christ for our sakes humbled himself Phil. 2.8 And as the word is used to make low or render vile so also to esteem repute and account as low and vile Sin brings a man lower then the dunghill then the dungeon and man hath made himself so by sin When we see our selves in this low estate and are brought to a sense and acknowledgment of it then we are humble then we humble our selves and the soul that is brought into this frame is the soyl in which faith takes and kindly growes Such a soul sees nothing but want and therefore is glad of supplyes sees nothing but danger and therefore is glad of support and deliverance As the lift-up heart will not come to Christ that it may have life being under no sense of death so these cannot be kept from Christ The soul which is naturally high and lofty is not in Gods ordinary way wrought into this frame without some sensible work upon it being so foul and yet in its own eyes clean so wretched and yet in its own thoughts happy it must be brought to conviction in order to conversion it must by the Law be brought to see sin before it will be washt from it or will seek a pardon of it There must be John Baptists to make way for Christ some soul-shakings before the sweet and still voyce of Gospel-comforts Something indeed may be said as to those that with Timothy have been trained up from childhood in the knowledge of Scriptures and with John Baptist sanctified in the womb for the abatement of this soul-humbling and shaking work as to the degree of it though not to the total exclusion They were not capable to make observation of the pollution of sin till they were in their measure by the Spirit cleansed nor to know the danger of sin till they were justified and acquitted yet even in those there is so much of the reliques of sin and remainders of corruption that upon discovery of their inconformity in such a measure to the will of God they cannot want some workings of Spirit But as to those that live all their dayes and never apprehend any thought of fear by reason of sin nor ever called the state of their soul into question but have alwaies carried it in the same plight Among all the questions that they have
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
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
with you are God for you tell us presently that he was justified by them The Apostle indeed addes in the following words He that judgeth me is the Lord But those words have not reference to these now in hand as is plain in the context but to that which he had spoken to vers 3. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans Judgment yea I judge not mine own self to which these words come in direct opposition But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And thus then the Apostle here argues He that must stand to the Judgment of the Lord may account it a very small thing to be judged of men But I must stand to the Judgment of the Lord Ergo. I think the Reader may find a better interpretation of this text from Mr. Ball quoted by me in this treatise which might be seconded by the authority of severall others and such as he sayth renders the text strong against Justification by works When you have expounded the words as you have done they serve to shut out all works in which Paul ever appear'd from Justification There followes such an inference that you would hardly bear with from another Can you hence prove say you that accepting Christ as a Lord is not the condition of Justification then you may prove the same of the accepting of him as a Saviour It seemes every word in a whole treatise must immediatly of it self formally prove the main thing that is in question It proves that works parallel to Abrahams offering Isaack or leaving of his Country are none such whereby men are justified It fully proves that which the next words seems to disprove I brought in by way of objection that text of James and endeavoured to give some answer to it James 2 24. vindicated James indeed saith that Abraham was Justified by works when he had offered Isaack his Son on the Altar Jam. 2.21 But either there we must understand a working faith with Pisator Paraeus and Penible and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one whether faith alone Justifies without works which he concludes in the affirmative The other what faith Justifies Whether a working faith only and not a faith that is dead and idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight infers from Abrahams Justification by the offer of his Son And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse How otherwise do these aceord He was Justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith he was Justified by faith Here are many exceptions taken If James must use the term works twelve times in thirteen verses a thing not usuall as if he had fore-seen how men would question his meaning and yet for all that we must believe that by works James doth not mean works it would prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture as the Papists would perswade us that it is Answ First it seemes the difficulty of interpretation is supposed when the word is used 12 times so near together otherwise I doubt not but your self wil confesse a necessity of interpretation of this kind which yet you would be loath to have branded with such absurdity Secondly If I durst take the liberty that others assume the doubt were easily solved and say that Paul speakes of a reall Justification James of an equivocall which interpretation would far better suit here then else where A dead faith is fit to work a dead Justification and such as carries as full resemblance to Justification in truth as a dead corps doth of a living man Thirdly were you to interpret that of David Psal 22.6 I am a worm and no man I think you would so interpret it as to make him a man and no worm But to leave Metaphors Metonymies frequent in Scripture and come to the Metonymies of this kind How frequently are such found in Scripture which inforce us to say that not to be in strict Propriety of speech what Scrippture saies is He hath made him to be sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 When yet we must say he was not made sin an entity cannot be made a non ens or meer privation He was made then an atonement for sin a sin-offering as we say a Metonymy of the Adjunct These died in faith having not received the promises Heb. 11.13 They had received the promises Rom. 9.4 It is a contradiction to say They died in the faith and had not received the promise It is taken there for the land promised a Metonymy of the Object When Herod the King heard these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him Matth. 2.3 Jerusalem was not troubled It was alone the Inhabitants that were troubled by a Metonymy of the Subjâ—ct This is the Will of God even your Sanctification 1 Thes 4.4 and this was not voluntas Dei but res volita not the Will of God but the thing willed by a Metonymy of the Cause A Thousand more of these might be named which yet are as well understood as we understand each others common Language 2. Do but read say you over all the severses put working faith instead of works trie what sense you will make Answ Here is implyed that As works are taken in some of these verses So they must be taken in all If there be no Metonymy in all then there is no Metonymy in any As one so all are to be understood But if you please to consult Gomarus in his vindication of those words of Christ Matth. 23.27 Com. 1. Pag. 110.111 One and the same word is often repeated in the same verse or neer to it in a different sense Infirma est haec consequentia nititur enim falsa hypothesi quasi ejusdem verbi repetitio semper eundem sensum postularet cum contra pro circumstantiarum ratione saepe diverso sensu accipiatur quem admodum illustria ex empla demonstrant You will find frequent instances where the same word in the self same place or verse must be taken in a different sense in one properly and in the other figuratively Interpreting those words O Jerusalem Jerusalem of the heads and leaders of the people of Jerusalem there lies an objection against him that in Luk. 13.33 the words immediatly before are It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem where the word Jerusalem is taken for the City it self and not for the heads and leaders of the people He answers This consequence is weak For it is built upon a false ground as though the repetition of the same word should also enforce the same sense when contrawise according to the circumstance of the place it may be taken in a different sence as many illustr ous examples make manifest Instancing in Joh. 3.17 God sent not his Son into the world to condemne the world
personally righteous And in this sense it is that the faith and duties of believers are said to please God viz. as they are related to the covenant of Grace and not as they are measur'd by the Covenant of works Are not faith and duties here our personall righteousnesse and is not faith a branch of holinesse as well as it is of righteousnesse And hath it not its degrees as well as righteousness Surely the Apostles thought so when they prayed Lord increase our faith Luk. 17.5 And the Lord Christ had no other thoughts when he rebukes his hearers for their little faith Matth. 6.30 And commends the Woman of Canaan for the greatnesse of her faith Matth. 15.28 And as it riseth and falls so do other duties with it they are more intense or remisse in like manner And as for their speeches which you challenge do you think that their ignorance was in that measure intolerable as to believe the righteousnesse of what they spake was a meer non-entity i.e. had nothing of the being of righteousnesse in it They doubtlesse looked upon righteousnesse as a renewed quality as you do upon holinesse and the Apostle both upon holinesse and righteousnesse Eph. 4.24 The new man is so put on that we must be still putting it on It follows that seeing these things are exactioris indigationis understand that the reason of my assertion lyes here The law as it is the rule of obedience doth require perfect obedience in degree and so here is an imperfection in our actions in the degree as being short of what the rule requireth and it being these actions with their habits which we call our holinesse therefore we must needs say our holinesse is imperfect And if our righteousnesse were to be denominated from this law commanding perfection we must say not that such righteousnesse were imperfect because the holinesse or obedience is imperfect but it is none at all because they are imperfect It seems you intend here exactnesse equall to that in which you appeared to the learned brother before mentioned and as you did distinguish before of a metaphysicall and morall perfection so you seem here to distinguish of righteousnesse and holinesse either as a duty performed by men in the Covenant of grace according to rule or else as a condition required by the Covenant of works respective to the attainment of life upon terms there required This seems to be your meaning in your last words in this Paragraph Duty simply as duty and holiness or supernaturall grace as such may be more or less But holiness and duty as the materia requisita vel subjectum proximum justitiae consistit in indivisibili How duty and holiness can be the subject of it self I know not for so they are if they be the subjects of righteousness That righteousness in which we must exceed the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees is our duty and our holiness as well as of our righteousness but if you carry it thence to make it the righteousness of the covenant of works it is easily granted that the imperfection of it renders it as no righteousness respective to that end of attainment of life by it A Pharisee might as well be justified upon the terms of that covenant as Noah Daniel and Job Zachary and Elizabeth or any other of those that were most perfect and eminent in righteousness But I think no Reader could observe either in your own words or theirs that you censure any such meaning To assert the imperfection of our righteousness I said Isaiah I am sure saith All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is 64.6 no greater charge of imperfection can lie against the most imperfect holiness then the Prophet layes upon our righteousness Interpreting the Prophets words as I think the sense of them is generally given by interpreters ancient and modern But seeing you go off to speak of righteousness of another kind I will not contend I there added Neither do I understand how holiness should be imperfect taken materially and righteousness perfect taken formally in reference to a rule After such courteous censure that you please to give you fall to examine what that is that I understand not In which you take one piece of my sentence apart and say How holiness should be imperfect taken materially sure you understand that It is therefore say you no doubt the other branch that you mean How righteousness is perfect taken formally in reference to a rule If the Reader please to consult my words he may see that I put them not divisim but conjunctim giving in my reason why to me it is non-intelligible telling you that we may for ought I know as well make holiness formall and refer it to a rule and righteousness materiall in an absolute consideration without reference to any rule at all This you disjoyn from the rest and fall upon my words apart for what reason is best known to your self And I leave it to the Reader to judge whether that I may not call holiness perfect and righteousness imperfect as well as you may call righteousness perfect and holiness imperfect and whether there is not a materiality and formality not in the one or the other but in the one as well as the other and this was that which I spake to And any man that understands no more then I will I think take this to be a material exception against that which in your Aphorismes was delivered You say if you or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness if I once know your minds I will not contradict you for I find no pleasure in contending about Words but for my self I must use them in the common sense if I will be understood Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used But you might have done well to let us know that that is the common sense of the word righteousness taken for personall inherent righteousness which you here use till I see that made good I shall judge it to be your own peculiar acceptation of it I would know what interpreter of Zachary's words Luk. 1.75 of Paul's words Eph. 4.24 of John's words Revel 22.11 do put such a difference as you make between righteousnesse holiness as to make one a renewed quality of the Spirit the other no such thing but a relation in esse formali to what you must explain your self I have read so much difference indeed made as to put holiness for duties of the first Table in immediate reference to God righteousness for duties of the second Table in immediate concernment to man but thus taken they are both equally new qualities from the Spirit and have their intension and remission one as well as the other And I have read a rule given that where they are put together as in the Scriptures quoted they are to be distinguished as before but where the one is put apart it is to be understood as comprehensive of
speaking of agenda and not credenda and that here should be any rule de agendis but the precept determining of duty or that the promise There is a righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law or any act that goes along with the promise which what it means I cannot imagine should be any rule of our actions I never heard but from your mouth And for your inference That all our Actions and Habits comming short of the precept determining of duty no man therefore hath a righteousness consisting in this conformity I should think all but your self would take to be a Non sequitur There is a righteousness in conformity to the precept which yet fals short of a full and perfect conformity Look I pray you upon Zacharie and Elizabeth that have this praise in the Gospel that they were both righteous before God and by what rule this righteousness had its denomination let the Text be consulted If walking in all the ordinances and commandements of God blameless give men the denomination of righteousness then there is a righteousness in conformity to the precept But walking in all the commandments and ordinances of God denominates men righteous Ergo doing righteousness denominates righteous He that doth righteousness is righteous 1 John 4.7 And what should be the rule of doing but the precept I cannot imagine If we break the precept when we sin the precept is our rule but we break the precept when we sin 1 John 5.4 Abel hath often that Testimony to be righteous and that because his works were righteous 1 John 3.12 And so Lot in like manner 2 Pet. 2.8 there is a righteousness then in conformity to the Law of works though not to the covenant of works Zachary saies We are redeemed to serve without fear in holiness and righteousness before God B. concedimus renatos diligere deum proximum sed imperfectè diligere per consequens imperfectè legem implere Luk. 1.74 75. And this righteousness is not without its rule and hath no other rule then that which Zacharies righteousness had in the sixth verse of the same Chapter There is an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and so an imperfect righteousness in conformity to it b We grant saith Davenant that the regenerate love God and their neighbour but they love imperfectly and by consequence they fulfil the Law imperfectly de Justit actuali p. 551. And if you acknowledge an imperfection in Pauls frame as you say you do you then acknowledge an imperfect fulfilling of the Law and an imperfect conformity to the Law It is in reference to the Law that he had his imperfections and gradual inconformity He delights he saies in the Law in the inward man but sees an opposite power drawing him aside and he quotes the precept and not the promise annex'd Thou shalt not covet to which in such imperfection he conformed I added in my Treatise Whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers that commonly understand the word Righteousness and Righteous as it refers to the old Rule I profess my self to have little of their learning but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Here you first complain of want of candor in me in not repeating all that you spoke and if is but this once that I know that I am thus charged And the sense I think is full in those words that I do set down Secondly you go about to clear your self from some aspersions concerning harsh speeches used by you against learned Divines in which you say you speak not to me but to others standing thus charged by them and not by me In which I am well content that you should stand as right in your Readers eyes as you can desire and shall forbear to rake further into that ulcer Thirdly you take me to task and are content to put my name at length As for Mr. Blake's profession that he hath little of their learning but is wholly theirs in this ignorance I did still think otherwise of him and durst not to have describ'd him But yet my acquaintance with him is not so great as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself and I dare not judge but he speaks as he thinks Good Sir say it over again that it may be known from an hand of your eminence that I say my learning is little and that I speak it not more modestly then truly neither do you know how much I suffer that it is no more Yet least the cause in which I appear should suffer with me or rather in me let me assume so much boldnesse as to tell you that I yet think that that little which through grace I have obtained may serve to satisfie those arguments which this piece of yours holds forth against me I have been often confounded with your multitude but never perceived my self shatter'd by your strength not that my learning is equall with yours I know my self better then to enter such comparisons but your cause is unequall to mine Your advantage is not so great against me in the greatnesse of your abilities as mine against you in the goodnesse of the cause It would often go ill with a good cause if the most able Advocates should not sometimes be worsted in the presence of impartiall Judges Should you and I make exchange So that I were to appear in the cause that you maintain and you in that which I defend a weaker then you would easily do that which I think you have not yet done But your willingnesse is observable to take a hint from my mouth to strip me of all the learning of these learned men charged with intolerable ignorance and leave their ignorance only with me as the whole you are willing to allow me Yet in the next place you engage me to you in your endeavours to help me out of my ignorance in this Let me be hold to shew him say you part of that which he sayth he is wholly ignorant of That our personall inherent Righteousnesse is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant as if we were called righteous besides our imputed Righteousness only because our Sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works But I were ignorant indeed if you could surprize me with your confounding of these terms Law and Covenant Those two I take much to differ In your Aphorisms where you think you speak most full and here complain that I omitted somewhat of that which you there said you have the word Law and the word Rule But I hear not of the word Covenant at all But here Law and Covenant are confounded as though every Law were a Covenant and every Covenant a Law And I were yet more in ignorance if I should let your Syllogisms pass
but no man can by it be denominated righteous nisi aequivocè but he that perfectly obeyeth in degree Your concession I accept but wonder at your assertion Is not doing required in and by the Law and did John equivocate when he said He that doth righteousness is Righteous 1 John 3.7 And do you equivocate also when you put it in your title page of this piece against me Is that an equivocal honour that is given to Zachary and Elizabeth to Abel Lot Joseph Simeon and divers others in Scriptures The men of Sodom were denominated wicked upon their breach of Gods Law being sinners exceedingly And Lot is denominated Righteous upon his observation of it I said in my Treatise A perfection of sufficiency to attain ths end I willingly grant God condescending through rich grace to crown our weak obedience In this sense our imperfection hath its perfectness otherwise I must say that our inherent Righteousness is an imperfect Righteousness is an imperfect conformity to the Rule of Righteousness Here you are displeased with the ambiguity as you say of the word otherwise and tell me of a natural perfection or imperfection of which actions are capable without relation to the Rule which you confess is nothing to this business And then you adde Many a School Divine hath written Gibieuf at large that our actions are specified à fine and denominated good or evill and so perfect or imperfect à fine more especially à fine then à lege But this requires more sbutilty and acurateness for the discission then you or I in these loose disputes do shew our selves guilty of Answ If there be no more subtlety acurateness in these many School-men Gibieuf then that which you please to quote out of them and particularly out of him there is no despair but either you or I might soon render our selves guilty of as much subtlety and acurateness as they And indeed guilty is the most proper term I think that can be given to discourses of this nature Actions say they as you quote them are denominated good or evill and so perfect or imperfect à fine rather then à lege Though the Law that commands an action and the end at which the action aimes or ought to aime stand in a Diametrical opposition and the end is wholly without the cognizance of the Law Did not those Jewes in the time of the captivity transgress the Law of God when they fasted and mourned did not fast and mourn at all unto God Zach. 7.5 And did not the Pharisees break the Law when they did their almes to be seen of men and pray'd in Synagogues and Streets upon that account also that men should observe them The Law had it been heeded would have led them hgther as we may see in our Savious words Mat. 22.37 According to this doctrine a good meaning or intention will salve the worst action Saul had then performed the Commandment of the Lord as he said to Samuel when he spared the best of the Sheep and Oxen for sacrifice to the Lord God that had been a pious end if no command had prohibited it But to give Gibieuf his due I have examined his dispute De fine and there cannot find that he makes any such comparison or puts such opposition nor that he so much as mentions the Law when he speaks so much De fine as you mention I referred to Dr. Davenant De Justit habit 349. disputing against Justification by inherent Righteousness upon the account of the imperfection of it To this is replyyd Do not you observe that I affirm that which you call inherent Righteousness to he imperfect as well as Bp. Davenant Answ Why is it then that you laid so high a charge of ignorance on learned Divines calling it imperfect when you well know that they had not any such notion of a Metaphysical entity in their heads but maintained what they spake as indeed Reverend Davenant do's with that which you call a simple objection that as we are called holy by an imperfect holiness so we are called Righteous by an imperfect Righteousness They never refer their Righteousness to the Law as a Covenant You can find no way to charge them and acquit him As to this They are as learned as he and he as ignorant as they You adde Yea I say more that in reference to the Law of works our works are no true Righteousness at all Answ If you mean by the Law of works not a Rule but a Covenant I say with you That they are no such righteousnesse as will obtain the grace or avoid the penalty of it yet this reference to this Covenant cannot make imperfect righteousness simpliciter no righteousness though secundum quid or versus hoc it is such If I am bound in strict justice to pay the sum of a thousand pound and bring an hundred instead of it this is money though it is no full pay or totall discharge You say further He that saith they are no Righteousness saith as little for them as he that saith they are an imperfect Righteousness Answ The question is not who speaks more or less against this righteousness but who speaks most truth And Righteousness being as Rollock on Ephes 4.24 observes A vertue in man whereby he wils and do's those things which agree with the Law of God and as Gomarus on Mat. 3.15 defines it An obedience due to God and still joyn'd with holinesse it cannot be nothing and yet it can be no better then imperfect You say You suppose that I know that Bp. Davenant doth not onely say as much as you for the interest of works in justification but also speaks in the very same notions as you do referring me where I may find it in Davenant Answ 1. The interest of works in justification is not to our present question of the perfection or imperfection of righteousness therefore whether he be therein for you or against you it is not to this question much materiall Yet seeing you speak so confidently here to me and more fully else where that you have this Reverend Author in that point firm on your part insomuch that having qâ—oted a Century of witnesses that are as you say for you you adde If the reader would know which of these speak most my own thoughts I answer most of them if not all in a great part but Davenant most fully Confess pag. 457. It will be worth our pains to make some further enquiry And at the fi st sight the thing doubtless will appear to all your Readers that have read as Davenant as wonderfully strange If he speak your thoughts so fully how comes it to pass that you have so many adversaries as you complain of when he for ought I know amongst Protestant writers hath none at all If you speak both the same thing your Adversaries doubtlesse would be his And his work being so much more large then yours he would have found so
die in impenitency and unbelief I do not here go about to dispute the thing but only observe that all that Amyraldus hath gone about to set up concerning universall Redemption with such high applause of yours is by this position utterly overthrown For the assertion which in the place mentioned I have laid down that impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant I need say no more then that which I have spoke there having been nothing replyed to that which I have said My argument in the place quoted Arguments evincing that impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians are violation of Covenant in brief was this They that engage in Covenant to believe in Christ and forsake their sin break Covenant by a life in unbelief and sin But all professed Christians engaged by Covenant to believe in Christ and to forsake their sin Therefore all professed Christians by unbelief and sin break Covenant I only here add If unbelief and impenitence be not breaches or violations of Covenant properly so called then finall unbelief and impenitence is no breach or violation of Covenant properly so called This is clear Finall perseverance in unbelief and impenitence is no more then a continuance of the same posture or state of Soul God-ward in which they before stood in impenitence and unbelief As Perseverance in Faith and Repentance is the continuance of Faith and Repentance Explicatory distinctions examined If then finall unbelief and impenitence be a breach of the Covenant of grace then all unbelief and impenitence denominating a man an unbelieving and impenitent person is a breach of Covenant likewise For the clearing of your meaning which is all that you do in this question you distinguish first of the Word Covenant Secondly of the word Violation You say The word Covenant is sometimes taken for Gods Law made to his creature containing precepts promises and threatnings Sometimes for man's promise to Gâ—d Violation You say is taken either rigidly for one that in judgement is esteemed a non-performer of the condition or laxly for one that in judgement is found a true performer of the condition but did neglect or refuse the performance for a time You apply both these distinctions Taking the word Covenant in the latter sense you say that you have affirmed that man breaks many a Covenant with God yea even the Baptismal vow it self is so broken till men do truly repent and believe To which I reply That it is no other then the Baptismall vow or Covenant that we are to enquire into Baptisme is as Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant In Baptisme then we engage to the terms of the Covenant and till we repent and believe by your own confession we break this Covenant But taking the word Covenant say you in the former sense i. e. for Gods precepts promises and threatnings and Violation in the latter sense for one that in Judgment that is at the day of Judgment is esteemed a non performer of the conditions so you say None violate the Covenant but finall Vnbelievers and impenitent that is as you explaine it No other are the proper subject of its peremptory curse or threatning But Good Sir reflect upon this explanation of yours and in a more serious way yet consider of it To help your self out you refer mans violation of Covenant not to his own promise or engagement in which he stands in duty tyed but to Gods engagements containing his promises and threatnings and to violate Gods promise or threatning which you here implye to be done by Covenant-breakers scarce carries sense with it We may incur his threatning or misse of his promise but we do not violate either his promise or threatning Violation of Gods precept is disobedience of which Pharaoh a man never in Covenant was guilty but no violation or breach of Covenant where there is no voluntary engagement Our engagement is necessity to make it up into a Covenant and our violation of our engagements to make it a breach of Covenant Was ever any charged with breach of Covenant in breaking not his own but the condition of the other Conanting party Jsrael was under a Law to let their Hebrew Servants go free the seaventh year Exod. 21.2 In Zedekiah's time they serv'd themselves of them beyond that terme Here was the transgression of a Law but no breach of any particular Covenant But when they entred Covenant with God to do that which Law required and ratified it by cutting a Calfe in twaine passing through the parts of it and again served themselves of them here was a breach of Covenant So that the violation that you speak of if you may call it a violation is no Covenant-violation Every man that breaks a Covenant breaks his own and not anothers part in the Covenant And whereas you will have that to be a violation of Covenant laxly and not rigidly taken Impenitent persons in the most strict and proper sense are Covenant-breakers whâ—n one doth neglâ—ct or refuse the performance for the time but in judgment that is in the day of Judgment is found a true performer of the conditions to me it is very strange upon a severall account First I suppose you mean his own conditions to which he standes engaged which for a time he thus neglectâ— and not Gods And you so spoile all that before you spake of Covenant-violations respective to promises and threatnings Secondly Such a one in the strictest sense is a man guilty of breach of Covenant during such time of his neglect or refusall Was not that younger Son of his Father mentioned Luk. 15. properly and in the most rigid sense a prodigal when he wastâ—d his substance with ritotous living notwithstanding that he was after reclaimed to a more frugall course And was not shee also that was a sinner in the City Luk. 7. truly a sinner or only in a laxe sense because she afterwards repented Was not the penitent Thief as truly and in as rigid a sense a Thief when he stole as he that stole and repented not And so he that lives in breach of promise with God is as truly a breaker of Covenant notwithstanding following Repentance as those that live and die impenitent I know therefore no other way of explanation of your self to your Readers satisfaction but to say that the Covenant of grace is not finally violated unlesse the conditions be finally broke Who ever doubted but when a sinner repents the doom which is passed against him for sin is reverst And that Paul a persecutor not in a laxe but in rigid sense afterwards building the faith that he destroyed shall not appear in Judgment as a persecutor And so he that is as truly and in no laxe sense a Covenant-breaker being by grace brought in to keep Covenant in the day of Judgment shall be reputed and esteemed a man faithful in Covenant SECT VII Faith and Repentance are mans conditions and not Gods in the
as from God but reqâ—ired of God from us are not Gods conditions but ours in that Covenant This is cleare Being there expresly required of us and not so much as mentioned as from God they cannot be his engagement but ours to performe But Faith and Repentance are not mentioned as from God in the proper conditionall Covenant but required of God from us This proposition is your own in your answer as we have heard before pag. 45 46. Therefore Faith and Repentance are not God's conditions in the proper conditionall Covenant but ours 2. The conditions of a Covenant are his that performeth and not his that imposeth This Proposition is your own in this Section and clear in reason But we perform and God imposeth Faith and Repentance This is of two parts First that they are performed by us This you confess where you yield that they are our acts For the second that they are imposed on us none can deny See 1 John 3.23 Act. 17.30 They are therefore our conditions and not God's in this Covenant 3. Covenant-conditions are theirs that are charg'd with falshood in case of failing in them and non-performance of them This is plain in all Covenants To make conditions and to fail in them is to be false to them But in case of failing in Faith and Repentance man is charged and not God God fails not but man deals falsly Therefore they are mans conditions and not Gods 4. Covenant-conditions are theirs who upon failing in them and not performance of them suffer as Covenant-breakers This is clear Israel covenanted to dismiss their Hebrew servants and dismissed them not And Israel suffered for it Jer. 34. But upon failing in Faith and Repentance God suffers not so much as in his name He is not charged with mens unbelief and impenitence Men themselves suffer Therefore Faith and Repentance are mans conditions not God's So that though I have not refuted your answer which never was in my eye yet I have answered your Querist's demand and made it good that Faith and Repentance are mans conditions and not God's in the Gospel-covenant SECT VIII The Covenant of Grace requires and accepts sincerity I Have pass'd through those debates in which our judgements stand at difference for in the last you will differ though I had thought there had been a full accord between us Now I must come to that in which we do agree which pag. 144. Sect. 82. you entitle Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection and accept sincerity In which I take to the negative conceiving that it requires the same that it accepts And in your Aphorismes if I understand any thing you have clearly delivered your self with me pag. 157 158. in these words As when the old Covenant said Thou shalt obey perfectly the Moral Law did partly I think you mean perfectly tell them wherein they should obey So when the new Covenant saith Thou shalt obey sincerely the Moral Law doth perfectly tell us wherein or what we must endeavour to do c. Whereupon Mr. Crandon is herein against you with as great vehemence as in any other of your doctrines Neither do I perceive by any thing that you have said that your mind is changed And I had much rather answer Mr. Crandon in defence of truth which he in you here opposeth then to spend time in my own quarrel Though my Tenent give you not distast yet it seems my arguments do not please But if truth stand it matters less though I fall You answer all my arguments in order as though you judged me to be in the fowlest error when I am yet perswaded that if not onely some but all of my arguments fail which you make your business to impugn the Position it self which with you is truth as well as with me will fall with it After a short Apology and conjecture made who that Divine may be whom with much reverence I mention supposing him the first that manifested himself in the contrary way that the Gospel requires perfection and accepts sincerity You tell me that you conceive this difference is occasioned by the ambiguity of the word Covenant of Grace and tell me that in your judgement I ought to have removed it by distinguishing before I had argued against their opinion And so you fall upon my work for me and give in abundance of acceptations of the word Covenant of Grace And if I may take the boldness to be as free with you as you with me I think you might have done well to have made it appear where and by whom this word is taken in all of these different senses and significations If your Reader knew all this before your Book fell into his hand you have nothing benefited him you have only told him what he knew before If he he knew it not he hath now alone your word for it And I know not where else any Reader may find a great part of it but from your hand I profess my self to be much more amazed then edified in Reading all that you have spoke of it When you have reckoned up very many senses of the word you say Now if the question be whether in any of these senses the Covenant doth command perfect obedience you answer An explication of the Authors meaning All the doubt is of the three latter one of which is Promises Prophecies and Types before Christ's comming And to speak mine own meaning and I had thought no man had doubted of it I take Covenant of grace in this dispute for the whole transaction that passes in a Covenant-way betwixt God and his people in order to Salvation as comprizing all that God requires promises or threats and all that to which man engages himself and which he expects But when I speak of that which the Covenant thus taken promiseth I mean that which it promiseth in the promissory part of it when I speak of what it threatneth I mean in the Minatory part of it and when I speak of what it requires I mean in the preceptive part of it Now this preceptive part must needs have some rule at which men in Covenant must look as distinguished from threats or promises and containing Agenda things to be done and not Credenda Speranda or Timenda things to be Believed Hoped or Feared The rule or Standard here in these things which man in Covenant is called to do is the Moral Law God quits not man of his Subjection He is a subject in this as he was in the former Covenant The Covenant of works called to the keeping of it in the highest fullest and most compleat perfection The Covenant of Gâ—ace cals us to eye it and with sincere endeavour to conform to it When God spake to Abraham the leading man in Covenant respective to all after-Covenanters whether Jewes or Gentiles he saith I am the Almighty God or God al-sufficient walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 In which words we have first the
teachers or contradict others when they have got two or three words of Scripture Nor such as have not wit for an ordinary businesse and yet think thy can master the deepest controversies He that thinks to do this without a peircing wit as well as grace ordinarily thinks to see without eyes 2. That he be one that hath longer and more diligently and seriously exercised himself in these studies then I have done 3. That he be one more free from prejudice and partiality then I am 4. That he have more of the illumination of Gods Spirit which is the chief 5. That he have a more sanctified heart that he may not be led away by wrong ends or blinded by his vices It is not for me here to enter comparison There being but one piece of one of them in which I can speak any such priority I have been longer I think exercised in these studies which is all that I have to plead and I wish it had been with more serious diligence It is my way then to keep silence Though many may think that you are scarce serious in judging all of these to be necessary requisites in any that shall take upon them such boldness seeing you seem not to tye your self up to this Rule in your dealings with others You are pleased sometimes to say that you should have little modesty or humility if you should not think more highly of the understanding of many Reverend and Learned Brethren who dissent from you in severall points debated between you and me then of your own Yet who is it of all these that you do not charge with error Yea where is there the man almost in the world that hears not that charge from your pen More then once you charge error on Reverend Dr. Twisse Prolocutor while he lived of the late Assembly in speaking for justification of of Infidels as you call it and making it an immanent act in God warning younger Students to be wary in their Reading of him In whose behalf Mr. Jessop hath stood up as an advocate not pleading justification in his name but not guilty In which I shall not interpose My judgement in the thing is sufficiently known You charge the Assembly that set him up in that honour in like sort entring your dissent from their larger Catechism in four passages from their confession in six desiring onely indeed a liberty of expounding but in several of them you well know that your exposition was none of their meaning which you do not obscurely signifie in the different expression of your self in your dissent from them and from the Synod of Dort You charge the pious Ministry of this Nation in general out of whom that Assembly was gathered in the Preface of your Confession with error in their thoughts about Church Discipline and if information do not deceive me as full an Assembly of Learned and pious Ministers as Conveniently live for such a meeting together in any part of the Nation after a full debate of that which you charge as an error determined it against you Lastly you charge the whole reforming party of Divines with four great errors as we have seen in your Apology pag. 16. Now for a man to think that you judge your self above all these in this gradation mentioned in every one of those enumerated qualifications were indeed to challenge both your humility and modesty Your Readers then must conclude that either you were not serious in your List given in or else you take liberty to transgress your own Rules and set upon that work your self which you will not allow in others After quotation of severall passages of the Fathers with which all must vote you seem to prefer one of Austin above all contra rationem nemo sobrius contra Scripturas nemo Christianus contra ecclesiam nemo pacificus Making that application of this as you have done of none of the other That in the point of faiths instrumentality and the nature of the justifying act taking in afterwards the interest of mans obedience in justication as it is consummate in judgement you are constrained upon all these three grounds to give in your dissent I can perswade none to abjure Christianity renounce reason and make a schisme in the Church as it seems you think you must do to come over to me and yeelding as cleerly enough you do that I have this little corner of the world wheresoever Protestants dwell for an hundred and fifty yeers past on my side sure you stand amazed that none of all these men in so long a space of time can either be brought to the sight of reason or to a right understanding of Scriptures or yet to returne to that unity from which they have in so foul a Schism departed These points on the two first grounds have been brought already as well as I can do it to the test In which you see my reason against yours and my sense of Scriptures against that which you have given The third onely doth remain to be enquired into and I cannot yet believe that the Church is my adversary And here you seem to put me fairly to it If you will bring say you one sound reason one word of Scripture or one approved writer of the Church yea or one Heretick or any man whatsoever for many hundred years after Christ I think I may say 1300. at least to prove that Christ as Lord or King is not the object of the justifying act of faith or that faith justifieth properly as instrument I am contented so far to lose the reputation of my reason understanding reading and memory You speak this you say because I tell you there was scarce a dissenting voyce among our Divines against me about the instrumentality of faith and if say you there cannot be brought one man that consenteth with them for 1200. or 1400. years after Christ I pray you tell me whom an humble and modest peaceable man should follow Answ For reason or Scripture I shall bring no more then I have done I think you may see both in that which I have already written The Churches testimony onely now remains to be looked after whether you or I can lay the fairer claime and here you distinguish of it 1. As it was for the first 1200 1300 1400 yeers after Christ for you name all of these Periods 2. As it hath been for 150. yeers now past The Church for one full hundred yeers at least it seems by you stood Newter viz. from 1400. to 1500. The Church for this little scantling of time viz. for 150. yeers is not denyed by you to vote with me if the Protestant party to which you joyn in communion may deserve that name But for all that space as before it was as you pretend unanimously yours at well the Orthodox as the Hereticall party in it Here for further discovering of truth two things should be enquired into 1. Whether he more worthily deserves the name of